Thrombosis

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

A combined analysis of 10 prospective trials, intended to shed light on racial disparities in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes, saw sharply higher risks of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for Blacks compared with Whites.

The burden of comorbidities, including diabetes, was greater for Hispanics and Blacks, compared with Whites, but only in Blacks were PCI outcomes significantly worse even after controlling for such conditions and other baseline risk factors.

The analysis based on more than 22,000 patients was published July 6 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions,with lead author Mordechai Golomb, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York.

In the study based on patient-level data from the different trials, the adjusted risk of MI after PCI was increased 45% at 1 year and 55% after 5 years for Blacks, compared with Whites. Their risk of death at 1 year was doubled, and their risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was up by 28% at 5 years.

“Improving health care and outcomes for minorities is essential, and we are hopeful that our work may help direct these efforts, senior author Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“But this won’t happen without active, concerted efforts to promote change and opportunity, a task for government, regulators, payers, hospital administrators, physicians, and all health care providers,” he said. “Understanding patient outcomes according to race and ethnicity is essential to optimize health for all patients,” but “most prior studies in this regard have looked at population-based data.”

In contrast, the current study used hospital source records – which are considered more accurate than administrative databases – and event coding reports, Dr. Stone said, plus angiographic core laboratory analyses for all patients, which allows “an independent assessment of the extent and type of coronary artery disease and procedural outcomes.”

The analysis “demonstrated that even when upfront treatments are presumably similar [across racial groups] in a clinical trial setting, longitudinal outcomes still differ by race,” Michael Nanna, MD, said in an interview.

The “troubling” results “highlight the persistence of racial disparities in health care and the need to renew our focus on closing these gaps [and] is yet another call to action for clinicians, researchers, and the health care system at large,” said Dr. Nanna, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and lead author on an editorial accompanying the published analysis.

Of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the study, which encompassed 22,638 patients, 9 were stent comparisons and 1 compared antithrombotic regimens in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the authors noted. The median follow-up was about 1,100 days.

White patients made up 90.9% of the combined cohort, Black patients comprised 4.1%, Hispanics 2.1%, and Asians 1.8% – figures that “confirm the well-known fact that minority groups are underrepresented in clinical trials,” Dr. Stone said.

There were notable demographic and clinical differences at baseline between the four groups.

For example, Black patients tended to be younger than White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Black and Hispanic patients were also less likely to be male, compared with White patients.

Both Black and Hispanic patients had more comorbidities than Whites did at baseline, the authors observe. For example, Black and Hispanic patients had a greater body mass index, compared with Whites, whereas it was lower for Asians; and they had more diabetes and more hypertension than Whites (P < .0001 for all differences). Hispanics were more likely to have ACS at baseline, compared with Whites, and less likely to have stable coronary artery disease (CAD) (P < .0001 for all differences). Similar proportions of Blacks and of Whites had stable CAD (about 32% of each) and ACS (about 68% in both cases). Rates of hyperlipidemia and stable CAD were greater and rates of ACS was lower in Asians than the other three race groups (P < .0001 for each difference). In adjusted analysis, the risk of MACE at 5 years was significantly increased for Blacks, compared with Whites (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57; P = .01). The same applied to MI (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.09; P = .004). At 1 year, Blacks showed higher risks for death (HR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.36; P = .004) and for MI (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10; P = .045), compared with Whites.

No significant increases in risk for outcomes at 1 and 5 years were seen for Hispanics or Asians, compared with Whites.

Covariates in the analyses included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, current smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of MI or coronary revascularization, clinical CAD presentation, category of stent, and race stratified by study.

Even with underlying genotypic differences between Blacks and Whites, much of the difference in risk for outcomes “should have been accounted for when the researchers adjusted for these clinical phenotypes,” the editorial notes.

Some of the difference in risk must have derived from uncontrolled-for variables, and “[b]eyond genetics, it is clear that race is also a surrogate for other socioeconomic factors that influence both medical care and patient outcomes,” the editorialists wrote.

The adjusted analysis, noted Golomb et al, suggests “that for Hispanic patients, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes may have been attributable to a higher prevalence of risk factors. In contrast, the excess risk for adverse clinical outcomes for Black patients persisted even after adjustment for baseline risk factors.”

As such, they agreed: “The observed increased risk may be explained by differences that are not fully captured in traditional cardiovascular risk factor assessment, including socioeconomic differences and education, treatment compliance rates, and yet-to-be-elucidated genetic differences and/or other factors.”

Dr. Stone said that such socioeconomic considerations may include reduced access to care and insurance coverage; lack of preventive care, disease awareness, and education; delayed presentation; and varying levels of provided care.

“Possible genetic or environmental-related differences in the development and progression of atherosclerosis and other disease processes” may also be involved.

“Achieving representative proportions of minorities in clinical trials is essential but has proved challenging,” Dr. Stone said. “We must ensure that adequate numbers of hospitals and providers that are serving these patients participate in multicenter trials, and trust has to be developed so that minority populations have confidence to enroll in studies.”

Dr. Stone reported holding equity options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestro Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, the MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix and receiving consulting fees from Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, W-Wave, Abiomed, and others. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Nanna reports no relevant financial relationships; other coauthor disclosures are provided with the editorial.

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

Background: Alterations to the coagulation cascade put cirrhotic patients at higher risk for bleeding and thrombotic complications.

As such, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is often underutilized in patients admitted with cirrhosis; for patients requiring therapeutic anticoagulation, direct oral anticoagulants are safe in stable patients with mild cirrhosis, but should be avoided in Child-Pugh B and C patients.

Bottom line: Cirrhotic patients do not require routine correction of coagulopathy prior to low-risk procedures.

Citation: O’Leary JG et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update: Coagulation in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.070.

Dr. Lublin is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: Alterations to the coagulation cascade put cirrhotic patients at higher risk for bleeding and thrombotic complications.

As such, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is often underutilized in patients admitted with cirrhosis; for patients requiring therapeutic anticoagulation, direct oral anticoagulants are safe in stable patients with mild cirrhosis, but should be avoided in Child-Pugh B and C patients.

Bottom line: Cirrhotic patients do not require routine correction of coagulopathy prior to low-risk procedures.

Citation: O’Leary JG et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update: Coagulation in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.070.

Dr. Lublin is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: Alterations to the coagulation cascade put cirrhotic patients at higher risk for bleeding and thrombotic complications.

As such, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is often underutilized in patients admitted with cirrhosis; for patients requiring therapeutic anticoagulation, direct oral anticoagulants are safe in stable patients with mild cirrhosis, but should be avoided in Child-Pugh B and C patients.

Bottom line: Cirrhotic patients do not require routine correction of coagulopathy prior to low-risk procedures.

Citation: O’Leary JG et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update: Coagulation in cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2019. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.03.070.

Dr. Lublin is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Tirofiban is far superior to cangrelor at achieving rapid and potent inhibition of platelet aggregation in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation MI.

Frontline Medical News

And cangrelor, in turn, is superior to oral prasugrel, according to the randomized FABOLUS FASTER trial, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, chewed prasugrel (Effient) proved no better than swallowing the tablets whole for platelet inhibition, said Dr. Valgimigli, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

He explained that standard administration of the newer oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor (Brilinta) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation MI (STEMI) does not provide optimal early inhibition of platelet aggregation. The parenteral antiplatelet drugs tirofiban and cangrelor have been shown to provide faster and more prolonged inhibition of platelet aggregation than the oral P2Y12 inhibitors.

But there has been no head-to-head comparative data for the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat) and the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI. This was the impetus for FABOLUS FASTER, the first study to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of the two parenteral antiplatelet agents. The trial also looked at how these potent parenteral drugs, compared with chewed prasugrel, another previously unexamined yet highly practical issue.

The three-center, multinational, open-label FABOLUS FASTER trial randomized 122 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI to one of three arms: a standard intravenous bolus and 2-hour infusion of either the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) or the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat), followed in either case by 60 mg of oral prasugrel, or a third arm in which patients didn’t receive either drug but were instead randomized to a 60-mg loading dose of chewed or whole prasugrel tablets.

The primary study endpoint was inhibition of platelet aggregation at 30 minutes as measured by light transmittance aggregometry in response to 20 mcmol/L of adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

Tirofiban was the unequivocal winner with 95% inhibition, as compared with 34.1% with cangrelor, 10.5% with chewed prasugrel, and 6.3% with prasugrel swallowed whole, even though the concentration of prasugrel’s active metabolite was far greater at 62.3 ng/mL after prasugrel was chewed, compared with 17.1 ng/mL when swallowed in integral tablet form.

The rate of nonresponsiveness to tirofiban as defined by greater than 59% platelet aggregation was zero for tirofiban during its 2-hour infusion, then a scant 8% thereafter during repeated testing at 3 and 4-6 hours. In contrast, the cangrelor nonresponsiveness rate was 50%-58% during the 2-hour infusion, rising to 82% at 3 hours.

FABOLUS FASTER, while not powered for clinical endpoints, might nevertheless have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Valgimigli. First, the superiority of the intravenous drugs tirofiban and cangrelor over prasugrel for early, strong platelet inhibition underscores the importance of giving parenteral antiplatelet drugs over oral therapy during the acute phase of STEMI therapy. Moreover, tirofiban’s outstanding performance – and the high residual platelet reactivity associated with cangrelor – makes a strong case for large comparative, randomized trials of the two drugs, with hard clinical endpoints.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, opined that he personally doesn’t consider the FABOLUS FASTER results practice changing, for a couple of reasons.

“Platelet inhibition measured by ADP in vitro is not necessarily related to true effects in vivo. We know that platelets are activated by multiple mechanisms, and the ADP pathway is just one of them,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

Also, there’s a good reason why no glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors are approved for treatment of STEMI, and why tirofiban, despite its impressive antiplatelet effects, is currently largely reserved for bailout situations, such as complex lesions with large thrombus burden. It’s because tirofiban’s potent antiplatelet activity is accompanied by a high risk of bleeding, he added.

However, Dr. Valgimigli noted that this conviction about excessive bleeding risk is mainly based on older studies in which glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors were administered for prolonged duration through femoral access sites. He argued that it’s time for large clinical trials examining the risk/benefit ratio of short infusion of these agents in the contemporary practice of primary PCI for STEMI.

Simultaneously with Dr. Valgimigli’s presentation, the FABOLUS FASTER results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Jun 27; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046928).

Dr. Valgimigli reported that Medicure, the sponsor of the FABOLUS FASTER trial, provided an institutional research grant to conduct the study. He also disclosed receiving research grants and personal fees outside the scope of this study from a dozen pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

Tirofiban is far superior to cangrelor at achieving rapid and potent inhibition of platelet aggregation in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation MI.

Frontline Medical News

And cangrelor, in turn, is superior to oral prasugrel, according to the randomized FABOLUS FASTER trial, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, chewed prasugrel (Effient) proved no better than swallowing the tablets whole for platelet inhibition, said Dr. Valgimigli, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

He explained that standard administration of the newer oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor (Brilinta) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation MI (STEMI) does not provide optimal early inhibition of platelet aggregation. The parenteral antiplatelet drugs tirofiban and cangrelor have been shown to provide faster and more prolonged inhibition of platelet aggregation than the oral P2Y12 inhibitors.

But there has been no head-to-head comparative data for the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat) and the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI. This was the impetus for FABOLUS FASTER, the first study to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of the two parenteral antiplatelet agents. The trial also looked at how these potent parenteral drugs, compared with chewed prasugrel, another previously unexamined yet highly practical issue.

The three-center, multinational, open-label FABOLUS FASTER trial randomized 122 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI to one of three arms: a standard intravenous bolus and 2-hour infusion of either the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) or the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat), followed in either case by 60 mg of oral prasugrel, or a third arm in which patients didn’t receive either drug but were instead randomized to a 60-mg loading dose of chewed or whole prasugrel tablets.

The primary study endpoint was inhibition of platelet aggregation at 30 minutes as measured by light transmittance aggregometry in response to 20 mcmol/L of adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

Tirofiban was the unequivocal winner with 95% inhibition, as compared with 34.1% with cangrelor, 10.5% with chewed prasugrel, and 6.3% with prasugrel swallowed whole, even though the concentration of prasugrel’s active metabolite was far greater at 62.3 ng/mL after prasugrel was chewed, compared with 17.1 ng/mL when swallowed in integral tablet form.

The rate of nonresponsiveness to tirofiban as defined by greater than 59% platelet aggregation was zero for tirofiban during its 2-hour infusion, then a scant 8% thereafter during repeated testing at 3 and 4-6 hours. In contrast, the cangrelor nonresponsiveness rate was 50%-58% during the 2-hour infusion, rising to 82% at 3 hours.

FABOLUS FASTER, while not powered for clinical endpoints, might nevertheless have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Valgimigli. First, the superiority of the intravenous drugs tirofiban and cangrelor over prasugrel for early, strong platelet inhibition underscores the importance of giving parenteral antiplatelet drugs over oral therapy during the acute phase of STEMI therapy. Moreover, tirofiban’s outstanding performance – and the high residual platelet reactivity associated with cangrelor – makes a strong case for large comparative, randomized trials of the two drugs, with hard clinical endpoints.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, opined that he personally doesn’t consider the FABOLUS FASTER results practice changing, for a couple of reasons.

“Platelet inhibition measured by ADP in vitro is not necessarily related to true effects in vivo. We know that platelets are activated by multiple mechanisms, and the ADP pathway is just one of them,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

Also, there’s a good reason why no glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors are approved for treatment of STEMI, and why tirofiban, despite its impressive antiplatelet effects, is currently largely reserved for bailout situations, such as complex lesions with large thrombus burden. It’s because tirofiban’s potent antiplatelet activity is accompanied by a high risk of bleeding, he added.

However, Dr. Valgimigli noted that this conviction about excessive bleeding risk is mainly based on older studies in which glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors were administered for prolonged duration through femoral access sites. He argued that it’s time for large clinical trials examining the risk/benefit ratio of short infusion of these agents in the contemporary practice of primary PCI for STEMI.

Simultaneously with Dr. Valgimigli’s presentation, the FABOLUS FASTER results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Jun 27; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046928).

Dr. Valgimigli reported that Medicure, the sponsor of the FABOLUS FASTER trial, provided an institutional research grant to conduct the study. He also disclosed receiving research grants and personal fees outside the scope of this study from a dozen pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

Tirofiban is far superior to cangrelor at achieving rapid and potent inhibition of platelet aggregation in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation MI.

Frontline Medical News

And cangrelor, in turn, is superior to oral prasugrel, according to the randomized FABOLUS FASTER trial, Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, chewed prasugrel (Effient) proved no better than swallowing the tablets whole for platelet inhibition, said Dr. Valgimigli, an interventional cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

He explained that standard administration of the newer oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor (Brilinta) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation MI (STEMI) does not provide optimal early inhibition of platelet aggregation. The parenteral antiplatelet drugs tirofiban and cangrelor have been shown to provide faster and more prolonged inhibition of platelet aggregation than the oral P2Y12 inhibitors.

But there has been no head-to-head comparative data for the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat) and the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI. This was the impetus for FABOLUS FASTER, the first study to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of the two parenteral antiplatelet agents. The trial also looked at how these potent parenteral drugs, compared with chewed prasugrel, another previously unexamined yet highly practical issue.

The three-center, multinational, open-label FABOLUS FASTER trial randomized 122 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI to one of three arms: a standard intravenous bolus and 2-hour infusion of either the P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor (Kengreal) or the glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitor tirofiban (Aggrastat), followed in either case by 60 mg of oral prasugrel, or a third arm in which patients didn’t receive either drug but were instead randomized to a 60-mg loading dose of chewed or whole prasugrel tablets.

The primary study endpoint was inhibition of platelet aggregation at 30 minutes as measured by light transmittance aggregometry in response to 20 mcmol/L of adenosine diphosphate (ADP).

Tirofiban was the unequivocal winner with 95% inhibition, as compared with 34.1% with cangrelor, 10.5% with chewed prasugrel, and 6.3% with prasugrel swallowed whole, even though the concentration of prasugrel’s active metabolite was far greater at 62.3 ng/mL after prasugrel was chewed, compared with 17.1 ng/mL when swallowed in integral tablet form.

The rate of nonresponsiveness to tirofiban as defined by greater than 59% platelet aggregation was zero for tirofiban during its 2-hour infusion, then a scant 8% thereafter during repeated testing at 3 and 4-6 hours. In contrast, the cangrelor nonresponsiveness rate was 50%-58% during the 2-hour infusion, rising to 82% at 3 hours.

FABOLUS FASTER, while not powered for clinical endpoints, might nevertheless have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Valgimigli. First, the superiority of the intravenous drugs tirofiban and cangrelor over prasugrel for early, strong platelet inhibition underscores the importance of giving parenteral antiplatelet drugs over oral therapy during the acute phase of STEMI therapy. Moreover, tirofiban’s outstanding performance – and the high residual platelet reactivity associated with cangrelor – makes a strong case for large comparative, randomized trials of the two drugs, with hard clinical endpoints.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Discussant Christoph K. Naber, MD, PhD, opined that he personally doesn’t consider the FABOLUS FASTER results practice changing, for a couple of reasons.

“Platelet inhibition measured by ADP in vitro is not necessarily related to true effects in vivo. We know that platelets are activated by multiple mechanisms, and the ADP pathway is just one of them,” said Dr. Naber, an interventional cardiologist at the Wilhemshaven (Germany) Clinic.

Also, there’s a good reason why no glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors are approved for treatment of STEMI, and why tirofiban, despite its impressive antiplatelet effects, is currently largely reserved for bailout situations, such as complex lesions with large thrombus burden. It’s because tirofiban’s potent antiplatelet activity is accompanied by a high risk of bleeding, he added.

However, Dr. Valgimigli noted that this conviction about excessive bleeding risk is mainly based on older studies in which glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors were administered for prolonged duration through femoral access sites. He argued that it’s time for large clinical trials examining the risk/benefit ratio of short infusion of these agents in the contemporary practice of primary PCI for STEMI.

Simultaneously with Dr. Valgimigli’s presentation, the FABOLUS FASTER results were published online (Circulation. 2020 Jun 27; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046928).

Dr. Valgimigli reported that Medicure, the sponsor of the FABOLUS FASTER trial, provided an institutional research grant to conduct the study. He also disclosed receiving research grants and personal fees outside the scope of this study from a dozen pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Naber reported having no financial conflicts.

[email protected]

A striking clinical feature of illness from SARS-CoV-2 is a marked increase in thrombotic and microvascular complications, or COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC).

A new study suggests endothelial cell injury plays a major role in the pathogenesis of CAC, and blood levels of soluble thrombomodulin correlate with mortality.

George Goshua, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented this study as a late-breaking abstract at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Dr. Goshua cited past research showing CAC to be highly prevalent among hospitalized patients. Venous thromboembolism was found in 17% to 69% of patients, despite thromboprophylaxis.^1-4 Arterial thrombosis has been seen in 3.6% to 4.0% of patients,^1-3 and autopsy findings have shown microvascular thrombosis in as many as 87% of patients.^5-7

For their study, Dr. Goshua and colleagues assessed endothelial cell damage, platelet activation, and hemostatic and fibrinolytic cascade effects of CAC.

The investigators measured markers of endothelial cell injury and platelet activation, plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), and coagulation factors in stable and critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In addition, the team sought to identify biomarkers of mortality in hospitalized patients.

Dr. Goshua and colleagues studied 68 adults hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 – 48 in the ICU and 20 outside the ICU. Patients in the ICU received mechanical ventilation, while the non-ICU patients required supplemental oxygen (≤3 L/min per nasal cannula).

There were more men than women (69% vs. 31%) in the ICU population but not in the non-ICU population (40% vs. 60%). There were no statistically significant differences in age or comorbid conditions between the ICU and non-ICU patients.
 

Results and interpretation

Consistent with augmentation of the coagulation cascade – and as expected – D-dimer and thrombin-antithrombin levels were high in both the ICU and non-ICU populations, but levels were significantly higher (P < .001) among the ICU patients.

Endogenous anticoagulants (antithrombin and proteins C and S) and fibrinolytic enzymes (alpha 2-antiplasmin) were preserved, verifying that CAC is distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulation. Classic fibrinolysis did not occur, as PAI-1 was high in ICU and non-ICU patients, and lysis-30 was normal in nearly all ICU patients (96%).

Von Willebrand factor antigen and activity levels and factor VIII levels were markedly elevated in non-ICU and ICU patients, but they were significantly higher (P < .001) in the ICU cohort. This supports the hypothesis that endothelial cell damage and platelet activation play major roles in CAC.

Similarly, soluble P-selectin, which is shed from endothelial cells and platelets, was dramatically elevated in ICU patients in comparison with controls and non-ICU patients (P < .001 for both comparisons).

Levels of soluble thrombomodulin, which is released from endothelial cells, were not significantly different in ICU patients and controls. However, given thrombomodulin’s significant role in the coagulation cascade, Dr. Goshua and colleagues plotted receiver operating curves to see if soluble thrombomodulin levels were predictive of mortality.

The results showed that soluble thrombomodulin correlated with the probability of survival, both overall and in ICU patients. Soluble thrombomodulin levels greater than 3.26 ng/mL were associated with significantly worse survival in all patients (P = .0087) and ICU patients (P = .0309).
 

Influence on therapy

Laboratory perturbations were detected in both ICU and non-ICU patients, and otherwise healthy outpatients have exhibited potentially life-threatening CAC, according to Dr. Goshua.

These findings suggest the prothrombotic state occurs early in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is driven by platelet activation and endotheliopathy, and becomes more pronounced with worsening severity of infection.

The results of this study prompted a change in how Yale–New Haven Hospital manages COVID-19 patients. Patients without a clinical contraindication now receive aspirin at 81 mg daily in addition to the anticoagulation regimen typically used for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Investigations regarding other medications that can influence platelet-endothelial cell interactions and modulate endothelial cell damage in CAC – such as dipyridamole, defibrotide, and eculizumab – are planned.
 

Challenges and unanswered questions

Virchow’s triad was described by the eminent German physician, Rudolf Virchow, MD, in the 19th century. It refers to the three broad categories of factors that can predispose patients to thrombosis — circulatory stasis, hypercoagulability, and endothelial injury.

Although all of these elements could be operative in CAC, the current study suggests platelet activation and endothelial cell injury in CAC may be of primary importance.

Because of the limited ability to test critically ill patients and concerns regarding exposure of additional hospital personnel to COVID-19 patients, the current report lacked clarity about the relationship of the detected laboratory abnormalities to confirmed thrombotic events.

It is unknown whether endothelial cells in different organs are damaged uniformly. It is also unclear if the laboratory abnormalities identified in this analysis can be used to monitor response to therapy, to guide follow-up management of discharged patients with CAC, or to identify infected outpatients who should receive prophylactic anticoagulation.

The mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 injures endothelial cells is not explained by these data. Neutrophil defensins and other prothrombotic peptides or markers of inflammation could play key roles in pathogenesis, assessment of disease severity, or monitoring for therapeutic efficacy.

Today, we have more sophisticated diagnostic tools than Dr. Virchow had. We also have the ability to record and rapidly disseminate information globally. Still, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians face many of the same challenges that confronted Dr. Virchow in his era.

The analysis conducted by Dr. Goshua and colleagues goes a long way toward elucidating some of the mechanisms and therapeutic targets to meet these challenges.

Dr. Goshua disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goshua G et al. EHA Congress. Abstract LB2605.

References

1. Klok FA et al. Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis. Thromb Res. 2020;191:148-50. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.041.

2. Thomas W et al. Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res. 2020;191:76-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.028

3. Lodigiani C et al. Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res. 2020;191:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.024

4. Llitjos JF et al. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 22]. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;10.1111/jth.14869. doi: 10.1111/jth.14869

5. Carsana L et al. Pulmonary post-mortem findings in a large series of COVID-19 cases from Northern Italy. medRxiv 2020.04.19.20054262; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.19.20054262v1.

6. Menter T et al. Post-mortem examination of COVID19 patients reveals diffuse alveolar damage with severe capillary congestion and variegated findings of lungs and other organs suggesting vascular dysfunction [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 4]. Histopathology. 2020;10.1111/his.14134. doi: 10.1111/his.14134

7. Lax SF, et al. Pulmonary arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 with fatal outcome: Results from a prospective, single-center, clinicopathologic case series [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 14]. Ann Intern Med. 2020;M20-2566. doi: 10.7326/M20-2566.

A striking clinical feature of illness from SARS-CoV-2 is a marked increase in thrombotic and microvascular complications, or COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC).

A new study suggests endothelial cell injury plays a major role in the pathogenesis of CAC, and blood levels of soluble thrombomodulin correlate with mortality.

George Goshua, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented this study as a late-breaking abstract at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Dr. Goshua cited past research showing CAC to be highly prevalent among hospitalized patients. Venous thromboembolism was found in 17% to 69% of patients, despite thromboprophylaxis.^1-4 Arterial thrombosis has been seen in 3.6% to 4.0% of patients,^1-3 and autopsy findings have shown microvascular thrombosis in as many as 87% of patients.^5-7

For their study, Dr. Goshua and colleagues assessed endothelial cell damage, platelet activation, and hemostatic and fibrinolytic cascade effects of CAC.

The investigators measured markers of endothelial cell injury and platelet activation, plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), and coagulation factors in stable and critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In addition, the team sought to identify biomarkers of mortality in hospitalized patients.

Dr. Goshua and colleagues studied 68 adults hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 – 48 in the ICU and 20 outside the ICU. Patients in the ICU received mechanical ventilation, while the non-ICU patients required supplemental oxygen (≤3 L/min per nasal cannula).

There were more men than women (69% vs. 31%) in the ICU population but not in the non-ICU population (40% vs. 60%). There were no statistically significant differences in age or comorbid conditions between the ICU and non-ICU patients.
 

Results and interpretation

Consistent with augmentation of the coagulation cascade – and as expected – D-dimer and thrombin-antithrombin levels were high in both the ICU and non-ICU populations, but levels were significantly higher (P < .001) among the ICU patients.

Endogenous anticoagulants (antithrombin and proteins C and S) and fibrinolytic enzymes (alpha 2-antiplasmin) were preserved, verifying that CAC is distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulation. Classic fibrinolysis did not occur, as PAI-1 was high in ICU and non-ICU patients, and lysis-30 was normal in nearly all ICU patients (96%).

Von Willebrand factor antigen and activity levels and factor VIII levels were markedly elevated in non-ICU and ICU patients, but they were significantly higher (P < .001) in the ICU cohort. This supports the hypothesis that endothelial cell damage and platelet activation play major roles in CAC.

Similarly, soluble P-selectin, which is shed from endothelial cells and platelets, was dramatically elevated in ICU patients in comparison with controls and non-ICU patients (P < .001 for both comparisons).

Levels of soluble thrombomodulin, which is released from endothelial cells, were not significantly different in ICU patients and controls. However, given thrombomodulin’s significant role in the coagulation cascade, Dr. Goshua and colleagues plotted receiver operating curves to see if soluble thrombomodulin levels were predictive of mortality.

The results showed that soluble thrombomodulin correlated with the probability of survival, both overall and in ICU patients. Soluble thrombomodulin levels greater than 3.26 ng/mL were associated with significantly worse survival in all patients (P = .0087) and ICU patients (P = .0309).
 

Influence on therapy

Laboratory perturbations were detected in both ICU and non-ICU patients, and otherwise healthy outpatients have exhibited potentially life-threatening CAC, according to Dr. Goshua.

These findings suggest the prothrombotic state occurs early in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is driven by platelet activation and endotheliopathy, and becomes more pronounced with worsening severity of infection.

The results of this study prompted a change in how Yale–New Haven Hospital manages COVID-19 patients. Patients without a clinical contraindication now receive aspirin at 81 mg daily in addition to the anticoagulation regimen typically used for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Investigations regarding other medications that can influence platelet-endothelial cell interactions and modulate endothelial cell damage in CAC – such as dipyridamole, defibrotide, and eculizumab – are planned.
 

Challenges and unanswered questions

Virchow’s triad was described by the eminent German physician, Rudolf Virchow, MD, in the 19th century. It refers to the three broad categories of factors that can predispose patients to thrombosis — circulatory stasis, hypercoagulability, and endothelial injury.

Although all of these elements could be operative in CAC, the current study suggests platelet activation and endothelial cell injury in CAC may be of primary importance.

Because of the limited ability to test critically ill patients and concerns regarding exposure of additional hospital personnel to COVID-19 patients, the current report lacked clarity about the relationship of the detected laboratory abnormalities to confirmed thrombotic events.

It is unknown whether endothelial cells in different organs are damaged uniformly. It is also unclear if the laboratory abnormalities identified in this analysis can be used to monitor response to therapy, to guide follow-up management of discharged patients with CAC, or to identify infected outpatients who should receive prophylactic anticoagulation.

The mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 injures endothelial cells is not explained by these data. Neutrophil defensins and other prothrombotic peptides or markers of inflammation could play key roles in pathogenesis, assessment of disease severity, or monitoring for therapeutic efficacy.

Today, we have more sophisticated diagnostic tools than Dr. Virchow had. We also have the ability to record and rapidly disseminate information globally. Still, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians face many of the same challenges that confronted Dr. Virchow in his era.

The analysis conducted by Dr. Goshua and colleagues goes a long way toward elucidating some of the mechanisms and therapeutic targets to meet these challenges.

Dr. Goshua disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goshua G et al. EHA Congress. Abstract LB2605.

References

1. Klok FA et al. Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis. Thromb Res. 2020;191:148-50. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.041.

2. Thomas W et al. Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res. 2020;191:76-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.028

3. Lodigiani C et al. Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res. 2020;191:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.024

4. Llitjos JF et al. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 22]. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;10.1111/jth.14869. doi: 10.1111/jth.14869

5. Carsana L et al. Pulmonary post-mortem findings in a large series of COVID-19 cases from Northern Italy. medRxiv 2020.04.19.20054262; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.19.20054262v1.

6. Menter T et al. Post-mortem examination of COVID19 patients reveals diffuse alveolar damage with severe capillary congestion and variegated findings of lungs and other organs suggesting vascular dysfunction [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 4]. Histopathology. 2020;10.1111/his.14134. doi: 10.1111/his.14134

7. Lax SF, et al. Pulmonary arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 with fatal outcome: Results from a prospective, single-center, clinicopathologic case series [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 14]. Ann Intern Med. 2020;M20-2566. doi: 10.7326/M20-2566.

A striking clinical feature of illness from SARS-CoV-2 is a marked increase in thrombotic and microvascular complications, or COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC).

A new study suggests endothelial cell injury plays a major role in the pathogenesis of CAC, and blood levels of soluble thrombomodulin correlate with mortality.

George Goshua, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented this study as a late-breaking abstract at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Dr. Goshua cited past research showing CAC to be highly prevalent among hospitalized patients. Venous thromboembolism was found in 17% to 69% of patients, despite thromboprophylaxis.^1-4 Arterial thrombosis has been seen in 3.6% to 4.0% of patients,^1-3 and autopsy findings have shown microvascular thrombosis in as many as 87% of patients.^5-7

For their study, Dr. Goshua and colleagues assessed endothelial cell damage, platelet activation, and hemostatic and fibrinolytic cascade effects of CAC.

The investigators measured markers of endothelial cell injury and platelet activation, plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), and coagulation factors in stable and critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In addition, the team sought to identify biomarkers of mortality in hospitalized patients.

Dr. Goshua and colleagues studied 68 adults hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 – 48 in the ICU and 20 outside the ICU. Patients in the ICU received mechanical ventilation, while the non-ICU patients required supplemental oxygen (≤3 L/min per nasal cannula).

There were more men than women (69% vs. 31%) in the ICU population but not in the non-ICU population (40% vs. 60%). There were no statistically significant differences in age or comorbid conditions between the ICU and non-ICU patients.
 

Results and interpretation

Consistent with augmentation of the coagulation cascade – and as expected – D-dimer and thrombin-antithrombin levels were high in both the ICU and non-ICU populations, but levels were significantly higher (P < .001) among the ICU patients.

Endogenous anticoagulants (antithrombin and proteins C and S) and fibrinolytic enzymes (alpha 2-antiplasmin) were preserved, verifying that CAC is distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulation. Classic fibrinolysis did not occur, as PAI-1 was high in ICU and non-ICU patients, and lysis-30 was normal in nearly all ICU patients (96%).

Von Willebrand factor antigen and activity levels and factor VIII levels were markedly elevated in non-ICU and ICU patients, but they were significantly higher (P < .001) in the ICU cohort. This supports the hypothesis that endothelial cell damage and platelet activation play major roles in CAC.

Similarly, soluble P-selectin, which is shed from endothelial cells and platelets, was dramatically elevated in ICU patients in comparison with controls and non-ICU patients (P < .001 for both comparisons).

Levels of soluble thrombomodulin, which is released from endothelial cells, were not significantly different in ICU patients and controls. However, given thrombomodulin’s significant role in the coagulation cascade, Dr. Goshua and colleagues plotted receiver operating curves to see if soluble thrombomodulin levels were predictive of mortality.

The results showed that soluble thrombomodulin correlated with the probability of survival, both overall and in ICU patients. Soluble thrombomodulin levels greater than 3.26 ng/mL were associated with significantly worse survival in all patients (P = .0087) and ICU patients (P = .0309).
 

Influence on therapy

Laboratory perturbations were detected in both ICU and non-ICU patients, and otherwise healthy outpatients have exhibited potentially life-threatening CAC, according to Dr. Goshua.

These findings suggest the prothrombotic state occurs early in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is driven by platelet activation and endotheliopathy, and becomes more pronounced with worsening severity of infection.

The results of this study prompted a change in how Yale–New Haven Hospital manages COVID-19 patients. Patients without a clinical contraindication now receive aspirin at 81 mg daily in addition to the anticoagulation regimen typically used for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Investigations regarding other medications that can influence platelet-endothelial cell interactions and modulate endothelial cell damage in CAC – such as dipyridamole, defibrotide, and eculizumab – are planned.
 

Challenges and unanswered questions

Virchow’s triad was described by the eminent German physician, Rudolf Virchow, MD, in the 19th century. It refers to the three broad categories of factors that can predispose patients to thrombosis — circulatory stasis, hypercoagulability, and endothelial injury.

Although all of these elements could be operative in CAC, the current study suggests platelet activation and endothelial cell injury in CAC may be of primary importance.

Because of the limited ability to test critically ill patients and concerns regarding exposure of additional hospital personnel to COVID-19 patients, the current report lacked clarity about the relationship of the detected laboratory abnormalities to confirmed thrombotic events.

It is unknown whether endothelial cells in different organs are damaged uniformly. It is also unclear if the laboratory abnormalities identified in this analysis can be used to monitor response to therapy, to guide follow-up management of discharged patients with CAC, or to identify infected outpatients who should receive prophylactic anticoagulation.

The mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 injures endothelial cells is not explained by these data. Neutrophil defensins and other prothrombotic peptides or markers of inflammation could play key roles in pathogenesis, assessment of disease severity, or monitoring for therapeutic efficacy.

Today, we have more sophisticated diagnostic tools than Dr. Virchow had. We also have the ability to record and rapidly disseminate information globally. Still, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians face many of the same challenges that confronted Dr. Virchow in his era.

The analysis conducted by Dr. Goshua and colleagues goes a long way toward elucidating some of the mechanisms and therapeutic targets to meet these challenges.

Dr. Goshua disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goshua G et al. EHA Congress. Abstract LB2605.

References

1. Klok FA et al. Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis. Thromb Res. 2020;191:148-50. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.041.

2. Thomas W et al. Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res. 2020;191:76-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.028

3. Lodigiani C et al. Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res. 2020;191:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.024

4. Llitjos JF et al. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 22]. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;10.1111/jth.14869. doi: 10.1111/jth.14869

5. Carsana L et al. Pulmonary post-mortem findings in a large series of COVID-19 cases from Northern Italy. medRxiv 2020.04.19.20054262; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.19.20054262v1.

6. Menter T et al. Post-mortem examination of COVID19 patients reveals diffuse alveolar damage with severe capillary congestion and variegated findings of lungs and other organs suggesting vascular dysfunction [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 4]. Histopathology. 2020;10.1111/his.14134. doi: 10.1111/his.14134

7. Lax SF, et al. Pulmonary arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 with fatal outcome: Results from a prospective, single-center, clinicopathologic case series [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 14]. Ann Intern Med. 2020;M20-2566. doi: 10.7326/M20-2566.

Left atrial appendage closure was noninferior to use of direct oral anticoagulants for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AFib)–related events in high-risk patients, based on data from 402 adults.

Given the limitations of vitamin K antagonists for preventing stroke in AFib, “a novel site-specific therapeutic alternative, mechanical left atrial appendage occlusion [LAAO], entered clinical practice,” but has not been compared with current safe and effective oral anticoagulants, wrote Pavel Osmancik, MD, of University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers randomized 201 moderate- or high-risk adults with nonvalvular AFib to LAAO and another 201 to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Patients in the LAAO group underwent transesophageal echocardiography to exclude left atrial thrombi and underwent implantation with Boston Scientific’s Watchman, Watchman-FLX, or Abbott’s Amulet devices. Patients in the DOAC group received rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran at the manufacturer-recommended dose.

The primary outcome was a composite of complications related to procedures or devices, thromboembolic events (including stroke), and clinically significant bleeding. After an average of 20 months follow-up, 35 patients in the LAAO group and 41 in the DOAC group met the primary outcome (11% per 100 patient-years vs. 13% per 100 patient-years).

In addition, no differences appeared between the groups for the endpoint components of all-stroke/transient ischemic attack event (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.00), clinically significantly bleeding (sHR, 0.81), or cardiovascular death (sHR, 0.75).

Nine patients experienced major complications related to LAAO, including clinically significant bleeding (sHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.44-1.52) and cardiovascular death (sHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62). Major LAAO-related complications occurred in nine (4.5%) patients, with a short-term (up to 7 days or hospital discharge) complication rate of 2.1% and a 2.7% late complication rate. The late complications included three pericardial effusions, one of which resulted in death, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess the differences among the components of the composite primary endpoint. For example, “Regarding the primary endpoint, stroke reduction may be more important than bleeding reduction,” the investigators wrote.

The results were strengthened, however, by the enrollment of a high-risk AF population and is the first known randomized trial to compare percutaneous LAAO and DOACs for stroke prevention in this group. But the late complication rate of 2.7% is “suboptimal” and safety issues reinforce the need for refinement of operator technique and device technology with LAAO, they concluded.

‘Important step forward,’ with caveats

“How LAAO might stack up against DOAC therapy has remained an open question: Compared with warfarin, DOACs are easier to use and are associated with a reduction in mortality, driven by a substantially lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and fatal bleeding,” wrote Matthew J. Price, MD, of the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and Jacqueline Saw, MD, of Vancouver General Hospital, in an accompanying editorial.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

SOURCES: Osmancik P et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3122-35; Price MJ, Saw J. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3136-9.

Left atrial appendage closure was noninferior to use of direct oral anticoagulants for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AFib)–related events in high-risk patients, based on data from 402 adults.

Given the limitations of vitamin K antagonists for preventing stroke in AFib, “a novel site-specific therapeutic alternative, mechanical left atrial appendage occlusion [LAAO], entered clinical practice,” but has not been compared with current safe and effective oral anticoagulants, wrote Pavel Osmancik, MD, of University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers randomized 201 moderate- or high-risk adults with nonvalvular AFib to LAAO and another 201 to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Patients in the LAAO group underwent transesophageal echocardiography to exclude left atrial thrombi and underwent implantation with Boston Scientific’s Watchman, Watchman-FLX, or Abbott’s Amulet devices. Patients in the DOAC group received rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran at the manufacturer-recommended dose.

The primary outcome was a composite of complications related to procedures or devices, thromboembolic events (including stroke), and clinically significant bleeding. After an average of 20 months follow-up, 35 patients in the LAAO group and 41 in the DOAC group met the primary outcome (11% per 100 patient-years vs. 13% per 100 patient-years).

In addition, no differences appeared between the groups for the endpoint components of all-stroke/transient ischemic attack event (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.00), clinically significantly bleeding (sHR, 0.81), or cardiovascular death (sHR, 0.75).

Nine patients experienced major complications related to LAAO, including clinically significant bleeding (sHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.44-1.52) and cardiovascular death (sHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62). Major LAAO-related complications occurred in nine (4.5%) patients, with a short-term (up to 7 days or hospital discharge) complication rate of 2.1% and a 2.7% late complication rate. The late complications included three pericardial effusions, one of which resulted in death, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess the differences among the components of the composite primary endpoint. For example, “Regarding the primary endpoint, stroke reduction may be more important than bleeding reduction,” the investigators wrote.

The results were strengthened, however, by the enrollment of a high-risk AF population and is the first known randomized trial to compare percutaneous LAAO and DOACs for stroke prevention in this group. But the late complication rate of 2.7% is “suboptimal” and safety issues reinforce the need for refinement of operator technique and device technology with LAAO, they concluded.

‘Important step forward,’ with caveats

“How LAAO might stack up against DOAC therapy has remained an open question: Compared with warfarin, DOACs are easier to use and are associated with a reduction in mortality, driven by a substantially lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and fatal bleeding,” wrote Matthew J. Price, MD, of the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and Jacqueline Saw, MD, of Vancouver General Hospital, in an accompanying editorial.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

SOURCES: Osmancik P et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3122-35; Price MJ, Saw J. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3136-9.

Left atrial appendage closure was noninferior to use of direct oral anticoagulants for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AFib)–related events in high-risk patients, based on data from 402 adults.

Given the limitations of vitamin K antagonists for preventing stroke in AFib, “a novel site-specific therapeutic alternative, mechanical left atrial appendage occlusion [LAAO], entered clinical practice,” but has not been compared with current safe and effective oral anticoagulants, wrote Pavel Osmancik, MD, of University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers randomized 201 moderate- or high-risk adults with nonvalvular AFib to LAAO and another 201 to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Patients in the LAAO group underwent transesophageal echocardiography to exclude left atrial thrombi and underwent implantation with Boston Scientific’s Watchman, Watchman-FLX, or Abbott’s Amulet devices. Patients in the DOAC group received rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran at the manufacturer-recommended dose.

The primary outcome was a composite of complications related to procedures or devices, thromboembolic events (including stroke), and clinically significant bleeding. After an average of 20 months follow-up, 35 patients in the LAAO group and 41 in the DOAC group met the primary outcome (11% per 100 patient-years vs. 13% per 100 patient-years).

In addition, no differences appeared between the groups for the endpoint components of all-stroke/transient ischemic attack event (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.00), clinically significantly bleeding (sHR, 0.81), or cardiovascular death (sHR, 0.75).

Nine patients experienced major complications related to LAAO, including clinically significant bleeding (sHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.44-1.52) and cardiovascular death (sHR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62). Major LAAO-related complications occurred in nine (4.5%) patients, with a short-term (up to 7 days or hospital discharge) complication rate of 2.1% and a 2.7% late complication rate. The late complications included three pericardial effusions, one of which resulted in death, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess the differences among the components of the composite primary endpoint. For example, “Regarding the primary endpoint, stroke reduction may be more important than bleeding reduction,” the investigators wrote.

The results were strengthened, however, by the enrollment of a high-risk AF population and is the first known randomized trial to compare percutaneous LAAO and DOACs for stroke prevention in this group. But the late complication rate of 2.7% is “suboptimal” and safety issues reinforce the need for refinement of operator technique and device technology with LAAO, they concluded.

‘Important step forward,’ with caveats

“How LAAO might stack up against DOAC therapy has remained an open question: Compared with warfarin, DOACs are easier to use and are associated with a reduction in mortality, driven by a substantially lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage and fatal bleeding,” wrote Matthew J. Price, MD, of the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., and Jacqueline Saw, MD, of Vancouver General Hospital, in an accompanying editorial.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

SOURCES: Osmancik P et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3122-35; Price MJ, Saw J. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3136-9.

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

Background: Current guidelines recommend against using aspirin in combination with warfarin for patients with AFib, unless the patient has another indication for aspirin such as recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or a mechanical heart valve. These recommendations are based on limited clinical trial data that showed an increased risk of adverse events with combination therapy without clinical benefit. Despite these recommendations, recent studies have shown that aspirin use without a clinical indication remains common in patients taking warfarin for AFib. The prevalence of aspirin use without a clinical indication in patients taking warfarin for VTE is less well studied.

Dr. Wachter is an associate medical director at Duke Regional Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca) for use with aspirin to cut the risk for a first myocardial infarction or stroke in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI or stroke, AstraZeneca announced today. 

Patients falling under the new indication do not need to have diabetes, although THEMIS had entered patients with diabetes and CAD, the latter defined as a 50% or greater narrowing of a coronary artery or a history of coronary revascularization but without a history of MI or stroke. 

The trial showed a significant reduction in the rate of the primary efficacy end point (P = .04), a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke. But the risk of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding classification major bleeding was more than doubled in the ticagrelor group (P < .001) and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage went up 71% (P = .005). Net clinical benefit didn't differ significantly between the groups in an exploratory analysis. 

The benefit of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor for the primary efficacy end point was even more pronounced in a prespecified THEMIS subanalysis of more than 11,000 patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this group, the risk for  intracerebral hemorrhage didn't differ significantly between the groups, and the net clinical benefit favored ticagrelor by a significant 15%. 

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

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Results from a prospective, multicenter, uncontrolled series of just over 1,500 patients with high bleeding risk who underwent coronary revascularization with a polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent showed that these patients could safely receive dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)for just 1 month.

This finding sets the stage for a new labeled indication for this device and management strategy in this patient population.

Results from the Onyx ONE Clear study “met its primary endpoint, with favorable rates of ischemic outcomes from 1-12 months after DAPT discontinuation within a high risk population of HBR [high-bleeding-risk] patients,” Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rate of cardiac death or MI during months 1-12 of follow-up while patients were on single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with either aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, usually clopidogrel, was 7.0%, compared with a prespecified performance goal of 9.7% or less, a goal set in consultation with and approval from the Food and Drug Administration based on the results from earlier, short DAPT studies in HBR patients.

“We hope these data will support our submission to the FDA for a 1-month DAPT indication for high-bleeding-risk patients treated with Resolute Onyx,” the polymer-based, zotarolimus-eluting stent tested in the study, said an officer with Medtronic, the company that sponsored this study and markets this stent, in a written statement. Currently, no stent has received a U.S. indication for just 1 month of DAPT treatment.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The Onyx ONE Clear study represents the largest analysis of 1-month DAPT among commercially available DES [drug-eluting stents], and extends findings from the Onyx ONE [randomized, controlled trial] assuring the safety of a 1-month DAPT strategy among selected patients with high bleeding risk,” said David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta and coprincipal investigator for the study along with Dr. Kirtane.

“Despite the patient complexity included in the study, the observation of a favorably low rate of ischemic events despite abbreviated DAPT is consistent with a theme from other contemporary studies that, among HBR patients, bleeding risk rather than ischemic risk should guide clinical decision making regarding DAPT duration,” Dr. Kandzari said in an interview.
 

Two similar trials

The Onyx ONE Clear results were consistent with findings from a study with a somewhat similar design, LEADERS FREE II, a single-arm study that assessed the safety and efficacy of BioFreedom, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated coronary stent, in HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by SAPT.

LEADERS FREE II showed a 12-month cardiac death or MI rate of 8.6% that compared favorably with the 12.3% 1-year rate among similar patients who received bare-metal stents and a similar timing of DAPT and SAPT in a historical control group (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 13. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008603). The primary goal of LEADERS FREE II was to serve as the pivotal trial for FDA approval of the BioFreedom stent, but as of May 2020 the FDA had not approved this stent for U.S. use.

Results of another recent study, Onyx ONE, that supplied more than half the patients included in the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, showed that, in a head-to-head comparison of the Onxy and BioFreedom stents in 1,996 HBR patients treated with DAPT for 1 month followed by 11 months of SAPT, the Onyx stent was noninferior for both a primary safety outcome and a secondary efficacy outcome (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382[13]:1208-18).

“The major differences” between the Onyx and BioFreedom stents in the patients studied in Onxy ONE Clear and in LEADERS FREE II “lie in the fact that BioFreedom is not approved in the U.S., and that Onyx is a current generation, preferred DES platform for both conventional and HBR patients,” Dr. Kirtane said in an interview.

“Because of the performance characteristics of Onyx, as well as the fact that ONYX ONE studied a far more complex group of patients than other shorter DAPT studies with conventional DES, I personally feel that there will be a preference to use this stent as a result of these data,” added Dr. Kirtane, professor of medicine at Columbia University and director of the coronary catheterization laboratory at New York–Presbyterian Hospital in New York.

The results from Onyx ONE “are critical for changing practice” among U.S. interventionalists, commented Sunil V. Rao, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Based on the new findings, U.S. operators performing percutaneous coronary interventions “will feel comfortable stopping DAPT in patients who are at high bleeding risk,” he said in an interview.

Although the results from LEADERS FREE II showed that the BioFreedom stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with 1 month of DAPT in HBR patients, and the results from Onyx ONE showed that the Onyx stent was noninferior to BioFreedom in this setting, “it’s important not to assume that there is a class effect across DES platforms. Each platform has a different drug and different stent design, so the interventional community needs to see these data for each DES,” Dr. Rao maintained.
 

Onyx ONE Clear design

Onyx ONE Clear enrolled a total of 1,506 patients, including more than 1,000 patients who received the Onyx stent in the Onyx ONE trial and an additional 752 patients enrolled in the United States and Japan, but 263 of these patients had an adverse event during their first 30 days or follow-up leaving 1,506 patients eligible to continue into the Onyx ONE Clear analysis, and with 1,491 patients followed through 12 months. Patients were an average age of 74 years, a little over two-thirds were men, 49% had a recent acute coronary syndrome event and 41% had chronic coronary syndrome. The choice of which antiplatelet agent to continue when patients transitioned to SAPT after 30 days on DAPT was left to the discretion of the physicians for each enrolled patient.

One issue these studies did not address was whether 1 month is the ideal duration for DAPT before switching to SAPT in HBR patients following coronary stenting, or whether longer DAPT durations produce even better outcomes. “It was important to establish what happens if we need to stop DAPT early.” The Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear studies “provide much-needed data informing clinicians of the risks and safety of SAPT after 1 month in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Kirtane said.

“The results do not indicate that all HBR patients should be treated with 1 month [of] DAPT, but instead demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of this strategy when clinically appropriate.” This scenario “is quite common, given that HBR patients represent up to a third” of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, Dr. Kandzari said.

Onyx ONE and Onyx ONE Clear were sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets the Onyx coronary stent. Dr. Kirtane’s institution has received research support from Medtronic, and from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, and Siemens. Dr. Kandzari has received personal fees and research grants from medtronic, personal fees from Biotronik and Cardiovascular Systems, and research grants from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Rao has received personal fees from Medtronic, as well as from CSI and Philips.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kirtane AJ et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 903-06.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.