Thrombosis

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

It’s important to have counselors available for people diagnosed with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) or clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS), according to medical oncologist Lachelle D. Weeks, MD, PhD, a specialist in both conditions at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.

CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.

A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.

With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.

Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.

Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.

The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.

“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.

High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.

The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.

“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.

“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.

The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

Rusfertide, a first-in-class mimetic of hepcidin, shows high efficacy in the treatment of erythrocytosis polycythemia vera (PV), with substantial improvements in hematocrit levels that can potentially eliminate the need for phlebotomies that are typically required – but usually ineffective.

“The results are surprisingly positive,” said senior author Ronald Hoffman, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, in discussing the late-breaking research at a press briefing during the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.

“Importantly, the study met all of its efficacy endpoints, including the proportion of responders, absence of phlebotomy eligibility, and hematocrit control,” Dr. Hoffman said.

PV, a relatively common clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, is characterized by uncontrolled erythrocytosis, or excessive production of red blood cells, increasing the risk for serious complications such as thromboembolic and cardiovascular events – the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in this blood cancer.

To treat PV, the maintenance of hematocrit levels at below 45% is critical. However, the current standard of care, therapeutic phlebotomy, with or without cytoreductive agents, falls short in maintaining those lower levels in the majority of patients, Dr. Hoffman explained.

To improve responses, rusfertide was developed as a novel, synthetic form of hepcidin, a peptide hormone that is produced by the liver and functions to maintain iron homeostasis and control the formation of red blood cells.

“This is somewhat of a paradigm shift,” said Dr. Hoffman in the press briefing. “We’re trying to use a hormone made by the liver to control excessive red blood cell production from polycythemia vera.”

For the phase 2 REVIVE study evaluating rusfertide in PV, the authors enrolled 53 patients with PV who had a high phlebotomy burden while receiving the current standard of care. The study’s criteria called for patients to have received at least three therapeutic phlebotomies in the 28 weeks prior to enrollment, with or without concurrent cytoreductive agents.

During a first part of the study, patients received subcutaneous rusfertide once weekly over 28 weeks, during which period the dose was adjusted individually to achieve control of HCT levels below 45%.

The second part was a withdrawal phase extending from weeks 29 to 41, in which patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to either continue on rusfertide (n = 26) or receive a placebo (n = 27).

The patients had a median age of 58; they were 71.7% male, and 54.7% had previously been treated with therapeutic phlebotomy alone while 45.3% received therapeutic phlebotomy plus cytoreductive agents.

Patients were considered to be responders if they met three criteria, including having HCT control without phlebotomy eligibility, no therapeutic phlebotomy, and having completed 12 weeks of treatment.

At the end of the second phase, 69.2% of patients receiving rusfertide were responders versus just 18.5% in the placebo group (P = .0003).

Notably, the improvement with rusfertide was observed among those receiving therapeutic phlebotomy alone, as well as with cytoreductive agents (both P = .02).

Compared with placebo, rusfertide provided significant improvement in measures including the maintenance of response, the absence of the need for therapeutic phlebotomy, and persistent HCT control (P < .0001 for all).

Whereas the phlebotomy-free rate with rusfertide during the dose-finding weeks of 1-17 was 76.9% and in weeks 17-29, 87.3%, the rate increased in part 2 of the study to 92.3%.

Additional symptom benefits reported with rusfertide at week 29 versus baseline in part 1 of the study included significant improvements in concentration (P = .0018), itching (P = .0054), fatigue (P = .0074), and inactivity (P = .0005).

In terms of safety, rusfertide was generally well tolerated, with 83% of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) being grade 1-2, while 17% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.

The most common TEAEs consisted of injection-site reactions, which were localized, and grade 1-2 in severity. The incidence of reactions decreased with ongoing treatment. There were only two discontinuations resulting from TEAEs.

Among a total of 70 patients who were enrolled, 52 (74.3%) have continued to receive rusfertide for at least 1 year, 32 (45.7%) for at least 1.5 years, and 10 (14.3%) for at least 2 years, indicating the long-term tolerability of rusfertide.

Further commenting, first author Marina Kremyanskaya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, added that a key benefit is rusfertide’s tolerability with combination therapies, which is important in enabling the avoidance of phlebotomies.

“Many patients on cytoreductive therapies still require phlebotomies, and they can’t tolerate a dose increase, either due to cytopenias or other adverse reactions,” she said in an interview. “So adding rusfertide allows for better control of their hematocrits on a lower dose of their respective cytoreductive drug.”

“The combination treatment thus allows for elimination of phlebotomy requirements and potentially improves their symptoms,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said, adding that “using a lower dose of cytoreductive drug such as interferon or hydroxyurea could offer a symptomatic relief to patients as well.”

Overall, she agreed that the responses are remarkably positive.

“I think this is what is so impressive about this agent – basically everybody responds,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said. “When we first started treating patients, we were so impressed, as none of the other drugs we use to treat PV, or any other hematologic malignancy, come anywhere close to this response rate.”

In commenting on the study, Claire Harrison, MD, a professor of myeloproliferative neoplasms and deputy medical director of research at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, agreed that “these data show a strong signal for effectiveness of this therapy in controlling red cell proliferation in PV without inducing iron deficiency and adding to the symptom burden of patients.”

The alternative of phlebotomy “is painful and consumes patient time and hospital resources,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Harrison noted that an earlier signal suggested squamous cell cancer might be of potential concern, but the signal “has not re-emerged [suggesting] this does indeed seem to be a safe and extremely effective therapy.”

Further commenting on the study during the press briefing, Konstanze Döhner, MD, of the University of Ulm (Germany) added that “this is exciting data.”

“For a long time, we had no therapeutic options for PV, and now the field is rapidly developing,” she said.

In ongoing research, rusfertide is currently being studied in the phase 3, placebo-controlled VERIFY randomized trial.

The study was sponsored by Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Hoffman reports being on the advisory board for Protagonist Therapeutics, and Dr. Kremyanskaya is a consultant for Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Harrison had no disclosures to report.

Rusfertide, a first-in-class mimetic of hepcidin, shows high efficacy in the treatment of erythrocytosis polycythemia vera (PV), with substantial improvements in hematocrit levels that can potentially eliminate the need for phlebotomies that are typically required – but usually ineffective.

“The results are surprisingly positive,” said senior author Ronald Hoffman, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, in discussing the late-breaking research at a press briefing during the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.

“Importantly, the study met all of its efficacy endpoints, including the proportion of responders, absence of phlebotomy eligibility, and hematocrit control,” Dr. Hoffman said.

PV, a relatively common clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, is characterized by uncontrolled erythrocytosis, or excessive production of red blood cells, increasing the risk for serious complications such as thromboembolic and cardiovascular events – the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in this blood cancer.

To treat PV, the maintenance of hematocrit levels at below 45% is critical. However, the current standard of care, therapeutic phlebotomy, with or without cytoreductive agents, falls short in maintaining those lower levels in the majority of patients, Dr. Hoffman explained.

To improve responses, rusfertide was developed as a novel, synthetic form of hepcidin, a peptide hormone that is produced by the liver and functions to maintain iron homeostasis and control the formation of red blood cells.

“This is somewhat of a paradigm shift,” said Dr. Hoffman in the press briefing. “We’re trying to use a hormone made by the liver to control excessive red blood cell production from polycythemia vera.”

For the phase 2 REVIVE study evaluating rusfertide in PV, the authors enrolled 53 patients with PV who had a high phlebotomy burden while receiving the current standard of care. The study’s criteria called for patients to have received at least three therapeutic phlebotomies in the 28 weeks prior to enrollment, with or without concurrent cytoreductive agents.

During a first part of the study, patients received subcutaneous rusfertide once weekly over 28 weeks, during which period the dose was adjusted individually to achieve control of HCT levels below 45%.

The second part was a withdrawal phase extending from weeks 29 to 41, in which patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to either continue on rusfertide (n = 26) or receive a placebo (n = 27).

The patients had a median age of 58; they were 71.7% male, and 54.7% had previously been treated with therapeutic phlebotomy alone while 45.3% received therapeutic phlebotomy plus cytoreductive agents.

Patients were considered to be responders if they met three criteria, including having HCT control without phlebotomy eligibility, no therapeutic phlebotomy, and having completed 12 weeks of treatment.

At the end of the second phase, 69.2% of patients receiving rusfertide were responders versus just 18.5% in the placebo group (P = .0003).

Notably, the improvement with rusfertide was observed among those receiving therapeutic phlebotomy alone, as well as with cytoreductive agents (both P = .02).

Compared with placebo, rusfertide provided significant improvement in measures including the maintenance of response, the absence of the need for therapeutic phlebotomy, and persistent HCT control (P < .0001 for all).

Whereas the phlebotomy-free rate with rusfertide during the dose-finding weeks of 1-17 was 76.9% and in weeks 17-29, 87.3%, the rate increased in part 2 of the study to 92.3%.

Additional symptom benefits reported with rusfertide at week 29 versus baseline in part 1 of the study included significant improvements in concentration (P = .0018), itching (P = .0054), fatigue (P = .0074), and inactivity (P = .0005).

In terms of safety, rusfertide was generally well tolerated, with 83% of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) being grade 1-2, while 17% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.

The most common TEAEs consisted of injection-site reactions, which were localized, and grade 1-2 in severity. The incidence of reactions decreased with ongoing treatment. There were only two discontinuations resulting from TEAEs.

Among a total of 70 patients who were enrolled, 52 (74.3%) have continued to receive rusfertide for at least 1 year, 32 (45.7%) for at least 1.5 years, and 10 (14.3%) for at least 2 years, indicating the long-term tolerability of rusfertide.

Further commenting, first author Marina Kremyanskaya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, added that a key benefit is rusfertide’s tolerability with combination therapies, which is important in enabling the avoidance of phlebotomies.

“Many patients on cytoreductive therapies still require phlebotomies, and they can’t tolerate a dose increase, either due to cytopenias or other adverse reactions,” she said in an interview. “So adding rusfertide allows for better control of their hematocrits on a lower dose of their respective cytoreductive drug.”

“The combination treatment thus allows for elimination of phlebotomy requirements and potentially improves their symptoms,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said, adding that “using a lower dose of cytoreductive drug such as interferon or hydroxyurea could offer a symptomatic relief to patients as well.”

Overall, she agreed that the responses are remarkably positive.

“I think this is what is so impressive about this agent – basically everybody responds,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said. “When we first started treating patients, we were so impressed, as none of the other drugs we use to treat PV, or any other hematologic malignancy, come anywhere close to this response rate.”

In commenting on the study, Claire Harrison, MD, a professor of myeloproliferative neoplasms and deputy medical director of research at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, agreed that “these data show a strong signal for effectiveness of this therapy in controlling red cell proliferation in PV without inducing iron deficiency and adding to the symptom burden of patients.”

The alternative of phlebotomy “is painful and consumes patient time and hospital resources,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Harrison noted that an earlier signal suggested squamous cell cancer might be of potential concern, but the signal “has not re-emerged [suggesting] this does indeed seem to be a safe and extremely effective therapy.”

Further commenting on the study during the press briefing, Konstanze Döhner, MD, of the University of Ulm (Germany) added that “this is exciting data.”

“For a long time, we had no therapeutic options for PV, and now the field is rapidly developing,” she said.

In ongoing research, rusfertide is currently being studied in the phase 3, placebo-controlled VERIFY randomized trial.

The study was sponsored by Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Hoffman reports being on the advisory board for Protagonist Therapeutics, and Dr. Kremyanskaya is a consultant for Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Harrison had no disclosures to report.

Rusfertide, a first-in-class mimetic of hepcidin, shows high efficacy in the treatment of erythrocytosis polycythemia vera (PV), with substantial improvements in hematocrit levels that can potentially eliminate the need for phlebotomies that are typically required – but usually ineffective.

“The results are surprisingly positive,” said senior author Ronald Hoffman, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, in discussing the late-breaking research at a press briefing during the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.

“Importantly, the study met all of its efficacy endpoints, including the proportion of responders, absence of phlebotomy eligibility, and hematocrit control,” Dr. Hoffman said.

PV, a relatively common clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, is characterized by uncontrolled erythrocytosis, or excessive production of red blood cells, increasing the risk for serious complications such as thromboembolic and cardiovascular events – the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in this blood cancer.

To treat PV, the maintenance of hematocrit levels at below 45% is critical. However, the current standard of care, therapeutic phlebotomy, with or without cytoreductive agents, falls short in maintaining those lower levels in the majority of patients, Dr. Hoffman explained.

To improve responses, rusfertide was developed as a novel, synthetic form of hepcidin, a peptide hormone that is produced by the liver and functions to maintain iron homeostasis and control the formation of red blood cells.

“This is somewhat of a paradigm shift,” said Dr. Hoffman in the press briefing. “We’re trying to use a hormone made by the liver to control excessive red blood cell production from polycythemia vera.”

For the phase 2 REVIVE study evaluating rusfertide in PV, the authors enrolled 53 patients with PV who had a high phlebotomy burden while receiving the current standard of care. The study’s criteria called for patients to have received at least three therapeutic phlebotomies in the 28 weeks prior to enrollment, with or without concurrent cytoreductive agents.

During a first part of the study, patients received subcutaneous rusfertide once weekly over 28 weeks, during which period the dose was adjusted individually to achieve control of HCT levels below 45%.

The second part was a withdrawal phase extending from weeks 29 to 41, in which patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to either continue on rusfertide (n = 26) or receive a placebo (n = 27).

The patients had a median age of 58; they were 71.7% male, and 54.7% had previously been treated with therapeutic phlebotomy alone while 45.3% received therapeutic phlebotomy plus cytoreductive agents.

Patients were considered to be responders if they met three criteria, including having HCT control without phlebotomy eligibility, no therapeutic phlebotomy, and having completed 12 weeks of treatment.

At the end of the second phase, 69.2% of patients receiving rusfertide were responders versus just 18.5% in the placebo group (P = .0003).

Notably, the improvement with rusfertide was observed among those receiving therapeutic phlebotomy alone, as well as with cytoreductive agents (both P = .02).

Compared with placebo, rusfertide provided significant improvement in measures including the maintenance of response, the absence of the need for therapeutic phlebotomy, and persistent HCT control (P < .0001 for all).

Whereas the phlebotomy-free rate with rusfertide during the dose-finding weeks of 1-17 was 76.9% and in weeks 17-29, 87.3%, the rate increased in part 2 of the study to 92.3%.

Additional symptom benefits reported with rusfertide at week 29 versus baseline in part 1 of the study included significant improvements in concentration (P = .0018), itching (P = .0054), fatigue (P = .0074), and inactivity (P = .0005).

In terms of safety, rusfertide was generally well tolerated, with 83% of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) being grade 1-2, while 17% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.

The most common TEAEs consisted of injection-site reactions, which were localized, and grade 1-2 in severity. The incidence of reactions decreased with ongoing treatment. There were only two discontinuations resulting from TEAEs.

Among a total of 70 patients who were enrolled, 52 (74.3%) have continued to receive rusfertide for at least 1 year, 32 (45.7%) for at least 1.5 years, and 10 (14.3%) for at least 2 years, indicating the long-term tolerability of rusfertide.

Further commenting, first author Marina Kremyanskaya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, added that a key benefit is rusfertide’s tolerability with combination therapies, which is important in enabling the avoidance of phlebotomies.

“Many patients on cytoreductive therapies still require phlebotomies, and they can’t tolerate a dose increase, either due to cytopenias or other adverse reactions,” she said in an interview. “So adding rusfertide allows for better control of their hematocrits on a lower dose of their respective cytoreductive drug.”

“The combination treatment thus allows for elimination of phlebotomy requirements and potentially improves their symptoms,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said, adding that “using a lower dose of cytoreductive drug such as interferon or hydroxyurea could offer a symptomatic relief to patients as well.”

Overall, she agreed that the responses are remarkably positive.

“I think this is what is so impressive about this agent – basically everybody responds,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said. “When we first started treating patients, we were so impressed, as none of the other drugs we use to treat PV, or any other hematologic malignancy, come anywhere close to this response rate.”

In commenting on the study, Claire Harrison, MD, a professor of myeloproliferative neoplasms and deputy medical director of research at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, agreed that “these data show a strong signal for effectiveness of this therapy in controlling red cell proliferation in PV without inducing iron deficiency and adding to the symptom burden of patients.”

The alternative of phlebotomy “is painful and consumes patient time and hospital resources,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Harrison noted that an earlier signal suggested squamous cell cancer might be of potential concern, but the signal “has not re-emerged [suggesting] this does indeed seem to be a safe and extremely effective therapy.”

Further commenting on the study during the press briefing, Konstanze Döhner, MD, of the University of Ulm (Germany) added that “this is exciting data.”

“For a long time, we had no therapeutic options for PV, and now the field is rapidly developing,” she said.

In ongoing research, rusfertide is currently being studied in the phase 3, placebo-controlled VERIFY randomized trial.

The study was sponsored by Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Hoffman reports being on the advisory board for Protagonist Therapeutics, and Dr. Kremyanskaya is a consultant for Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Harrison had no disclosures to report.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.

The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.

The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”

Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”

“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”

 13 recommendations

In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:

• Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
• Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
• To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
• On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
• Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
• Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
• Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
• Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
• Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
• Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
• Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
• Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
• TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.

The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.

“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”

The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.

But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”

Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”

Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”

Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.

Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.

An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.

The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.

The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”

Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”

“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”

 13 recommendations

In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:

• Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
• Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
• To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
• On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
• Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
• Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
• Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
• Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
• Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
• Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
• Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
• Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
• TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.

The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.

“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”

The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.

But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”

Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”

Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”

Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.

Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.

An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.

The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.

The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”

Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”

“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”

 13 recommendations

In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:

• Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
• Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
• To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
• On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
• Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
• Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
• Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
• Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
• Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
• Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
• Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
• Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
• TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.

The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.

“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”

The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.

But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”

Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”

Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”

Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.

Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.

Ascend Laboratories is recalling 10 lots of the oral anticoagulant dabigatran etexilate capsules (75 mg and 150 mg) because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.

To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.

Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.

Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).

Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

Ascend Laboratories is recalling 10 lots of the oral anticoagulant dabigatran etexilate capsules (75 mg and 150 mg) because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.

To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.

Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.

Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).

Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

Ascend Laboratories is recalling 10 lots of the oral anticoagulant dabigatran etexilate capsules (75 mg and 150 mg) because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

The nationwide recall, to the consumer level, is because of the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso-dabigatran, which may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure to levels higher than acceptable.

To date, Ascend Laboratories has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed nationwide to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the United States from June 2022 to October 2022.

Complete details of the recalled product, including national drug code, lot numbers, expiration dates, and configuration/counts, are provided in a company announcement that was posted on the Food and Drug Administration website.

The company is advising patients who have any dabigatran that has been recalled to continue taking their medication and to contact their physician for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Wholesalers/distributors and pharmacies with an existing inventory of the affected lots should stop use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately. Wholesalers and distributors should also recall the distributed product.

Questions regarding this recall can call Ascend Laboratories at 877.272.7901 (24 hours, 7 days a week).

Problems with this product should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.

These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.

“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.

Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

The needle mover: LDL lowering

“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.

“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.

“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.

Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.

Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.

That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.

“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”

At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.

Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.

And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.

Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.

“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”


 

Other important successes and equally important failures

Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.

There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.

Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.

“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
 

The rise and fall of CVOTs

Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).

It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.

His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.

“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.

Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.

In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.

Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.

“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”

Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.

“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”

Clinical research for the next 20 years

Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.

Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.

RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.

“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.

RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.

Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.

“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
 

Time to be inclusive

Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.

“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”

In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”

The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
 

Stick with randomization

Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.

“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.

“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”

Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.

“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”

Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”

A multipart study reports that erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener that is also made in the body – is associated with risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and promotes clotting (thrombosis).

Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.

The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.

First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. 

Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.

Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.

“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.  

“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.

“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.

The topic remains controversial.

Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.” 

Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day. 

“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”

“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
 

Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.

Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.

Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
 

Multipart study

In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.

Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.

In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).

At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.

Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
 

Others weigh in

“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.

Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”

“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.

“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.

Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”

The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.

The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A multipart study reports that erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener that is also made in the body – is associated with risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and promotes clotting (thrombosis).

Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.

The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.

First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. 

Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.

Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.

“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.  

“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.

“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.

The topic remains controversial.

Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.” 

Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day. 

“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”

“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
 

Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.

Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.

Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
 

Multipart study

In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.

Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.

In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).

At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.

Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
 

Others weigh in

“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.

Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”

“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.

“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.

Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”

The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.

The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A multipart study reports that erythritol – a sugar alcohol (polyol) increasingly used as an artificial sweetener that is also made in the body – is associated with risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and promotes clotting (thrombosis).

Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.

The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.

First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke. 

Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.

Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.

“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.  

“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.

“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.

The topic remains controversial.

Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.” 

Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day. 

“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”

“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
 

Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’

Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.

Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.

Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
 

Multipart study

In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.

Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.

In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).

At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.

Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
 

Others weigh in

“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.

Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”

“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.

“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.

Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”

The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.

The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON – Late lumen loss (LLL) after percutaneous interventions (PCI) can be reduced significantly by a daily glass of beet juice, according to a phase 2 randomized trial.

The protection against LLL, attributed to the nitrate contained in beet juice, was accompanied by a trend for a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), according to Krishnaraj Rathod, MBBS, BMedSci, PhD, who presented results at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

The study grew out of relatively recent evidence that ingestion of nitrate-rich foods, such as beets, can trigger noncanonical pathways for nitric oxide generation, sometimes referred to as the nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide sequence. Dr. Rathod cited experimental evidence associating this pathway with the traditional benefits of NO generation, such as anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In this study, 300 patients scheduled for PCI to treat stable angina were randomized to the experimental arm of nitrate-rich beetroot juice or the control arm of nitrate-depleted beetroot juice. Each had a 70-mL glass of juice once daily. Dr. Rathod, a senior interventional cardiology registrar, Barts Heart Centre, London, described this as the equivalent of about four beets.

The primary endpoint of the study was in-stent LLL assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months.

MACE, defined as death, MI, need for revascularization, and in-stent thrombosis, was assessed at 3, 9, 12, and 24 months. In addition, markers of NO activation, platelet reactivity, and inflammation were monitored.

Lumen loss reduced less than 50%

On OCA, the median stent LLL at 6 months was 0.244 mm in the nitrate-depleted beet juice group and 0.117 mm (P = .0165) in the group that received natural beet juice. The mean segment LLL similarly favored the natural beet juice (0.269 vs. 0.050 mm; P = .0011).

The same effect was reflected in the measurement of mean change in minimum lumen diameter at 6 months. From baseline, this in-stent measure was reduced at 6 months by 0.244 mm in the control group, but by only 0.117 mm in the group receiving the dietary nitrate (P = .0154 for two-way analysis of variance).

Over 24 months of follow-up, there were 18 MACE events in the control arm versus 9 in the arm randomized to dietary nitrate (P = .0718). There were no in-stent thromboses observed in either group, but death (two vs. five), MI (one vs. six), and target-vessel revascularization (six vs. seven) were all numerically lower in the group receiving dietary nitrate.

“Once-a-day oral dietary nitrate for 6 months was well tolerated and safe,” Dr. Rathod reported at the meeting.

Asked specifically about the taste of the daily glass of beet juice, Dr. Rathod acknowledged that some patients were not enamored, but many had no objections or even liked the taste.

The patients were reasonably representative of a PCI population. The mean age in both groups was 61 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index (approximately 29 kg/m²) or proportion with diabetes (22%), hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia (about 70% in both groups) and other comorbidities.

More PCI was performed in the left anterior descending artery (36.7% vs. 44.0%) in the control group, while less PCI was performed in the right coronary (27.3% vs. 30.7%). Neither difference was significant. The vast majority (~90%) of patients received drug-eluting stents with a mean of 1.4 implanted. Procedural success was 100% in both groups.

Discharge medications, including antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapies, were similar in the two groups.

Results characterized as highly positive

Based on the 53% reduction in LLL at 6 months and the trend for a MACE reduction, Dr. Rathod concluded that the results were highly positive.

“These results suggest that dietary nitrate may have a therapeutic role in reducing restenosis following PCI for stable angina,” he said.

In the discussion, several panelists pointed out that nearly one-third of patients were not available for evaluation at 6 months (41 of 150 in the experimental group and 51 of 150 in the control group) with further attrition at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Of these about half were lost to follow-up and the other half withdrew.

The lack of follow-up on such a high proportion of participants is one weakness of this study,” acknowledged Hector M. Garcia-Garcia, MD, PhD, a cardiovascular researcher at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. However, he remains enthusiastic about the premise.

“It was encouraging to see every signal moving in the right direction,” said Dr. Garcia, who consulted with Dr. Rathod’s group on the design of the study. He called these data “promising,” and said they provide support for larger trial for a treatment with potential benefits at low cost.

George Dangas, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, was among panelists who seemed surprised by such positive findings from a simple but novel concept. However, he remains open to further evaluations.

“As with any surprising result, further confirmation in a large and multicenter trial should be anticipated,” he said in an interview. If, as this study suggests, dietary changes are capable of providing therapeutic NO at the vascular level, he suggested studies to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects or other mechanistic benefits would be helpful.

“Other sources of oral nitrate would also be a worthwhile investigation,” he said.

Dr. Rathod reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Garcia-Garcia reports ties to Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CorFlow, Medtronic, Neovasc, Phillips, and Shockwave. Dr. Dangas reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Medtronic.