User login
Evidence builds linking anticoagulation to COVID-19 survival
, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.
Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.
The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.
Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.
“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.
In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.
Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.
In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.
“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”
For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.
Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.
Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.
Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).
In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).
The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.
Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.
Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).
In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.
Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.
“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”
“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”
At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.
Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.
In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”
Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.
The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.
Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.
The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.
Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.
“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.
In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.
Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.
In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.
“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”
For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.
Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.
Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.
Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).
In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).
The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.
Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.
Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).
In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.
Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.
“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”
“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”
At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.
Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.
In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”
Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.
The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.
Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.
The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.
Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.
“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.
In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.
Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.
In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.
“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”
For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.
Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.
Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.
Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).
In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).
The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.
Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.
Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).
In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.
Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.
“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”
“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”
At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.
Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.
In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”
Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.
The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Andexanet alfa reverses factor Xa inhibitors
Background: Factor Xa inhibitors have become increasingly popular in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic events, but the lack of specific reversal agents in the event of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding may limit their use. Andexanet alfa is a new Food and Drug Administration–approved reversal agent which rapidly reduces anti–factor Xa activity, thereby reversing the anticoagulation effects of factor Xa inhibitors.
Study design: A prospective, open-label, single-group cohort study.
Setting: An industry-sponsored, multicenter study.
Synopsis: The study evaluated 352 adult patients who had acute major bleeding (such as intracranial hemorrhage [64%] or GI bleeding [26%] within 18 hours after administration of a factor Xa inhibitor, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban). Efficacy was assessed in 254 patients who met criteria for severe bleeding and elevated baseline anti–factor Xa activity. Patients were administered a bolus dose of andexanet alfa followed by a 2-hour infusion. The median anti–factor Xa activity reduced by 92% each among patients receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban. The majority (82%) of evaluable patients achieved excellent or good hemostasis at 12 hours after andexanet alfa administration, which compares favorably with the hemostatic efficacy of 72% observed with prothrombin complex concentrate used to reverse anticoagulation in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists. Of patients in the study, 10% experienced a thrombotic event during the 30-day follow-up period, and 14% died.
Limitations of the study include lack of a control group and absence of a significant relationship between a reduction in anti–factor Xa activity and hemostasis. The sponsor is planning to conduct a randomized trial with FDA guidance in the near future.
Bottom line: Andexanet alfa is an FDA-approved agent and appears effective in achieving hemostasis in patients with a factor Xa inhibitor–associated major acute bleeding.
Citation: Connolly SJ et al. Full study report of andexanet alfa for bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814051.
Dr. Vedamurthy is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Factor Xa inhibitors have become increasingly popular in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic events, but the lack of specific reversal agents in the event of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding may limit their use. Andexanet alfa is a new Food and Drug Administration–approved reversal agent which rapidly reduces anti–factor Xa activity, thereby reversing the anticoagulation effects of factor Xa inhibitors.
Study design: A prospective, open-label, single-group cohort study.
Setting: An industry-sponsored, multicenter study.
Synopsis: The study evaluated 352 adult patients who had acute major bleeding (such as intracranial hemorrhage [64%] or GI bleeding [26%] within 18 hours after administration of a factor Xa inhibitor, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban). Efficacy was assessed in 254 patients who met criteria for severe bleeding and elevated baseline anti–factor Xa activity. Patients were administered a bolus dose of andexanet alfa followed by a 2-hour infusion. The median anti–factor Xa activity reduced by 92% each among patients receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban. The majority (82%) of evaluable patients achieved excellent or good hemostasis at 12 hours after andexanet alfa administration, which compares favorably with the hemostatic efficacy of 72% observed with prothrombin complex concentrate used to reverse anticoagulation in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists. Of patients in the study, 10% experienced a thrombotic event during the 30-day follow-up period, and 14% died.
Limitations of the study include lack of a control group and absence of a significant relationship between a reduction in anti–factor Xa activity and hemostasis. The sponsor is planning to conduct a randomized trial with FDA guidance in the near future.
Bottom line: Andexanet alfa is an FDA-approved agent and appears effective in achieving hemostasis in patients with a factor Xa inhibitor–associated major acute bleeding.
Citation: Connolly SJ et al. Full study report of andexanet alfa for bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814051.
Dr. Vedamurthy is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Factor Xa inhibitors have become increasingly popular in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic events, but the lack of specific reversal agents in the event of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding may limit their use. Andexanet alfa is a new Food and Drug Administration–approved reversal agent which rapidly reduces anti–factor Xa activity, thereby reversing the anticoagulation effects of factor Xa inhibitors.
Study design: A prospective, open-label, single-group cohort study.
Setting: An industry-sponsored, multicenter study.
Synopsis: The study evaluated 352 adult patients who had acute major bleeding (such as intracranial hemorrhage [64%] or GI bleeding [26%] within 18 hours after administration of a factor Xa inhibitor, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban). Efficacy was assessed in 254 patients who met criteria for severe bleeding and elevated baseline anti–factor Xa activity. Patients were administered a bolus dose of andexanet alfa followed by a 2-hour infusion. The median anti–factor Xa activity reduced by 92% each among patients receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban. The majority (82%) of evaluable patients achieved excellent or good hemostasis at 12 hours after andexanet alfa administration, which compares favorably with the hemostatic efficacy of 72% observed with prothrombin complex concentrate used to reverse anticoagulation in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists. Of patients in the study, 10% experienced a thrombotic event during the 30-day follow-up period, and 14% died.
Limitations of the study include lack of a control group and absence of a significant relationship between a reduction in anti–factor Xa activity and hemostasis. The sponsor is planning to conduct a randomized trial with FDA guidance in the near future.
Bottom line: Andexanet alfa is an FDA-approved agent and appears effective in achieving hemostasis in patients with a factor Xa inhibitor–associated major acute bleeding.
Citation: Connolly SJ et al. Full study report of andexanet alfa for bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814051.
Dr. Vedamurthy is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
COVID-19–associated coagulopathy
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.1 These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.2
In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally.
Mechanism of coagulopathy
COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.3 Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.2,5,6
Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.4
It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.7 COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.8
Clinical and laboratory abnormalities
A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.3
Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.9,10 In a retrospective analysis9 by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.9 In addition, elevated d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.
Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.11
COVID-19 coagulopathy management
In a retrospective study9 of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.12
Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.13
Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.11 Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 109/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.12 This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.14,15
Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x109/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.11 Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.16
COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x109/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.16
Conclusion
Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.
Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.
References
1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.
2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.
3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.
4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575.
5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.
6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362.
7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319.
8. Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.
9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847.
10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810.
12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817.
13. Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.
14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.
15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.
16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.1 These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.2
In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally.
Mechanism of coagulopathy
COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.3 Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.2,5,6
Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.4
It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.7 COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.8
Clinical and laboratory abnormalities
A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.3
Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.9,10 In a retrospective analysis9 by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.9 In addition, elevated d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.
Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.11
COVID-19 coagulopathy management
In a retrospective study9 of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.12
Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.13
Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.11 Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 109/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.12 This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.14,15
Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x109/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.11 Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.16
COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x109/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.16
Conclusion
Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.
Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.
References
1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.
2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.
3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.
4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575.
5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.
6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362.
7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319.
8. Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.
9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847.
10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810.
12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817.
13. Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.
14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.
15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.
16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral illness caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), currently causing a pandemic affecting many countries around the world, beginning in December 2019 and spreading rapidly on a global scale since. Globally, its burden has been increasing rapidly, with more than 1.2 million people testing positive for the illness and 123,000 people losing their lives, as per April 15th’s WHO COVID-19 Situation Report.1 These numbers are increasing with each passing day. Clinically, SARS-CoV-2 has a highly variable course, ranging from mild disease manifested as a self-limited illness (seen in younger and healthier patients) to severe pneumonia/ARDS and multiorgan failure with intravascular coagulopathy.2
In this article, we intend to investigate and establish a comprehensive review of COVID-19–associated coagulopathy mechanisms, laboratory findings, and current management guidelines put forth by various societies globally.
Mechanism of coagulopathy
COVID-19–associated coagulopathy has been shown to predispose to both arterial and venous thrombosis through excessive inflammation and hypoxia, leading to activation of the coagulation cascade and consumption of coagulation factors, resulting in microvascular thrombosis.3 Though the exact pathophysiology for the activation of this cascade is not known, the proposed mechanism has been: endothelial damage triggering platelet activation within the lung, leading to aggregation, thrombosis, and consumption of platelets in the lung.2,5,6
Fox et al. noted similar coagulopathy findings of four deceased COVID-19 patients. Autopsy results concluded that the dominant process was diffuse alveolar damage, notable CD4+ aggregates around thrombosed small vessels, significant associated hemorrhage, and thrombotic microangiopathy restricted to the lungs. The proposed mechanism was the activation of megakaryocytes, possibly native to the lung, with platelet aggregation, formation of platelet-rich clots, and fibrin deposition playing a major role.4
It has been noted that diabetic patients are at an increased risk of vascular events and hypercoagulability with COVID-19.7 COVID-19 can also cause livedo reticularis and acrocyanosis because of the microthrombosis in the cutaneous vasculature secondary to underlying coagulopathy, as reported in a case report of two U.S. patients with COVID-19.8
Clinical and laboratory abnormalities
A recent study reported from Netherlands by Klok et al. analyzed 184 ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and concluded that the cumulative incidence of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), ischemic stroke, MI, or systemic arterial embolism was 31% (95% confidence interval, 20%-41%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication and was noted in 81% of patients. Coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of prothrombin time (PT) > 3s or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) > 5s, was reported as an independent predictor of thrombotic complications.3
Hematologic abnormalities that were noted in COVID-19 coagulopathy include: decreased platelet counts, decreased fibrinogen levels, elevated PT/INR, elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT), and elevated d-dimer.9,10 In a retrospective analysis9 by Tang et al., 71.4% of nonsurvivors and 0.6% of survivors had met the criteria of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during their hospital stay. Nonsurvivors of COVID-19 had statistically significant elevation of d-dimer levels, FDP levels, PT, and aPTT, when compared to survivors (P < .05). The overall mortality in this study was reported as 11.5%.9 In addition, elevated d-dimer, fibrin and fibrinogen degradation product (FDP) levels and longer PT and aPTT were associated with poor prognosis.
Thus, d-dimer, PT, and platelet count should be measured in all patients who present with COVID-19 infection. We can also suggest that in patients with markedly elevated d-dimer (three- to fourfold increase), admission to hospital should be considered even in the absence of severe clinical symptoms.11
COVID-19 coagulopathy management
In a retrospective study9 of 449 patients with severe COVID-19 from Wuhan, China, by Tang et al., 99 patients mainly received low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) for 7 days or longer. No difference in 28-day mortality was noted between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%; P = .910). A lower 28-day mortality rate was noted in heparin patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy score of ≥4.0 (40.0% vs. 64.2%; P = .029) or a d-dimer level greater than sixfold of upper limit of normal, compared with nonusers of heparin.12
Another small study of seven COVID-19 patients with acroischemia in China demonstrated that administering LMWH was successful at decreasing the d-dimer and fibrinogen degradation product levels but noted no significant improvement in clinical symptoms.13
Recently, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis and American Society of Hematology published recommendations and guidelines regarding the recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19.11 Prophylactic anticoagulation therapy with LMWH was recommended in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19, provided there was an absence of any contraindications (active bleeding, platelet count less than 25 x 109/L and fibrinogen less than 0.5 g/dL). Anticoagulation with LMWH was associated with better prognosis in severe COVID-19 patients and in COVID-19 patients with markedly elevated d-dimer, as it also has anti-inflammatory effects.12 This anti-inflammatory property of heparin has been documented in previous studies but the underlying mechanism is unknown and more research is required.14,15
Despite coagulopathy being noticed with cases of COVID-19, bleeding has been a rare finding in COVID-19 infections. If bleeding is noted, recommendations were made to keep platelet levels greater than 50 x109/L, fibrinogen less than 2.0 g/L, and INR [international normalized ratio] greater than 1.5.11 Mechanical thromboprophylaxis should be used when pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is contraindicated.16
COVID-19 patients with new diagnoses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or atrial fibrillation should be prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation. Patients who are already on anticoagulation for VTE or atrial fibrillation should continue their therapy unless the platelet count is less than 30-50x109/L or if the fibrinogen is less than 1.0 g/L.16
Conclusion
Coagulopathies associated with COVID-19 infections have been documented in several studies around the world, and it has been shown to be fatal in some cases. Despite documentation, the mechanism behind this coagulopathy is not well understood. Because of the potentially lethal complications associated with coagulopathies, early recognition and anticoagulation is imperative to improve clinical outcomes. These results are very preliminary: More studies are required to understand the role of anticoagulation and its effect on the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–associated coagulopathy.
Dr. Yeruva is a board-certified hematologist/medical oncologist with WellSpan Health and clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, Penn State University, Hershey. Mr. Henderson is a third-year graduate-entry medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland with interests in family medicine, dermatology, and tropical diseases. Dr. Al-Tawfiq is a consultant of internal medicine & infectious diseases, and the director of quality at Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an adjunct associate professor of infectious diseases, molecular medicine and clinical pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and adjunct associate professor at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. Dr. Tirupathi is the medical director of Keystone Infectious Diseases/HIV in Chambersburg, Pa., and currently chair of infection prevention at Wellspan Chambersburg and Waynesboro (Pa.) Hospitals. He also is the lead physician for antibiotic stewardship at these hospitals.
References
1. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports.
2. Lippi G et al. Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Chim Acta. 2020 Mar 13. 506:145-8. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2020.03.022.
3. Klok FA et al. Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. Throm Res. 2020;18(4):844-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.013.
4. Fox S et al. Pulmonary and cardiac pathology in Covid-19: The first autopsy series from New Orleans. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20050575.
5. Yang M et al. Thrombocytopenia in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (review). Hematology 2013 Sep 4. doi: 10.1080/1024533040002617.
6. Giannis D et al. Coagulation disorders in coronavirus infected patients: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and lessons from the past. J Clin Virol. 2020 June. doi: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104362.
7. Guo W et al. Diabetes is a risk factor for the progression and prognosis of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar 31. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3319.
8. Manalo IF et al. A dermatologic manifestation of COVID-19: Transient livedo reticularis. J Am Acad Dermat. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.018.
9. Tang N et al. Abnormal coagulation parameters are associated with poor prognosis in patients with novel coronavirus pneumonia. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1111/jth.14768, 18: 844-847.
10. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5.
11. Thachil J et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 25. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14810.
12. Tang N et al. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients with coagulopathy. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1111/JTH.14817.
13. Zhang Y et al. Clinical and coagulation characteristics of 7 patients with critical COVID-2019 pneumonia and acro-ischemia. Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2020.0006.
14. Poterucha TJ et al. More than an anticoagulant: Do heparins have direct anti-inflammatory effects? Thromb Haemost. 2017. doi: 10.1160/TH16-08-0620.
15. Mousavi S et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of heparin and its derivatives: A systematic review. Adv Pharmacol Pharm Sci. 2015 May 12. doi: 10.1155/2015/507151.
16. Kreuziger L et al. COVID-19 and VTE/anticoagulation: Frequently asked questions. American Society of Hematology. 2020 Apr 17.
Adding mechanical to pharma prophylaxis does not cut DVT incidence
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Predictors of ICH after thrombectomy identified
(ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.
“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”
The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Limited data
High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.
Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.
To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.
The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.
The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).
Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).
“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.
Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
Twice the risk
The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).
There was no association between patients who received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and risk of symptomatic ICH, which Dr. Montalvo Perero said was surprising.
However, “that may be due to a small number” of patients with symptomatic ICH included in the study, she said. “Therefore, that would be an interesting question to ask in future studies with bigger cohorts.”
Larger studies are also needed to validate this scoring system and to test strategies to reduce risk of symptomatic ICH and make thrombectomy safer in patients with elevated TAG scores, Dr. Montalvo Perero said.
A step in the right direction?
Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke
“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.
Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”
This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.
Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.
Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.
The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”
He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.
“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.
Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.
“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”
Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.
(ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.
“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”
The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Limited data
High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.
Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.
To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.
The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.
The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).
Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).
“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.
Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
Twice the risk
The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).
There was no association between patients who received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and risk of symptomatic ICH, which Dr. Montalvo Perero said was surprising.
However, “that may be due to a small number” of patients with symptomatic ICH included in the study, she said. “Therefore, that would be an interesting question to ask in future studies with bigger cohorts.”
Larger studies are also needed to validate this scoring system and to test strategies to reduce risk of symptomatic ICH and make thrombectomy safer in patients with elevated TAG scores, Dr. Montalvo Perero said.
A step in the right direction?
Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke
“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.
Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”
This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.
Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.
Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.
The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”
He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.
“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.
Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.
“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”
Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.
(ICH), new research suggests. In a study of nearly 600 patients undergoing thrombectomy, investigators combined a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) score, an Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and glucose levels (the “TAG score”) to predict risk. Results showed that each unit increase in the combination score was associated with a significant, nearly twofold greater likelihood of symptomatic ICH.
“It is very easy” to calculate the new score in a clinical setting, lead author Mayra Johana Montalvo Perero, MD, Department of Neurology, Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, said. “You just need three variables.”
The findings were presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Limited data
High TAG scores are associated with symptomatic ICH in patients receiving mechanical thrombectomy, Dr. Montalvo Perero and colleagues said.
Although clinical predictors of symptomatic ICH are well established, “there is limited data in patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy,” the researchers noted.
To learn more, they assessed 578 patients (52% women; mean age, 73 years) who had mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at a comprehensive stroke center. Within this cohort, 19 patients (3.3%) developed symptomatic ICH.
The investigators compared clinical and radiographic findings between patients who experienced symptomatic ICH and those who did not.
The TICI score emerged as a predictor when each unit decrease in this score was associated with greater risk for symptomatic ICH (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-14.29; P = .002).
Each one-point decrease in the ASPECTS score also predicted increased risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = .003).
“The main driver is the size of the stroke core, which is correlated with the ASPECTS score,” Dr. Montalvo Perero said.
Each 10 mg/dL increase in glucose level also correlated with increased risk (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .018).
Twice the risk
The investigators then combined these three independent variables into a weighted TAG score based on a multivariate analysis. Each unit increase in this composite score was associated with increased risk of symptomatic ICH (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001).
There was no association between patients who received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and risk of symptomatic ICH, which Dr. Montalvo Perero said was surprising.
However, “that may be due to a small number” of patients with symptomatic ICH included in the study, she said. “Therefore, that would be an interesting question to ask in future studies with bigger cohorts.”
Larger studies are also needed to validate this scoring system and to test strategies to reduce risk of symptomatic ICH and make thrombectomy safer in patients with elevated TAG scores, Dr. Montalvo Perero said.
A step in the right direction?
Commenting on the study, Jeremy Payne, MD, PhD, director of the Stroke Center at Banner Health’s University Medicine Neuroscience Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, noted the importance of predicting which patients might have secondary bleeding after interventional treatment of a large vessel occlusion stroke
“In aggregate, the role of endovascular thrombectomy is quite clear, but we still struggle to predict at the individual patient level who will benefit,” said Dr. Payne, who was not involved with the research.
Transfer and treatment of these patients also carries an economic cost. “Just getting patients to our center, where about 80% of the complex stroke patients come by helicopter, costs upwards of $30,000,” Dr. Payne said. “The financial argument isn’t one we like to talk much about, but we’re committing to spending probably $100,000-$200,000 on each person’s care.”
This study “attempts to address an important issue,” he said.
Predicting who is more likely to benefit leads to the assumption that if that were to happen, “we could skip all the rigamarole of helicopters and procedures, avoid the extra expense and particularly not make things worse than they already are,” explained Dr. Payne.
Potential limitations include that this is a single-center study and is based on an analysis of 19 patients out of 578. As a result, it is not clear that these findings will necessarily be generalizable to other centers, said Dr. Payne.
The TICI and ASPECTS “are pretty obvious markers of risk,” he noted. “The glucose levels, however, are more subtly interesting.”
He also pointed out that an association between diabetes and worse stroke outcomes is well established.
“The mechanisms are poorly understood, but the role of glucose keeps popping up as a potential marker of risk, and so it’s interesting that it bubbles up in their work too,” Dr. Payne said.
Furthermore, unlike TICI and ASPECTS, glucose levels are modifiable.
“Overall, then, we will continue to study this,” Dr. Payne said. “It’s very important to refine our ability to predict which patients may receive benefit versus harm from such procedures, and this is a step in the right direction.”
Some findings were also published December 2019 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.
Montalvo Perero and Payne have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SOURCE: Motalvo Perero MJ et al. AAN 2020, Abstract S20.001.
AAN 2020
AUGUSTUS: After ACS or PCI, aspirin gives AFib patients scant benefit
When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.
Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.
Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.
A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.
Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).
“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.
The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.
When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.
Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.
Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.
A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.
Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).
“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.
The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.
When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.
Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.
Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.
“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.
A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.
Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).
“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.
The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.
FROM ACC 2020
ACEI/ARBs linked with survival in hypertensive, Chinese COVID-19 patients
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.
“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.
“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).
The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.
The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.
Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.
Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.
“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).
But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”
The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.
“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.
“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).
The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.
The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.
Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.
Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.
“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).
But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”
The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.
“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.
“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).
The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.
The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.
Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.
Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.
“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).
But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”
The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.
FROM CIRCULATION RESEARCH
Mislabeled clopidogrel lot recalled, may contain simvastatin
International Laboratories has initiated a voluntary recall to the consumer level in the United States of a single lot of the antiplatelet clopidogrel because it is mislabeled and may contain simvastatin, a cholesterol-lowering drug, instead of clopidogrel.
The recalled product ― lot number 117099A of clopidogrel tablets (USP 75 mg) packaged in bottles of 30 tablets ― may contain clopidogrel 75 mg tablets or it could contain simvastatin tablets (USP 10 mg), according to a company announcement posted on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website.
“Missed doses of clopidogrel increases the risk of heart attack and stroke which can be life threatening. Additionally, unintentional consumption of simvastatin could include the common side effects associated with its use and may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman,” the company cautions.
To date, the company has not received any reports of harm arising from the problem that prompted the recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide and was delivered to distribution centers in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, California, and Maryland and to retail stores in all US states.
International Laboratories is notifying distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for the return of all recalled products.
For questions regarding this recall, contact Inmar by phone 855-258-7280 (weekdays between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM EST) or by email at [email protected].
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch adverse event reporting program.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
International Laboratories has initiated a voluntary recall to the consumer level in the United States of a single lot of the antiplatelet clopidogrel because it is mislabeled and may contain simvastatin, a cholesterol-lowering drug, instead of clopidogrel.
The recalled product ― lot number 117099A of clopidogrel tablets (USP 75 mg) packaged in bottles of 30 tablets ― may contain clopidogrel 75 mg tablets or it could contain simvastatin tablets (USP 10 mg), according to a company announcement posted on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website.
“Missed doses of clopidogrel increases the risk of heart attack and stroke which can be life threatening. Additionally, unintentional consumption of simvastatin could include the common side effects associated with its use and may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman,” the company cautions.
To date, the company has not received any reports of harm arising from the problem that prompted the recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide and was delivered to distribution centers in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, California, and Maryland and to retail stores in all US states.
International Laboratories is notifying distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for the return of all recalled products.
For questions regarding this recall, contact Inmar by phone 855-258-7280 (weekdays between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM EST) or by email at [email protected].
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch adverse event reporting program.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
International Laboratories has initiated a voluntary recall to the consumer level in the United States of a single lot of the antiplatelet clopidogrel because it is mislabeled and may contain simvastatin, a cholesterol-lowering drug, instead of clopidogrel.
The recalled product ― lot number 117099A of clopidogrel tablets (USP 75 mg) packaged in bottles of 30 tablets ― may contain clopidogrel 75 mg tablets or it could contain simvastatin tablets (USP 10 mg), according to a company announcement posted on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website.
“Missed doses of clopidogrel increases the risk of heart attack and stroke which can be life threatening. Additionally, unintentional consumption of simvastatin could include the common side effects associated with its use and may cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman,” the company cautions.
To date, the company has not received any reports of harm arising from the problem that prompted the recall.
The recalled product was distributed nationwide and was delivered to distribution centers in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, California, and Maryland and to retail stores in all US states.
International Laboratories is notifying distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for the return of all recalled products.
For questions regarding this recall, contact Inmar by phone 855-258-7280 (weekdays between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM EST) or by email at [email protected].
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch adverse event reporting program.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PCSK9 inhibitors unexpectedly link with lower VTE, aortic stenosis
Post hoc analyses of recent large, clinical outcomes studies of PCSK9 inhibitors have revealed two tantalizing and unexpected potential benefits from these drugs: an ability to substantially reduce the incidence or severity of venous thromboembolism and aortic stenosis.
The evidence also suggests that these effects are linked to the ability of these drugs to reduce blood levels of Lp(a) lipoprotein by roughly a quarter, currently the biggest known effect on Lp(a) levels of any approved medication.
One study ran post hoc analyses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the FOURIER pivotal trial of evolocumab (Repatha), with more than 27,500 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4; 376[18]:1713-22), and in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES pivotal trial of alirocumab (Praluent), with nearly 19,000 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-2107). The analyses showed that, with evolocumab treatment, the incidence of VTE events fell by a statistically significant 29%, compared with patients on placebo, while in ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients treated with alirocumab had a 33% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo-treated patients, a difference that just missed statistical significance (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046524) in analyses that were not prespecified before these trials started, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said in a presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
A combined analysis of 46,488 patients from both studies showed a 31% cut in VTE events with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment, a highly significant finding using VTE endpoints that were not specifically tallied nor adjudicated but collected as part of the serious adverse event reporting in the two pivotal trials, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. This is the first report of a statistically significant link between treatment with PCSK9-inhibiting agents and a reduction in VTE, he added. Researchers from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial had reported a VTE analysis in 2019, and while data from that trial on its own showed a nominal 33% lower VTE rate with alirocumab treatment, it just missed statistical significance.
The VTE effect took about a year on treatment to start to manifest. During the first 12 months of FOURIER, the rate of VTE events among patients in the two treatment arms was virtually identical. But starting during months 13-18 on treatment, the event curves in the two arms began to increasingly diverge, and overall during the period from month 13 to the end of the study treatment with evolocumab was linked with a statistically significant 46% reduction in VTE events, compared with patients who received placebo. The results Dr. Marston reported were also published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046397).
The suggestion that this association may be linked to the impact of PCSK9 inhibitors on Lp(a) came from an additional analysis that Dr. Marston presented, which looked at the link between evolocumab use and a change in VTE event rates, compared with placebo, depending on baseline lipoprotein levels. Evolocumab treatment was associated with a roughly similar, modest, and not statistically significant reduction in VTE events, compared with placebo regardless of whether patients had baseline levels of LDL cholesterol below the median or at or above the median. In contrast, when a similar analysis divided patients based on whether their Lp(a) level at baseline was below, or at or above, the median the results showed no discernible effect of evolocumab treatment, compared with on VTE events in patients with lower baseline Lp(a), but in those with higher levels treatment with evolocumab linked with a 48% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference.
In FOURIER, treatment with evolocumab lowered baseline Lp(a) levels by a median of 27%, compared with placebo, among the 25,096 enrolled patients who had their baseline levels measured. As previously reported, prespecified analysis of FOURIER data also showed that the impact of evolocumab, compared with placebo, on the combined rate of coronary heart disease death, MI, or need for urgent coronary revascularization was enhanced among patients with elevated baseline Lp(a) and moderated in those who entered with lower levels. Among patients who entered FOURIER with Lp(a) levels at or below the median treatment with evolocumab cut the primary endpoint by 7%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant. Among patients who began the study with Lp(a) levels above the median, evolocumab treatment cut the primary endpoint by 23%, compared with placebo, a statistically significant effect (Circulation. 2019 Mar 19;139[12]:1483-92).
The aortic stenosis connection
A second study reported in the online scientific sessions (Abstract 914-08) used only FOURIER data, and showed that patients treated with evolocumab had a roughly similar response pattern in their incidence of aortic stenosis (AS) events as they did for VTE events.
During the first year of the study, the incidence of AS events was virtually identical among patients treated with evolocumab and those who received placebo. But after the first 12 months and through the study’s end, patients on evolocumab showed a statistically significant 52% relative reduction in AS events, compared with control patients, said Brian A. Bergmark, MD. For the entire study duration, treatment with evolocumab linked with a 34% relative reduction in AS events, compared with placebo, a difference that did not reach statistical significance, added Dr. Bergmark, an interventional cardiologist also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The observed halving in total AS events that linked with evolocumab treatment after the first year of the study included a similar-magnitude reduction specifically in the incidence of aortic valve replacement procedures in the evolocumab-treated patients.
Further analysis of both total AS events and aortic valve replacements in FOURIER patients showed that they occurred at a significantly elevated rate in patients who entered the study with higher baseline Lp(a) levels in a multivariate analysis, but a similar analysis showed no significant association between the incidence of these AS-related events and baseline levels of LDL cholesterol, he said.
The AS analysis carried the same important limitations as the VTE analysis: It ran on a post hoc basis and focused on events that were relatively uncommon and not adjudicated, Dr. Bergmark cautioned. Nonetheless, other investigators saw important potential implications from both the VTE and AS observations, with the huge caveat that they need replication in prospective studies designed to specifically address the validity of these findings.
What it could mean
These observed associations between PCSK9 inhibitor treatment and apparent reductions in the rate of both VTE and AS events “represent a tremendous clinical breakthrough,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is a FOURIER coinvestigator and has led some of the Lp(a) analyses run from that study.
“To date, we have not identified any therapies that slow progression of AS. Other classes of lipid-lowering therapies, such as statins, have been tested and not demonstrated a significant effect,” Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.
“For AS, the results are very intriguing. If confirmed, it could be groundbreaking. AS is the most common valve disease in the developed world, and no medical therapy exists. The potential is immense,” commented George Thanassoulis, MD, director of preventive and genomic cardiology at McGill University, Montreal. “Having a medical treatment that could slow AS progression would completely change the disease. It’s conceivable to slow the disease enough that patients may never require valve replacement.” But an interview he cautioned that, “although the results are exciting, the analysis has many limitations. What we need is a dedicated, randomized trial for AS. I hope this stimulates that.”
“For VTE, it’s an interesting finding, but I don’t think it will have clinical utility because we have good treatment for VTE,” added Dr. Thanassoulis, but others saw more opportunity from what could be a new way to reduce VTE risk.
“Given that many patients have difficulty with the bleeding risk from anticoagulants, this option [a PCSK9 inhibitor] may be quite welcome for preventing VTE,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist and VTE specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who was not involved in any of the PCSK9 inhibitor studies.
“At this time we would not suggest that PCSK9 inhibitors replace an anticoagulant for patients with an established clot or at high risk for a recurrent clot, but if patients have an indication for a PCSK9 inhibitor, the further reduction in venous clot can be viewed as an additional benefit of this therapy,” said Dr. O’Donoghue.
How it might work
A possible mechanism underlying a VTE effect is unclear. Results from the JUPITER trial more than a decade ago had shown a significant association between treatment with 20 mg/day of rosuvastatin and a cut in VTE episodes, compared with placebo, in a prespecified, secondary analysis of the trial with nearly 18,000 patients selected for having a relatively high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360[18]:1851-61). But a meta-analysis of 29 controlled statin trials that used a variety of statin types and dosages (and included the JUPITER results) failed to confirm a statistically significant change in VTE rates from statins, though they produced a small, nominal reduction (PLoS Med. 2012 Sep 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310).
Lp(a) “has long been linked to thrombosis, in particular arterial thrombosis,” so the link observed in the PCSK9 inhibitor trials “is not surprising,” said Dr. Piazza. Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that prior evidence had “suggested a prothrombotic role for Lp(a).”
Dr. Thanassoulis was more skeptical of a Lp(a) connection to VTE. “There has always been controversy regarding the prothrombotic effects of Lp(a) and whether it’s clinically relevant,” he said. “The genetic data, from Mendelian randomization studies, is not consistent” with a Lp(a) and VTE link.
The association of AS and Lp(a) may be stronger. “Our team showed that people with genetic variants that predispose to high Lp(a) have a much higher incidence of AS,” Dr. Thanassoulis noted. “We and others have also demonstrated that both Lp(a) and LDL are likely causal mediators of aortic valve calcification and stenosis.”
Dr. O’Donoghue also cited observational genetic data that linked elevated Lp(a) with AS. “Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated that Lp(a) is a causal contributer to AS, and evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 25%-30%, raising the possibility that Lp(a) lowering with these drugs may be the mechanism,” she said.
The future of Lp(a) lowering
This last point from Dr. O’Donoghue, that PCSK9 inhibitors cut Lp(a) levels by about 25%-30%, means that they are the most potent Lp(a)-lowering agents currently available, but it also leaves lots of room for other agents to do even better in cutting Lp(a).
“There are now drugs in development that block production of the Lp(a) protein and dramatically reduce its concentration, by about 80%,” Dr. O’Donoghue noted. “It will be of interest to study whether these novel therapies, now in phase 2 and phase 3 studies, have any effect on the risk for VTE and AS.”
“Several drugs in development, including antisense RNA and RNA-interfering molecules, are much more potent and lower Lp(a) by 80%-90%. Because of this potency they can completely normalize Lp(a) in most patients. For Lp(a) lowering, the future is in these new molecules. Randomized trials have started, and we will hopefully have some results in about 5 years,” said Dr. Thanassoulis.
Until then, the prospect of possibly soon documenting benefits from PCSK9 inhibitors beyond their impact on cutting LDL cholesterol raises some hope to get more bang for the considerable buck these drugs cost. But Dr. Thanassoulis was skeptical it would move the cost-benefit ratio much. “VTE and AS are relatively rare, compared with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and therefore the added value at the population level would be small,” he predicted. But if treatment with a drug could help patients avoid surgical or percutaneous valve interventions “that could be really interesting from a cost-benefit perspective.”
FOURIER was funded by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that developed and market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Marston had no disclosures. Dr. Bergmark has been a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Quark, and Servier and has received research funding from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, and MedImmune. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen; has been a consultant to Janssen and Novartis; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Thanassoulis has been an adviser to and speaker for Amgen; an adviser to Ionis and Sanofi/Regeneron; a speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received research funding from Ionis and Servier. Dr. Piazza has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex and he has received research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ekos, Janssen, and Portola.
Post hoc analyses of recent large, clinical outcomes studies of PCSK9 inhibitors have revealed two tantalizing and unexpected potential benefits from these drugs: an ability to substantially reduce the incidence or severity of venous thromboembolism and aortic stenosis.
The evidence also suggests that these effects are linked to the ability of these drugs to reduce blood levels of Lp(a) lipoprotein by roughly a quarter, currently the biggest known effect on Lp(a) levels of any approved medication.
One study ran post hoc analyses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the FOURIER pivotal trial of evolocumab (Repatha), with more than 27,500 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4; 376[18]:1713-22), and in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES pivotal trial of alirocumab (Praluent), with nearly 19,000 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-2107). The analyses showed that, with evolocumab treatment, the incidence of VTE events fell by a statistically significant 29%, compared with patients on placebo, while in ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients treated with alirocumab had a 33% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo-treated patients, a difference that just missed statistical significance (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046524) in analyses that were not prespecified before these trials started, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said in a presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
A combined analysis of 46,488 patients from both studies showed a 31% cut in VTE events with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment, a highly significant finding using VTE endpoints that were not specifically tallied nor adjudicated but collected as part of the serious adverse event reporting in the two pivotal trials, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. This is the first report of a statistically significant link between treatment with PCSK9-inhibiting agents and a reduction in VTE, he added. Researchers from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial had reported a VTE analysis in 2019, and while data from that trial on its own showed a nominal 33% lower VTE rate with alirocumab treatment, it just missed statistical significance.
The VTE effect took about a year on treatment to start to manifest. During the first 12 months of FOURIER, the rate of VTE events among patients in the two treatment arms was virtually identical. But starting during months 13-18 on treatment, the event curves in the two arms began to increasingly diverge, and overall during the period from month 13 to the end of the study treatment with evolocumab was linked with a statistically significant 46% reduction in VTE events, compared with patients who received placebo. The results Dr. Marston reported were also published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046397).
The suggestion that this association may be linked to the impact of PCSK9 inhibitors on Lp(a) came from an additional analysis that Dr. Marston presented, which looked at the link between evolocumab use and a change in VTE event rates, compared with placebo, depending on baseline lipoprotein levels. Evolocumab treatment was associated with a roughly similar, modest, and not statistically significant reduction in VTE events, compared with placebo regardless of whether patients had baseline levels of LDL cholesterol below the median or at or above the median. In contrast, when a similar analysis divided patients based on whether their Lp(a) level at baseline was below, or at or above, the median the results showed no discernible effect of evolocumab treatment, compared with on VTE events in patients with lower baseline Lp(a), but in those with higher levels treatment with evolocumab linked with a 48% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference.
In FOURIER, treatment with evolocumab lowered baseline Lp(a) levels by a median of 27%, compared with placebo, among the 25,096 enrolled patients who had their baseline levels measured. As previously reported, prespecified analysis of FOURIER data also showed that the impact of evolocumab, compared with placebo, on the combined rate of coronary heart disease death, MI, or need for urgent coronary revascularization was enhanced among patients with elevated baseline Lp(a) and moderated in those who entered with lower levels. Among patients who entered FOURIER with Lp(a) levels at or below the median treatment with evolocumab cut the primary endpoint by 7%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant. Among patients who began the study with Lp(a) levels above the median, evolocumab treatment cut the primary endpoint by 23%, compared with placebo, a statistically significant effect (Circulation. 2019 Mar 19;139[12]:1483-92).
The aortic stenosis connection
A second study reported in the online scientific sessions (Abstract 914-08) used only FOURIER data, and showed that patients treated with evolocumab had a roughly similar response pattern in their incidence of aortic stenosis (AS) events as they did for VTE events.
During the first year of the study, the incidence of AS events was virtually identical among patients treated with evolocumab and those who received placebo. But after the first 12 months and through the study’s end, patients on evolocumab showed a statistically significant 52% relative reduction in AS events, compared with control patients, said Brian A. Bergmark, MD. For the entire study duration, treatment with evolocumab linked with a 34% relative reduction in AS events, compared with placebo, a difference that did not reach statistical significance, added Dr. Bergmark, an interventional cardiologist also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The observed halving in total AS events that linked with evolocumab treatment after the first year of the study included a similar-magnitude reduction specifically in the incidence of aortic valve replacement procedures in the evolocumab-treated patients.
Further analysis of both total AS events and aortic valve replacements in FOURIER patients showed that they occurred at a significantly elevated rate in patients who entered the study with higher baseline Lp(a) levels in a multivariate analysis, but a similar analysis showed no significant association between the incidence of these AS-related events and baseline levels of LDL cholesterol, he said.
The AS analysis carried the same important limitations as the VTE analysis: It ran on a post hoc basis and focused on events that were relatively uncommon and not adjudicated, Dr. Bergmark cautioned. Nonetheless, other investigators saw important potential implications from both the VTE and AS observations, with the huge caveat that they need replication in prospective studies designed to specifically address the validity of these findings.
What it could mean
These observed associations between PCSK9 inhibitor treatment and apparent reductions in the rate of both VTE and AS events “represent a tremendous clinical breakthrough,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is a FOURIER coinvestigator and has led some of the Lp(a) analyses run from that study.
“To date, we have not identified any therapies that slow progression of AS. Other classes of lipid-lowering therapies, such as statins, have been tested and not demonstrated a significant effect,” Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.
“For AS, the results are very intriguing. If confirmed, it could be groundbreaking. AS is the most common valve disease in the developed world, and no medical therapy exists. The potential is immense,” commented George Thanassoulis, MD, director of preventive and genomic cardiology at McGill University, Montreal. “Having a medical treatment that could slow AS progression would completely change the disease. It’s conceivable to slow the disease enough that patients may never require valve replacement.” But an interview he cautioned that, “although the results are exciting, the analysis has many limitations. What we need is a dedicated, randomized trial for AS. I hope this stimulates that.”
“For VTE, it’s an interesting finding, but I don’t think it will have clinical utility because we have good treatment for VTE,” added Dr. Thanassoulis, but others saw more opportunity from what could be a new way to reduce VTE risk.
“Given that many patients have difficulty with the bleeding risk from anticoagulants, this option [a PCSK9 inhibitor] may be quite welcome for preventing VTE,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist and VTE specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who was not involved in any of the PCSK9 inhibitor studies.
“At this time we would not suggest that PCSK9 inhibitors replace an anticoagulant for patients with an established clot or at high risk for a recurrent clot, but if patients have an indication for a PCSK9 inhibitor, the further reduction in venous clot can be viewed as an additional benefit of this therapy,” said Dr. O’Donoghue.
How it might work
A possible mechanism underlying a VTE effect is unclear. Results from the JUPITER trial more than a decade ago had shown a significant association between treatment with 20 mg/day of rosuvastatin and a cut in VTE episodes, compared with placebo, in a prespecified, secondary analysis of the trial with nearly 18,000 patients selected for having a relatively high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360[18]:1851-61). But a meta-analysis of 29 controlled statin trials that used a variety of statin types and dosages (and included the JUPITER results) failed to confirm a statistically significant change in VTE rates from statins, though they produced a small, nominal reduction (PLoS Med. 2012 Sep 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310).
Lp(a) “has long been linked to thrombosis, in particular arterial thrombosis,” so the link observed in the PCSK9 inhibitor trials “is not surprising,” said Dr. Piazza. Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that prior evidence had “suggested a prothrombotic role for Lp(a).”
Dr. Thanassoulis was more skeptical of a Lp(a) connection to VTE. “There has always been controversy regarding the prothrombotic effects of Lp(a) and whether it’s clinically relevant,” he said. “The genetic data, from Mendelian randomization studies, is not consistent” with a Lp(a) and VTE link.
The association of AS and Lp(a) may be stronger. “Our team showed that people with genetic variants that predispose to high Lp(a) have a much higher incidence of AS,” Dr. Thanassoulis noted. “We and others have also demonstrated that both Lp(a) and LDL are likely causal mediators of aortic valve calcification and stenosis.”
Dr. O’Donoghue also cited observational genetic data that linked elevated Lp(a) with AS. “Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated that Lp(a) is a causal contributer to AS, and evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 25%-30%, raising the possibility that Lp(a) lowering with these drugs may be the mechanism,” she said.
The future of Lp(a) lowering
This last point from Dr. O’Donoghue, that PCSK9 inhibitors cut Lp(a) levels by about 25%-30%, means that they are the most potent Lp(a)-lowering agents currently available, but it also leaves lots of room for other agents to do even better in cutting Lp(a).
“There are now drugs in development that block production of the Lp(a) protein and dramatically reduce its concentration, by about 80%,” Dr. O’Donoghue noted. “It will be of interest to study whether these novel therapies, now in phase 2 and phase 3 studies, have any effect on the risk for VTE and AS.”
“Several drugs in development, including antisense RNA and RNA-interfering molecules, are much more potent and lower Lp(a) by 80%-90%. Because of this potency they can completely normalize Lp(a) in most patients. For Lp(a) lowering, the future is in these new molecules. Randomized trials have started, and we will hopefully have some results in about 5 years,” said Dr. Thanassoulis.
Until then, the prospect of possibly soon documenting benefits from PCSK9 inhibitors beyond their impact on cutting LDL cholesterol raises some hope to get more bang for the considerable buck these drugs cost. But Dr. Thanassoulis was skeptical it would move the cost-benefit ratio much. “VTE and AS are relatively rare, compared with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and therefore the added value at the population level would be small,” he predicted. But if treatment with a drug could help patients avoid surgical or percutaneous valve interventions “that could be really interesting from a cost-benefit perspective.”
FOURIER was funded by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that developed and market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Marston had no disclosures. Dr. Bergmark has been a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Quark, and Servier and has received research funding from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, and MedImmune. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen; has been a consultant to Janssen and Novartis; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Thanassoulis has been an adviser to and speaker for Amgen; an adviser to Ionis and Sanofi/Regeneron; a speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received research funding from Ionis and Servier. Dr. Piazza has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex and he has received research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ekos, Janssen, and Portola.
Post hoc analyses of recent large, clinical outcomes studies of PCSK9 inhibitors have revealed two tantalizing and unexpected potential benefits from these drugs: an ability to substantially reduce the incidence or severity of venous thromboembolism and aortic stenosis.
The evidence also suggests that these effects are linked to the ability of these drugs to reduce blood levels of Lp(a) lipoprotein by roughly a quarter, currently the biggest known effect on Lp(a) levels of any approved medication.
One study ran post hoc analyses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events in the FOURIER pivotal trial of evolocumab (Repatha), with more than 27,500 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4; 376[18]:1713-22), and in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES pivotal trial of alirocumab (Praluent), with nearly 19,000 randomized patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-2107). The analyses showed that, with evolocumab treatment, the incidence of VTE events fell by a statistically significant 29%, compared with patients on placebo, while in ODYSSEY OUTCOMES patients treated with alirocumab had a 33% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo-treated patients, a difference that just missed statistical significance (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046524) in analyses that were not prespecified before these trials started, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said in a presentation of his research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
A combined analysis of 46,488 patients from both studies showed a 31% cut in VTE events with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment, a highly significant finding using VTE endpoints that were not specifically tallied nor adjudicated but collected as part of the serious adverse event reporting in the two pivotal trials, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. This is the first report of a statistically significant link between treatment with PCSK9-inhibiting agents and a reduction in VTE, he added. Researchers from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial had reported a VTE analysis in 2019, and while data from that trial on its own showed a nominal 33% lower VTE rate with alirocumab treatment, it just missed statistical significance.
The VTE effect took about a year on treatment to start to manifest. During the first 12 months of FOURIER, the rate of VTE events among patients in the two treatment arms was virtually identical. But starting during months 13-18 on treatment, the event curves in the two arms began to increasingly diverge, and overall during the period from month 13 to the end of the study treatment with evolocumab was linked with a statistically significant 46% reduction in VTE events, compared with patients who received placebo. The results Dr. Marston reported were also published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046397).
The suggestion that this association may be linked to the impact of PCSK9 inhibitors on Lp(a) came from an additional analysis that Dr. Marston presented, which looked at the link between evolocumab use and a change in VTE event rates, compared with placebo, depending on baseline lipoprotein levels. Evolocumab treatment was associated with a roughly similar, modest, and not statistically significant reduction in VTE events, compared with placebo regardless of whether patients had baseline levels of LDL cholesterol below the median or at or above the median. In contrast, when a similar analysis divided patients based on whether their Lp(a) level at baseline was below, or at or above, the median the results showed no discernible effect of evolocumab treatment, compared with on VTE events in patients with lower baseline Lp(a), but in those with higher levels treatment with evolocumab linked with a 48% cut in VTE events, compared with placebo, a statistically significant difference.
In FOURIER, treatment with evolocumab lowered baseline Lp(a) levels by a median of 27%, compared with placebo, among the 25,096 enrolled patients who had their baseline levels measured. As previously reported, prespecified analysis of FOURIER data also showed that the impact of evolocumab, compared with placebo, on the combined rate of coronary heart disease death, MI, or need for urgent coronary revascularization was enhanced among patients with elevated baseline Lp(a) and moderated in those who entered with lower levels. Among patients who entered FOURIER with Lp(a) levels at or below the median treatment with evolocumab cut the primary endpoint by 7%, compared with placebo, a difference that was not statistically significant. Among patients who began the study with Lp(a) levels above the median, evolocumab treatment cut the primary endpoint by 23%, compared with placebo, a statistically significant effect (Circulation. 2019 Mar 19;139[12]:1483-92).
The aortic stenosis connection
A second study reported in the online scientific sessions (Abstract 914-08) used only FOURIER data, and showed that patients treated with evolocumab had a roughly similar response pattern in their incidence of aortic stenosis (AS) events as they did for VTE events.
During the first year of the study, the incidence of AS events was virtually identical among patients treated with evolocumab and those who received placebo. But after the first 12 months and through the study’s end, patients on evolocumab showed a statistically significant 52% relative reduction in AS events, compared with control patients, said Brian A. Bergmark, MD. For the entire study duration, treatment with evolocumab linked with a 34% relative reduction in AS events, compared with placebo, a difference that did not reach statistical significance, added Dr. Bergmark, an interventional cardiologist also at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The observed halving in total AS events that linked with evolocumab treatment after the first year of the study included a similar-magnitude reduction specifically in the incidence of aortic valve replacement procedures in the evolocumab-treated patients.
Further analysis of both total AS events and aortic valve replacements in FOURIER patients showed that they occurred at a significantly elevated rate in patients who entered the study with higher baseline Lp(a) levels in a multivariate analysis, but a similar analysis showed no significant association between the incidence of these AS-related events and baseline levels of LDL cholesterol, he said.
The AS analysis carried the same important limitations as the VTE analysis: It ran on a post hoc basis and focused on events that were relatively uncommon and not adjudicated, Dr. Bergmark cautioned. Nonetheless, other investigators saw important potential implications from both the VTE and AS observations, with the huge caveat that they need replication in prospective studies designed to specifically address the validity of these findings.
What it could mean
These observed associations between PCSK9 inhibitor treatment and apparent reductions in the rate of both VTE and AS events “represent a tremendous clinical breakthrough,” commented Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is a FOURIER coinvestigator and has led some of the Lp(a) analyses run from that study.
“To date, we have not identified any therapies that slow progression of AS. Other classes of lipid-lowering therapies, such as statins, have been tested and not demonstrated a significant effect,” Dr. O’Donoghue said in an interview.
“For AS, the results are very intriguing. If confirmed, it could be groundbreaking. AS is the most common valve disease in the developed world, and no medical therapy exists. The potential is immense,” commented George Thanassoulis, MD, director of preventive and genomic cardiology at McGill University, Montreal. “Having a medical treatment that could slow AS progression would completely change the disease. It’s conceivable to slow the disease enough that patients may never require valve replacement.” But an interview he cautioned that, “although the results are exciting, the analysis has many limitations. What we need is a dedicated, randomized trial for AS. I hope this stimulates that.”
“For VTE, it’s an interesting finding, but I don’t think it will have clinical utility because we have good treatment for VTE,” added Dr. Thanassoulis, but others saw more opportunity from what could be a new way to reduce VTE risk.
“Given that many patients have difficulty with the bleeding risk from anticoagulants, this option [a PCSK9 inhibitor] may be quite welcome for preventing VTE,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, a cardiologist and VTE specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who was not involved in any of the PCSK9 inhibitor studies.
“At this time we would not suggest that PCSK9 inhibitors replace an anticoagulant for patients with an established clot or at high risk for a recurrent clot, but if patients have an indication for a PCSK9 inhibitor, the further reduction in venous clot can be viewed as an additional benefit of this therapy,” said Dr. O’Donoghue.
How it might work
A possible mechanism underlying a VTE effect is unclear. Results from the JUPITER trial more than a decade ago had shown a significant association between treatment with 20 mg/day of rosuvastatin and a cut in VTE episodes, compared with placebo, in a prespecified, secondary analysis of the trial with nearly 18,000 patients selected for having a relatively high level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360[18]:1851-61). But a meta-analysis of 29 controlled statin trials that used a variety of statin types and dosages (and included the JUPITER results) failed to confirm a statistically significant change in VTE rates from statins, though they produced a small, nominal reduction (PLoS Med. 2012 Sep 18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310).
Lp(a) “has long been linked to thrombosis, in particular arterial thrombosis,” so the link observed in the PCSK9 inhibitor trials “is not surprising,” said Dr. Piazza. Dr. O’Donoghue agreed that prior evidence had “suggested a prothrombotic role for Lp(a).”
Dr. Thanassoulis was more skeptical of a Lp(a) connection to VTE. “There has always been controversy regarding the prothrombotic effects of Lp(a) and whether it’s clinically relevant,” he said. “The genetic data, from Mendelian randomization studies, is not consistent” with a Lp(a) and VTE link.
The association of AS and Lp(a) may be stronger. “Our team showed that people with genetic variants that predispose to high Lp(a) have a much higher incidence of AS,” Dr. Thanassoulis noted. “We and others have also demonstrated that both Lp(a) and LDL are likely causal mediators of aortic valve calcification and stenosis.”
Dr. O’Donoghue also cited observational genetic data that linked elevated Lp(a) with AS. “Mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated that Lp(a) is a causal contributer to AS, and evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 25%-30%, raising the possibility that Lp(a) lowering with these drugs may be the mechanism,” she said.
The future of Lp(a) lowering
This last point from Dr. O’Donoghue, that PCSK9 inhibitors cut Lp(a) levels by about 25%-30%, means that they are the most potent Lp(a)-lowering agents currently available, but it also leaves lots of room for other agents to do even better in cutting Lp(a).
“There are now drugs in development that block production of the Lp(a) protein and dramatically reduce its concentration, by about 80%,” Dr. O’Donoghue noted. “It will be of interest to study whether these novel therapies, now in phase 2 and phase 3 studies, have any effect on the risk for VTE and AS.”
“Several drugs in development, including antisense RNA and RNA-interfering molecules, are much more potent and lower Lp(a) by 80%-90%. Because of this potency they can completely normalize Lp(a) in most patients. For Lp(a) lowering, the future is in these new molecules. Randomized trials have started, and we will hopefully have some results in about 5 years,” said Dr. Thanassoulis.
Until then, the prospect of possibly soon documenting benefits from PCSK9 inhibitors beyond their impact on cutting LDL cholesterol raises some hope to get more bang for the considerable buck these drugs cost. But Dr. Thanassoulis was skeptical it would move the cost-benefit ratio much. “VTE and AS are relatively rare, compared with atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and therefore the added value at the population level would be small,” he predicted. But if treatment with a drug could help patients avoid surgical or percutaneous valve interventions “that could be really interesting from a cost-benefit perspective.”
FOURIER was funded by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). ODYSSEY OUTCOMES was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that developed and market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Marston had no disclosures. Dr. Bergmark has been a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Quark, and Servier and has received research funding from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, and MedImmune. Dr. O’Donoghue has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen; has been a consultant to Janssen and Novartis; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Thanassoulis has been an adviser to and speaker for Amgen; an adviser to Ionis and Sanofi/Regeneron; a speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received research funding from Ionis and Servier. Dr. Piazza has been a consultant to Optum, Pfizer, and Thrombolex and he has received research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Ekos, Janssen, and Portola.
REPORTING FROM ACC 20
TWILIGHT-COMPLEX: Tap ticagrelor monotherapy early after complex PCI
Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.
The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.
In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.
To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings
In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.
The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.
The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
Results are ‘reassuring’
At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.
“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.
“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”
Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.
The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).
SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.
Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.
The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.
In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.
To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings
In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.
The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.
The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
Results are ‘reassuring’
At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.
“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.
“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”
Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.
The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).
SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.
Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.
The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.
“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.
In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.
To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings
In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.
The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.
The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
Results are ‘reassuring’
At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.
“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.
“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”
Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.
The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).
SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.
FROM ACC 2020
