Thrombosis

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.

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.

Courtesy CDC

“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.

[email protected]

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.

Courtesy CDC

“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.

[email protected]

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.

Courtesy CDC

“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.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aortic stenosis connection

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

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

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

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

What it could mean

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

How it might work

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

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

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

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

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

The future of Lp(a) lowering

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aortic stenosis connection

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

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

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

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

What it could mean

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

How it might work

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

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

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

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

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

The future of Lp(a) lowering

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aortic stenosis connection

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

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

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

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

What it could mean

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

How it might work

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

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

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

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

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

The future of Lp(a) lowering

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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.

Early results from the massive National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry indicate that the rollout of the Watchman device into routine clinical practice is going smoothly, with a higher implant success rate and a substantially lower in-hospital complication rate than that seen in the pivotal randomized clinical trials, James V. Freeman, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

American College of Cardiology

These real-world results are particularly impressive because the 38,158 registry participants were on average significantly older and sicker than were patients in the clinical trials. They were at higher risk of both stroke and bleeding, yet they fared better in terms of procedural safety, observed Dr. Freeman, an electrophysiologist and director of the Yale University Atrial Fibrillation Center in New Haven, Conn.

“You always worry that once you get outside of the clinical trials setting and you roll out to a large number of centers, including some that are relatively low volume, that you’re going to start to see higher rates of complications. And overall, broadly speaking, the rates of adverse events were quite reassuring,” he said.

The registry, maintained by the ACC, serves as the postmarketing surveillance tool mandated by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 38,158 participants make this registry the world’s largest patient experience with the Watchman device by many orders of magnitude. Dr. Freeman’s report included patients enrolled during 2016-2018 who were treated at 495 hospitals by 1,318 physician interventionalists. CMS reimbursement requires participation in the registry, which captures more than 95% of all Watchman procedures done in the United States. Although Dr. Freeman presented only the acute in-hospital outcomes, active follow-up for adverse events and medical therapy will be conducted at 45 days, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.

Participants in the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry averaged 76.1 years of age, which is 2-4 years older than patients in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials or the 1,025-patient EWOLUTION registry. The LAAO Registry participants had a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.6, compared with 3.4 in PROTECT-AF and 3.8 in PREVAIL. Their mean HAS BLED score was 3.0. Thirty percent had a prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, 12% had a prior intracranial hemorrhage, and 69% had a history of clinically relevant bleeding. Thirty percent had heart failure, 92% were hypertensive, and 30% had diabetes.

“The take home here is that these patients were at moderate to high risk of stroke and they also carried a high risk of bleeding and therefore had some relative contraindication to anticoagulation,” according to the cardiologist. “The patient population overall is really in accordance with the CMS guidance. We’re not seeing a lot of patients who are getting this device for a lifestyle indication. Most of these patients are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

Most hospitals offering the Watchman did 10-40 cases per year. The median annual physician volume was 12 cases. However, there was substantial variation in both hospital and physician volumes.

The device was deployed in 93% of procedures attempted; roughly half of cancellations were cause by LAAO thrombus detected on the day of the procedure. The acute procedural success rate when the device was deployed was 98.3%, compared with 90.9% in PROTECT-AF and 95.1% in PREVAIL. The rate of device margin residual leak of 5 mm or more among registry participants with an acutely successful procedure was 0.2%.

The rate of any major in-hospital complication in the LAAO Registry was 2.16%, the most common of which was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which occurred in 1.39% of cases. The major bleeding rate was 1.25%. The stroke/transient ischemic attack rate was 0.17%. Systemic arterial embolism was a rare event, occurring in less than 0.01% of patients, as was acute MI, with an incidence of 0.04%. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of patients.

By comparison, the 7-day rate of pericardial effusion requiring intervention was 4.0% in PROTECT-AF and 1.9% in PREVAIL, with procedure-related stroke rates of 1.1% and 0.7%, respectively, and device embolization rates of 0.4% and 0.7%. The major bleeding rate in PROTECT-AF was 3.5%, nearly triple that in the real-world registry.

Discussant Mark A. Estes, MD, characterized the acute outcomes in the LAAO Registry as “an improvement – a considerable improvement – over some of the early data in PREVAIL and PROTECT-AF.” He credited this to the “very robust validation procedure” the Watchman closure device has undergone, which included the clinical trials, regulatory requirements for training and patient selection, and mandatory reporting of outcomes in the registry.

He noted that a lot is happening now with the Watchman device. There are a couple of dozen prospective clinical trials, including one on the Watchman versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and another on left atrial ablation plus left atrial appendage closure versus a DOAC. A new-generation Watchman device, the Watchman FLX, is approved in Europe and undergoing an ongoing FDA-mandated approval trial in the United States.

“It has a lot of technical advantages,” according to Dr. Estes, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

Current guidelines give LAAO a class IIb rating, meaning it “could be considered” in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Dr. Estes asked: Does the LAAO Registry data warrant a rating upgrade to a stronger recommendation?

Dr. Freeman replied that the new data should allay the guideline writers’ and government regulators’ concerns regarding acute procedural safety. But that’s only part of the picture. He and his coinvestigators are busy gathering data on intermediate-term outcomes, analyzing the impact of various strategies for periprocedural and long-term management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications with an eye toward identifying best practices, and investigating the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes, information, which could have an impact on the next iteration of the guidelines.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the study was published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]1503-18).

In an accompanying editorial, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, commented that an important contribution of the LAAO Registry is its inclusion of an enormous number of patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, a population excluded from the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL randomized trials.

The short-term results of the registry suggest a relaxation of the current strict requirement for surgical backup during Watchman procedures is in order, added Dr. Lakkireddy, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and medical director of the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]:1519-22).

Dr. Freeman reported serving as a consultant to Boston Scientific, which markets the Watchman, as well as to Medtronic, Janssen, and Biosense Webster.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Freeman JF. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-10.

Early results from the massive National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry indicate that the rollout of the Watchman device into routine clinical practice is going smoothly, with a higher implant success rate and a substantially lower in-hospital complication rate than that seen in the pivotal randomized clinical trials, James V. Freeman, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

American College of Cardiology

These real-world results are particularly impressive because the 38,158 registry participants were on average significantly older and sicker than were patients in the clinical trials. They were at higher risk of both stroke and bleeding, yet they fared better in terms of procedural safety, observed Dr. Freeman, an electrophysiologist and director of the Yale University Atrial Fibrillation Center in New Haven, Conn.

“You always worry that once you get outside of the clinical trials setting and you roll out to a large number of centers, including some that are relatively low volume, that you’re going to start to see higher rates of complications. And overall, broadly speaking, the rates of adverse events were quite reassuring,” he said.

The registry, maintained by the ACC, serves as the postmarketing surveillance tool mandated by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 38,158 participants make this registry the world’s largest patient experience with the Watchman device by many orders of magnitude. Dr. Freeman’s report included patients enrolled during 2016-2018 who were treated at 495 hospitals by 1,318 physician interventionalists. CMS reimbursement requires participation in the registry, which captures more than 95% of all Watchman procedures done in the United States. Although Dr. Freeman presented only the acute in-hospital outcomes, active follow-up for adverse events and medical therapy will be conducted at 45 days, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.

Participants in the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry averaged 76.1 years of age, which is 2-4 years older than patients in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials or the 1,025-patient EWOLUTION registry. The LAAO Registry participants had a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.6, compared with 3.4 in PROTECT-AF and 3.8 in PREVAIL. Their mean HAS BLED score was 3.0. Thirty percent had a prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, 12% had a prior intracranial hemorrhage, and 69% had a history of clinically relevant bleeding. Thirty percent had heart failure, 92% were hypertensive, and 30% had diabetes.

“The take home here is that these patients were at moderate to high risk of stroke and they also carried a high risk of bleeding and therefore had some relative contraindication to anticoagulation,” according to the cardiologist. “The patient population overall is really in accordance with the CMS guidance. We’re not seeing a lot of patients who are getting this device for a lifestyle indication. Most of these patients are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

Most hospitals offering the Watchman did 10-40 cases per year. The median annual physician volume was 12 cases. However, there was substantial variation in both hospital and physician volumes.

The device was deployed in 93% of procedures attempted; roughly half of cancellations were cause by LAAO thrombus detected on the day of the procedure. The acute procedural success rate when the device was deployed was 98.3%, compared with 90.9% in PROTECT-AF and 95.1% in PREVAIL. The rate of device margin residual leak of 5 mm or more among registry participants with an acutely successful procedure was 0.2%.

The rate of any major in-hospital complication in the LAAO Registry was 2.16%, the most common of which was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which occurred in 1.39% of cases. The major bleeding rate was 1.25%. The stroke/transient ischemic attack rate was 0.17%. Systemic arterial embolism was a rare event, occurring in less than 0.01% of patients, as was acute MI, with an incidence of 0.04%. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of patients.

By comparison, the 7-day rate of pericardial effusion requiring intervention was 4.0% in PROTECT-AF and 1.9% in PREVAIL, with procedure-related stroke rates of 1.1% and 0.7%, respectively, and device embolization rates of 0.4% and 0.7%. The major bleeding rate in PROTECT-AF was 3.5%, nearly triple that in the real-world registry.

Discussant Mark A. Estes, MD, characterized the acute outcomes in the LAAO Registry as “an improvement – a considerable improvement – over some of the early data in PREVAIL and PROTECT-AF.” He credited this to the “very robust validation procedure” the Watchman closure device has undergone, which included the clinical trials, regulatory requirements for training and patient selection, and mandatory reporting of outcomes in the registry.

He noted that a lot is happening now with the Watchman device. There are a couple of dozen prospective clinical trials, including one on the Watchman versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and another on left atrial ablation plus left atrial appendage closure versus a DOAC. A new-generation Watchman device, the Watchman FLX, is approved in Europe and undergoing an ongoing FDA-mandated approval trial in the United States.

“It has a lot of technical advantages,” according to Dr. Estes, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

Current guidelines give LAAO a class IIb rating, meaning it “could be considered” in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Dr. Estes asked: Does the LAAO Registry data warrant a rating upgrade to a stronger recommendation?

Dr. Freeman replied that the new data should allay the guideline writers’ and government regulators’ concerns regarding acute procedural safety. But that’s only part of the picture. He and his coinvestigators are busy gathering data on intermediate-term outcomes, analyzing the impact of various strategies for periprocedural and long-term management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications with an eye toward identifying best practices, and investigating the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes, information, which could have an impact on the next iteration of the guidelines.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the study was published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]1503-18).

In an accompanying editorial, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, commented that an important contribution of the LAAO Registry is its inclusion of an enormous number of patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, a population excluded from the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL randomized trials.

The short-term results of the registry suggest a relaxation of the current strict requirement for surgical backup during Watchman procedures is in order, added Dr. Lakkireddy, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and medical director of the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]:1519-22).

Dr. Freeman reported serving as a consultant to Boston Scientific, which markets the Watchman, as well as to Medtronic, Janssen, and Biosense Webster.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Freeman JF. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-10.

Early results from the massive National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry indicate that the rollout of the Watchman device into routine clinical practice is going smoothly, with a higher implant success rate and a substantially lower in-hospital complication rate than that seen in the pivotal randomized clinical trials, James V. Freeman, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

American College of Cardiology

These real-world results are particularly impressive because the 38,158 registry participants were on average significantly older and sicker than were patients in the clinical trials. They were at higher risk of both stroke and bleeding, yet they fared better in terms of procedural safety, observed Dr. Freeman, an electrophysiologist and director of the Yale University Atrial Fibrillation Center in New Haven, Conn.

“You always worry that once you get outside of the clinical trials setting and you roll out to a large number of centers, including some that are relatively low volume, that you’re going to start to see higher rates of complications. And overall, broadly speaking, the rates of adverse events were quite reassuring,” he said.

The registry, maintained by the ACC, serves as the postmarketing surveillance tool mandated by the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 38,158 participants make this registry the world’s largest patient experience with the Watchman device by many orders of magnitude. Dr. Freeman’s report included patients enrolled during 2016-2018 who were treated at 495 hospitals by 1,318 physician interventionalists. CMS reimbursement requires participation in the registry, which captures more than 95% of all Watchman procedures done in the United States. Although Dr. Freeman presented only the acute in-hospital outcomes, active follow-up for adverse events and medical therapy will be conducted at 45 days, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.

Participants in the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry averaged 76.1 years of age, which is 2-4 years older than patients in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials or the 1,025-patient EWOLUTION registry. The LAAO Registry participants had a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.6, compared with 3.4 in PROTECT-AF and 3.8 in PREVAIL. Their mean HAS BLED score was 3.0. Thirty percent had a prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, 12% had a prior intracranial hemorrhage, and 69% had a history of clinically relevant bleeding. Thirty percent had heart failure, 92% were hypertensive, and 30% had diabetes.

“The take home here is that these patients were at moderate to high risk of stroke and they also carried a high risk of bleeding and therefore had some relative contraindication to anticoagulation,” according to the cardiologist. “The patient population overall is really in accordance with the CMS guidance. We’re not seeing a lot of patients who are getting this device for a lifestyle indication. Most of these patients are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

Most hospitals offering the Watchman did 10-40 cases per year. The median annual physician volume was 12 cases. However, there was substantial variation in both hospital and physician volumes.

The device was deployed in 93% of procedures attempted; roughly half of cancellations were cause by LAAO thrombus detected on the day of the procedure. The acute procedural success rate when the device was deployed was 98.3%, compared with 90.9% in PROTECT-AF and 95.1% in PREVAIL. The rate of device margin residual leak of 5 mm or more among registry participants with an acutely successful procedure was 0.2%.

The rate of any major in-hospital complication in the LAAO Registry was 2.16%, the most common of which was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which occurred in 1.39% of cases. The major bleeding rate was 1.25%. The stroke/transient ischemic attack rate was 0.17%. Systemic arterial embolism was a rare event, occurring in less than 0.01% of patients, as was acute MI, with an incidence of 0.04%. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of patients.

By comparison, the 7-day rate of pericardial effusion requiring intervention was 4.0% in PROTECT-AF and 1.9% in PREVAIL, with procedure-related stroke rates of 1.1% and 0.7%, respectively, and device embolization rates of 0.4% and 0.7%. The major bleeding rate in PROTECT-AF was 3.5%, nearly triple that in the real-world registry.

Discussant Mark A. Estes, MD, characterized the acute outcomes in the LAAO Registry as “an improvement – a considerable improvement – over some of the early data in PREVAIL and PROTECT-AF.” He credited this to the “very robust validation procedure” the Watchman closure device has undergone, which included the clinical trials, regulatory requirements for training and patient selection, and mandatory reporting of outcomes in the registry.

He noted that a lot is happening now with the Watchman device. There are a couple of dozen prospective clinical trials, including one on the Watchman versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and another on left atrial ablation plus left atrial appendage closure versus a DOAC. A new-generation Watchman device, the Watchman FLX, is approved in Europe and undergoing an ongoing FDA-mandated approval trial in the United States.

“It has a lot of technical advantages,” according to Dr. Estes, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

Current guidelines give LAAO a class IIb rating, meaning it “could be considered” in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke who have a contraindication to long-term anticoagulation. Dr. Estes asked: Does the LAAO Registry data warrant a rating upgrade to a stronger recommendation?

Dr. Freeman replied that the new data should allay the guideline writers’ and government regulators’ concerns regarding acute procedural safety. But that’s only part of the picture. He and his coinvestigators are busy gathering data on intermediate-term outcomes, analyzing the impact of various strategies for periprocedural and long-term management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications with an eye toward identifying best practices, and investigating the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes, information, which could have an impact on the next iteration of the guidelines.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the study was published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]1503-18).

In an accompanying editorial, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, commented that an important contribution of the LAAO Registry is its inclusion of an enormous number of patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation, a population excluded from the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL randomized trials.

The short-term results of the registry suggest a relaxation of the current strict requirement for surgical backup during Watchman procedures is in order, added Dr. Lakkireddy, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and medical director of the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13;75[13]:1519-22).

Dr. Freeman reported serving as a consultant to Boston Scientific, which markets the Watchman, as well as to Medtronic, Janssen, and Biosense Webster.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Freeman JF. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?

It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.

The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.

Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).

The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.

“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”

The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.

GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.

The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.

But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.

To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.

The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.

“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”

It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”

An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.

Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”

Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.

“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.

The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”

Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”

Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.

“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.

The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.

All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).

The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).

There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.

The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.

“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.

“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”

Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.

“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.

Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?

It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.

The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.

Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).

The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.

“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”

The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.

GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.

The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.

But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.

To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.

The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.

“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”

It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”

An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.

Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”

Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.

“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.

The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”

Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”

Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.

“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.

The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.

All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).

The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).

There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.

The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.

“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.

“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”

Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.

“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.

Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The guidelines allow for the addition of short-term clopidogrel to an oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with an established OAC indication, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But does the extra antithrombotic protection come with safety issues?

It apparently did in the POPULAR-TAVI trial, which saw an excess of major and minor bleeding in such patients already on an OAC when they underwent TAVR and who then took the antiplatelet agent for the next 3 months.

The patients who instead continued on their OAC as the only post-TAVR antithrombotic, compared with those on double therapy, showed a 37% lower 1-year risk of any bleeding, including major and disabling bleeding.

Importantly, they didn’t seem to pay a price in excess ischemic events, such as stroke or myocardial infarction (MI).

The trial argues against adding clopidogrel on top of OAC in TAVR patients with an OAC indication in order to reduce their risk of bleeding, Jurriën ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Whether the ischemic event risk was comparable with and without clopidogrel is less clear. “As the study is not powered for the ischemic end points, the answer is less definite. But we did not see a hint of a higher ischemic event rate, especially stroke, in the OAC-alone group,” ten Berg said.

“So we are pretty confident in saying that OAC alone is the optimal treatment.”

The results of POPULAR-TAVI were presented by Vincent Nijenhuis, MD, also from St. Antonius Hospital, on March 29 during the virtual presentation of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session/World Congress of Cardiology. Nijenhuis is also first author on the trial’s simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The only reason to add an antiplatelet in TAVR patients who need to be on an OAC for another indication is to prevent ischemic events like MI, stroke, or death, agreed George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

But that protection apparently wasn’t needed; for patients on OAC only, “the overall risk–benefit ratio was favorable for them both ways. Although the study is small, I think the findings would be clinically meaningful,” said Dangas, who was not involved in POPULAR-TAVI but was lead author on the GALILEO trial publication.

GALILEO tested a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) against dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing TAVR but without a conventional OAC indication. The trial was halted because the DOAC group started to show an excess of bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality.

Most POPULAR-TAVI patients were on vitamin K antagonists, but about a quarter were taking DOACs. Clopidogrel was given on an open-label basis.

The trial suggests that, for TAVR patients with an indication for lifelong OAC, “it does appear to be safe to give only an anticoagulant, whether it’s warfarin or a DOAC, and not add clopidogrel,” Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“The bottom line appears to be that it’s no worse, and is probably better in terms of bleeding events,” said Bonow, who wasn’t involved in POPULAR-TAVI.

But there are difficulties in interpreting the trial that stem from its design and other issues, he said. For example, it can’t really be concluded that adding an antiplatelet agent to OAC in such patients who undergo TAVR, according to commonly practiced techniques, will increase the risk of bleeding compared with OAC alone.

To begin with, Bonow said, substituting aspirin for clopidogrel might have produced better double-therapy results. But the bigger issues, Bonow said, center on the discretion its operators had in whether to maintain or suspend the patients’ OAC during the TAVR procedure, as well as the unusual bleeding definitions used in the trial.

The first POPULAR-TAVI primary end point was any bleeding that met Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) criteria; the second was nonprocedural bleeding that met the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition.

“Because the VARC-2 classification does not distinguish between procedure-related and nonprocedure-related bleeding events, procedure-related events were defined as BARC type 4 severe bleeding,” the trial’s journal report states. Therefore, “most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as nonprocedure-related.”

It may be Bonow’s biggest issue with the trial, he said. “They’re terming these events that occurred periprocedurally, in the first day or first hours of the procedure, as being ‘nonprocedural’ because they didn’t represent severe BARC bleeding, where you have a subarachnoid hemorrhage or require transfusions.”

An editorial accompanying the trial report also knocks this aspect of the trial design. Although the trial “confirmed” a higher incidence of any bleeding in the double-therapy group, “there are concerns regarding the classification of bleeding and the reliability of secondary outcome analysis,” writes Frederick Feit, MD, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Bleeding occurring during TAVI or the index hospitalization was unadvisedly defined as non-procedure related, even if it occurred at the access site,” the editorial notes.

Ten Berg noted that procedural bleeding is frequent in TAVI, but the VARC-2 definition doesn’t accommodate them. So “we also used the BARC definition for procedural bleeding, BARC-4,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“However, BARC-4 describes bleeding during surgery, and it turned out that in POPULAR- TAVI only one patient had BARC-4 bleeding. So we do not at all agree with the editorial.”

Still, the trial’s reported event-rate curves show that “most of the step-up in bleeding, in either arm of the trial, occurred immediately,” Bonow observed. A more consistent, flat trend followed thereafter out to 3 months.

“So half of the bleeding in both arms of the trial occurred at the site of the arterial puncture. Though it wasn’t considered severe, it was indeed periprocedural,” Bonow said, interpreting the results.

The POPULAR-TAVI journal report says the procedures were performed according to local site protocols, and site physicians were allowed to decide whether to continue or suspend OAC. But “the trial protocol advised physicians to continue oral anticoagulation during admission for the TAVI procedure.”

Many of the patients, regardless of randomization group, “went through the procedure under full anticoagulation,” Dangas agreed. POPULAR-TAVI, it seems, “is the first anticoagulation study ever to start anticoagulation before the procedure.”

Bleeding event rates in the trial “are somewhat high because of this unusual procedural feature of the study,” Dangas said.

“It’s therefore not surprising that so much of the bleeding occurred in the first hours of the procedure itself,” observed Bonow.

The trial enrolled 313 patients in four European countries who were on OAC for an approved indication, predominantly AF, and underwent TAVR. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 45.4% were women. They were randomly assigned to receive or not receive clopidogrel in a loading dose, followed by 75 mg/d on top of their OAC for 3 months, and were followed out to a year.

All bleeding that met VARC-2 criteria, the first primary end point, occurred in 21.7% of the 157 patients on OAC alone and 34.6% of the 156 who received double therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43 - 0.90; P = .011).

The second primary end point, “nonprocedural” bleeding that met BARC-4 criteria, occurred in 21.7% and 34.0%, respectively, of patients (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 - 0.92; P = .015).

There were also two secondary composite outcomes. The first consisted of nonprocedural bleeding, cardiovascular (CV) death, any stroke, and MI, and was seen in 31.2% of patients on OAC alone and 45.5% of those on OAC plus clopidogrel (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 - 0.92), an absolute difference that was within the prospectively defined noninferiority margins.

The other secondary end point — CV death, ischemic stroke, and MI — occurred in 13.4% of those receiving only OAC and 17.3% on added clopidogrel (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 - 1.31), which was nonsignificant for superiority.

“Could they have done better by holding the anticoagulation, whether warfarin or a DOAC, during that time? That’s what I think many centers might do if they’re performing a TAVR,” Bonow said.

“It seems to me that could have been done in this trial as well: they could have stopped the anticoagulation, done the procedure, and started the anticoagulation after, the way you would normally in a patient getting a TAVR.”

Such a practice might have reduced the risk of procedural bleeding as it is usually defined in TAVR in both groups, thereby potentially blunting any difference in bleeding rate between the two groups.

“That’s my take on it.” Still, he said, the trial’s message remains: OAC without clopidogrel is safe in POPULAR-TAVI-like patients.

Nijenhuis had no disclosures. Ten Berg disclosed no industry ties. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Bonow has previously reported no disclosures. Dangas has previously disclosed receiving grants and fees from Bayer, fees from Janssen; grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo; and other compensation from Medtronic. Feit discloses personal fees from Abbott Vascular and other relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Sapheon.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest trial to date investigating the clinical utility of using genetic testing to detect clopidogrel loss-of-function genotype to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) missed its primary endpoint of a 50% reduction in cardiovascular events at 1 year.

However, the TAILOR-PCI trial did show a 34% reduction in such events at 1 year, as well as a statistically significant 40% reduction in the total number of events per patient receiving genetically guided treatment compared with patients who received standard treatment.

In addition, a post hoc analysis found a significant 79% reduction in the rate of adverse events in the first 3 months of treatment among patients who received genetically guided therapy compared with those who did not.

The study was presented March 28 during the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

“Although these results fell short of the effect size that we predicted, they nevertheless provide a signal that offers support for the benefit of genetically guided therapy, with approximately one-third fewer adverse events in the patients who received genetically guided treatment compared with those who did not,” concluded Naveen L. Pereira, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and co-principal investigator of the study.

Pereira said the post hoc analysis of the first 3 months of treatment was particularly interesting. “This period immediately after PCI is when patients are at the highest risk for adverse events. We now know that antiplatelet drug therapy is critical during the first 3 months after PCI. Our findings suggest that the lion’s share of the benefit of genetically guided therapy may occur during this high-risk period,” he noted.

However, he added, “Because this wasn’t a preplanned analysis, we can’t draw firm conclusions from it, but it merits further study.”

Asked during an ACC virtual press conference how these results may influence clinical practice, Pereira said he hopes it changes practice toward genotyping.

“We set a very high standard in trying to achieve a 50% reduction in events, but we did see a 34% reduction. I think the probability of the results being true is very high,” he said. “I hope people pay attention to that. I’m not sure what the guidelines will do, but I believe if clopidogrel genetic information is made available to the physician, not changing therapy in a patient who has the loss-of-function gene will now be very difficult.”

Discussant of the trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, said she thought the results were good enough clinically to justify using genotyping to guide therapy.

“The trial showed an absolute 1.8% reduction and a relative 34% reduction in cardiovascular events, which did not quite meet the P value for significance, and they are supported by a significant reduction in multiple events, and a large difference at 3 months, although these are not primary analyses. So, for me this trial has shown that tailoring antiplatelet therapy by genetic testing is beneficial,” she said.

Another outside commentator, Patrick O’Gara, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, described TAILOR-PCI as a “terrific study.”

“Together with the study presented last year showing genotype-guided clopidogrel treatment was noninferior to ticagrelor/prasugrel in STEMI [non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction] patients, it chips away at the biologic appropriateness of targeting therapies based on genetic risk,” he said.

“I would hate people to focus on the fact the primary endpoint was missed by one hundredth of a percentage point but hope they would rather consider the bigger picture of making this genotype test more available and accessible to inform clinical decision making,” O’Gara added. “It just makes too much sense to ignore this potential.”

The TAILOR-PCI trial enrolled 5302 patients from 40 centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea who had undergone PCI with stenting. They were randomly assigned to genetic testing for the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant or a group that received standard treatment (clopidogrel) without genetic testing.

In the genetic testing group, 35% of patients were found to have the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant and were therefore prescribed ticagrelor, whereas those without the loss-of-function variant received clopidogrel.

After 1 year, the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia, occurred in 35 patients (4%) of the group that received genetically guided treatment, compared with 54 (5.9%) in the conventionally treated group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 - 1.02; P = .56).

A prespecified analysis of total events (rather than just analysis of first event per patient) showed a 40% reduction in the genotyped group (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 - 0.89; P = .011).

“Multiple adverse events represent a higher burden on the patient, so it is encouraging to see a significant reduction in cumulative events with genetically guided therapy,” Pereira said.

There was no difference in the safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding or minor bleeding between the two groups: 1.9% in the genetically guided group vs 1.6% in the conventional treatment group.

The results did not differ between various subgroups in the trial, including race or ethnicity. Although Asian patients have a higher occurrence of the clopidogrel loss-of-function gene, the event risk reductions were similar in Asian and white patients in the study.

Pereira said the study may have been underpowered because of recent improvements in care. When the TAILOR-PCI trial was designed in 2012, around 10% to 12% of patients who received a stent could be expected to have a major adverse event, but during the trial, greater use of drug-coated stents and other treatments significantly reduced the expected rate of adverse events and made it more difficult for the trial to reach its goal of a 50% reduction in adverse events with the number of patients enrolled, he explained.

As part of the discussion, Mehran pointed out that more than 80% of the patients in the trial had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and yet were being sent home on clopidogrel, which she said she found “daunting.”

“This begs the question of whether they were lower-risk patients and not really the hot unstable ACS patients with large thrombus burden where we see higher event rates,” Mehran commented. She also noted the results must be considered in the new era of platelet monotherapy, where aspirin is being withdrawn, and asked whether clopidogrel monotherapy would be considered safe without aspirin on board.

The researchers are planning a cost-effectiveness analysis of genetically guided therapy based on these data, and they are also continuing to follow patients over the longer term.

The TAILOR-PCI study was funded by the Mayo Clinic in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Spartan Bioscience Inc supplied the genetic tests used. Pereira reports no relevant disclosures.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology. Abstract 20-LB-20309-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest trial to date investigating the clinical utility of using genetic testing to detect clopidogrel loss-of-function genotype to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) missed its primary endpoint of a 50% reduction in cardiovascular events at 1 year.

However, the TAILOR-PCI trial did show a 34% reduction in such events at 1 year, as well as a statistically significant 40% reduction in the total number of events per patient receiving genetically guided treatment compared with patients who received standard treatment.

In addition, a post hoc analysis found a significant 79% reduction in the rate of adverse events in the first 3 months of treatment among patients who received genetically guided therapy compared with those who did not.

The study was presented March 28 during the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

“Although these results fell short of the effect size that we predicted, they nevertheless provide a signal that offers support for the benefit of genetically guided therapy, with approximately one-third fewer adverse events in the patients who received genetically guided treatment compared with those who did not,” concluded Naveen L. Pereira, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and co-principal investigator of the study.

Pereira said the post hoc analysis of the first 3 months of treatment was particularly interesting. “This period immediately after PCI is when patients are at the highest risk for adverse events. We now know that antiplatelet drug therapy is critical during the first 3 months after PCI. Our findings suggest that the lion’s share of the benefit of genetically guided therapy may occur during this high-risk period,” he noted.

However, he added, “Because this wasn’t a preplanned analysis, we can’t draw firm conclusions from it, but it merits further study.”

Asked during an ACC virtual press conference how these results may influence clinical practice, Pereira said he hopes it changes practice toward genotyping.

“We set a very high standard in trying to achieve a 50% reduction in events, but we did see a 34% reduction. I think the probability of the results being true is very high,” he said. “I hope people pay attention to that. I’m not sure what the guidelines will do, but I believe if clopidogrel genetic information is made available to the physician, not changing therapy in a patient who has the loss-of-function gene will now be very difficult.”

Discussant of the trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, said she thought the results were good enough clinically to justify using genotyping to guide therapy.

“The trial showed an absolute 1.8% reduction and a relative 34% reduction in cardiovascular events, which did not quite meet the P value for significance, and they are supported by a significant reduction in multiple events, and a large difference at 3 months, although these are not primary analyses. So, for me this trial has shown that tailoring antiplatelet therapy by genetic testing is beneficial,” she said.

Another outside commentator, Patrick O’Gara, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, described TAILOR-PCI as a “terrific study.”

“Together with the study presented last year showing genotype-guided clopidogrel treatment was noninferior to ticagrelor/prasugrel in STEMI [non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction] patients, it chips away at the biologic appropriateness of targeting therapies based on genetic risk,” he said.

“I would hate people to focus on the fact the primary endpoint was missed by one hundredth of a percentage point but hope they would rather consider the bigger picture of making this genotype test more available and accessible to inform clinical decision making,” O’Gara added. “It just makes too much sense to ignore this potential.”

The TAILOR-PCI trial enrolled 5302 patients from 40 centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea who had undergone PCI with stenting. They were randomly assigned to genetic testing for the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant or a group that received standard treatment (clopidogrel) without genetic testing.

In the genetic testing group, 35% of patients were found to have the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant and were therefore prescribed ticagrelor, whereas those without the loss-of-function variant received clopidogrel.

After 1 year, the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia, occurred in 35 patients (4%) of the group that received genetically guided treatment, compared with 54 (5.9%) in the conventionally treated group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 - 1.02; P = .56).

A prespecified analysis of total events (rather than just analysis of first event per patient) showed a 40% reduction in the genotyped group (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 - 0.89; P = .011).

“Multiple adverse events represent a higher burden on the patient, so it is encouraging to see a significant reduction in cumulative events with genetically guided therapy,” Pereira said.

There was no difference in the safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding or minor bleeding between the two groups: 1.9% in the genetically guided group vs 1.6% in the conventional treatment group.

The results did not differ between various subgroups in the trial, including race or ethnicity. Although Asian patients have a higher occurrence of the clopidogrel loss-of-function gene, the event risk reductions were similar in Asian and white patients in the study.

Pereira said the study may have been underpowered because of recent improvements in care. When the TAILOR-PCI trial was designed in 2012, around 10% to 12% of patients who received a stent could be expected to have a major adverse event, but during the trial, greater use of drug-coated stents and other treatments significantly reduced the expected rate of adverse events and made it more difficult for the trial to reach its goal of a 50% reduction in adverse events with the number of patients enrolled, he explained.

As part of the discussion, Mehran pointed out that more than 80% of the patients in the trial had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and yet were being sent home on clopidogrel, which she said she found “daunting.”

“This begs the question of whether they were lower-risk patients and not really the hot unstable ACS patients with large thrombus burden where we see higher event rates,” Mehran commented. She also noted the results must be considered in the new era of platelet monotherapy, where aspirin is being withdrawn, and asked whether clopidogrel monotherapy would be considered safe without aspirin on board.

The researchers are planning a cost-effectiveness analysis of genetically guided therapy based on these data, and they are also continuing to follow patients over the longer term.

The TAILOR-PCI study was funded by the Mayo Clinic in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Spartan Bioscience Inc supplied the genetic tests used. Pereira reports no relevant disclosures.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology. Abstract 20-LB-20309-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest trial to date investigating the clinical utility of using genetic testing to detect clopidogrel loss-of-function genotype to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) missed its primary endpoint of a 50% reduction in cardiovascular events at 1 year.

However, the TAILOR-PCI trial did show a 34% reduction in such events at 1 year, as well as a statistically significant 40% reduction in the total number of events per patient receiving genetically guided treatment compared with patients who received standard treatment.

In addition, a post hoc analysis found a significant 79% reduction in the rate of adverse events in the first 3 months of treatment among patients who received genetically guided therapy compared with those who did not.

The study was presented March 28 during the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

“Although these results fell short of the effect size that we predicted, they nevertheless provide a signal that offers support for the benefit of genetically guided therapy, with approximately one-third fewer adverse events in the patients who received genetically guided treatment compared with those who did not,” concluded Naveen L. Pereira, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and co-principal investigator of the study.

Pereira said the post hoc analysis of the first 3 months of treatment was particularly interesting. “This period immediately after PCI is when patients are at the highest risk for adverse events. We now know that antiplatelet drug therapy is critical during the first 3 months after PCI. Our findings suggest that the lion’s share of the benefit of genetically guided therapy may occur during this high-risk period,” he noted.

However, he added, “Because this wasn’t a preplanned analysis, we can’t draw firm conclusions from it, but it merits further study.”

Asked during an ACC virtual press conference how these results may influence clinical practice, Pereira said he hopes it changes practice toward genotyping.

“We set a very high standard in trying to achieve a 50% reduction in events, but we did see a 34% reduction. I think the probability of the results being true is very high,” he said. “I hope people pay attention to that. I’m not sure what the guidelines will do, but I believe if clopidogrel genetic information is made available to the physician, not changing therapy in a patient who has the loss-of-function gene will now be very difficult.”

Discussant of the trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, said she thought the results were good enough clinically to justify using genotyping to guide therapy.

“The trial showed an absolute 1.8% reduction and a relative 34% reduction in cardiovascular events, which did not quite meet the P value for significance, and they are supported by a significant reduction in multiple events, and a large difference at 3 months, although these are not primary analyses. So, for me this trial has shown that tailoring antiplatelet therapy by genetic testing is beneficial,” she said.

Another outside commentator, Patrick O’Gara, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, described TAILOR-PCI as a “terrific study.”

“Together with the study presented last year showing genotype-guided clopidogrel treatment was noninferior to ticagrelor/prasugrel in STEMI [non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction] patients, it chips away at the biologic appropriateness of targeting therapies based on genetic risk,” he said.

“I would hate people to focus on the fact the primary endpoint was missed by one hundredth of a percentage point but hope they would rather consider the bigger picture of making this genotype test more available and accessible to inform clinical decision making,” O’Gara added. “It just makes too much sense to ignore this potential.”

The TAILOR-PCI trial enrolled 5302 patients from 40 centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea who had undergone PCI with stenting. They were randomly assigned to genetic testing for the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant or a group that received standard treatment (clopidogrel) without genetic testing.

In the genetic testing group, 35% of patients were found to have the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant and were therefore prescribed ticagrelor, whereas those without the loss-of-function variant received clopidogrel.

After 1 year, the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia, occurred in 35 patients (4%) of the group that received genetically guided treatment, compared with 54 (5.9%) in the conventionally treated group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 - 1.02; P = .56).

A prespecified analysis of total events (rather than just analysis of first event per patient) showed a 40% reduction in the genotyped group (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 - 0.89; P = .011).

“Multiple adverse events represent a higher burden on the patient, so it is encouraging to see a significant reduction in cumulative events with genetically guided therapy,” Pereira said.

There was no difference in the safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding or minor bleeding between the two groups: 1.9% in the genetically guided group vs 1.6% in the conventional treatment group.

The results did not differ between various subgroups in the trial, including race or ethnicity. Although Asian patients have a higher occurrence of the clopidogrel loss-of-function gene, the event risk reductions were similar in Asian and white patients in the study.

Pereira said the study may have been underpowered because of recent improvements in care. When the TAILOR-PCI trial was designed in 2012, around 10% to 12% of patients who received a stent could be expected to have a major adverse event, but during the trial, greater use of drug-coated stents and other treatments significantly reduced the expected rate of adverse events and made it more difficult for the trial to reach its goal of a 50% reduction in adverse events with the number of patients enrolled, he explained.

As part of the discussion, Mehran pointed out that more than 80% of the patients in the trial had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and yet were being sent home on clopidogrel, which she said she found “daunting.”

“This begs the question of whether they were lower-risk patients and not really the hot unstable ACS patients with large thrombus burden where we see higher event rates,” Mehran commented. She also noted the results must be considered in the new era of platelet monotherapy, where aspirin is being withdrawn, and asked whether clopidogrel monotherapy would be considered safe without aspirin on board.

The researchers are planning a cost-effectiveness analysis of genetically guided therapy based on these data, and they are also continuing to follow patients over the longer term.

The TAILOR-PCI study was funded by the Mayo Clinic in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Spartan Bioscience Inc supplied the genetic tests used. Pereira reports no relevant disclosures.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology. Abstract 20-LB-20309-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOYAGER PAD trial

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOYAGER PAD trial

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOYAGER PAD trial

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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