MDedge Emergency Medicine

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The message everywhere is “stay home!” But what if staying home threatens your mental health? Veterans are a doubly vulnerable group these days—vulnerable both to the COVID-19 infection and to the mental stress that self-isolation can inflict. To help relieve that pressure and, in particular, to reach veterans who might not otherwise seek counseling and mental health support, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been shifting some outpatient care to telehealth and deploying Mobile Vet Center units to coronavirus-crisis areas.

The VA received some money to beef up its telehealth system from the $2 trillion CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act relief package passed and signed last week: $14.4 billion to expand telehealth services and another $2.15 billion to expand coronavirus-related services, including the purchase of mHealth devices.

Several of the provisions in the CARES Act directly address the needs of rural and underserved veterans. For instance, the Act authorizes the VA to expand telemental health services and enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, a critical need among rural residents who may be physically isolated from mental healthcare. The act also allows federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, 2 types of facilities that serve rural and underserved populations, to be designated as distant sites for telehealth.

Between 2002, when telemental health services were launched, and 2019, veterans have worked with a counselor nearly 3 million times. In 2017, the VA says, psychiatric hospitalizations dropped 31%. Veterans have said they prefer videoconferencing over in-person therapy because they can are more at ease at home.

Using video telehealth, veterans can connect with care teams from anywhere—a safer alternative to traveling to appointments—using the camera on a phone, computer, or Apple or Android devices. Veterans also can use My HealtheVet’s secure messaging feature for non-urgent health questions. VA mental health professionals use both synchronous and asynchronous care: The first to connect patients to providers through a communication link, usually videoconferencing, the second to send data to specialists.

The current pandemic puts a strain on both patients and providers, but the Mobile Vet Centers may help relieve some of that strain. An extension of the VA’s brick-and-mortar Vet Centers, the mobile units provide a range of services, including individual, group, marriage, and family counseling. They also can refer active duty service members, veterans, and their families to VA care or other care facilities.

The mobile units are staffed by Vet Center employees who volunteer to deploy in emergencies, such as hurricanes and wildfires. The first units responding to the COVID-19 pandemic were dispatched to New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Los Angeles.

“In times like this, it’s important to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local communities, support their local needs, and [assure] them they are not alone in navigating this crisis,” said Brooklyn Vet Center Director Gabe Botero.

Although the VA’s top priority remains keeping veterans safe while also making sure they receive the mental and physical healthcare they need , it has been criticized recently for “pausing” the Mission Act, which allows some veterans to get healthcare outside VA centers. The concern was that seeking outside care could expose veterans to the virus and potentially tax private health resources.

Government spokespeople have said the VA is not stopping or pausing the law, but “ensuring the best medical interests of America’s veterans are met.”

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

lfranki@mdedge.com

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

A meme has been going around the Internet in which a Muppet is dressed as a doctor, and the caption declares: “If you don’t want to be intubated by a psychiatrist, stay home!” This meme is meant as a commentary on health care worker shortages. But it also touches on the concerns of psychiatrists who might be questioning our role in the pandemic, given that we are physicians who do not regularly rely on labs or imaging to guide treatment. And we rarely even touch our patients.

As observed by Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, editor in chief of Current Psychiatry, who referred to anxiety as endemic during a viral pandemic (Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19[4]:e3-5), our society is experiencing intense psychological repercussions from the pandemic. These repercussions will evolve from anxiety to despair, and for some, to resilience.

All jokes aside about the medical knowledge of psychiatrists, we are on the cutting edge of how to address the pandemic of fear and uncertainty gripping individuals and society across the nation.

Isn’t it our role as psychiatrists to help people face the reality of personal and societal crises? Aren’t we trained to help people find their internal reserves, bolster them with medications and/or psychotherapy, and prepare them to respond to challenges? I propose that our training and particular experience of hearing patients’ stories has indeed prepared us to receive surreal information and package it into a palatable, even therapeutic, form for our patients.

I’d like to present two cases I’ve recently seen during the first stages of the COVID-19 pandemic juxtaposed with patients I saw during “normal” times. These cases show that, as psychiatrists, we are prepared to face the psychological impact of this crisis.

A patient called me about worsened anxiety after she’d been sidelined at home from her job as a waitress and was currently spending 12 hours a day with her overbearing mother. She had always used her work to buffer her anxiety, as the fast pace of the restaurant kept her from ruminating.

The call reminded me of ones I’d receive from female patients during the MeToo movement and particularly during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, in which a sexual assault victim and alleged perpetrator faced off on television. During therapy and medication management sessions alike, I would talk to women struggling with the number of news stories about victims coming forward after sexual assault. They were reliving their humiliations, and despite the empowering nature of the movement, they felt vulnerable in the shadow of memories of their perpetrators.

The advice I gave then is similar to the guidance I give now, and also is closely related to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice on its website on how to manage the mental health impact of COVID-19. People can be informed without suffering by taking these steps:

• Limit the amount of news and social media consumed, and if possible, try to schedule news consumption into discrete periods that are not close to bedtime or other periods meant for relaxation.
• Reach out to loved ones and friends who remind you of strength and better times.
• Make time to relax and unwind, either through resting or engaging in an activity you enjoy.
• Take care of your body and mind with exercise.
• Try for 8 hours of sleep a night (even if it doesn’t happen).
• Use techniques such as meditating, doing yoga, or breathing to practice focusing your attention somewhere.

During this crisis, tactful self-disclosure might be appropriate and therapeutic. All of our lives have been disrupted by COVID-19 and acknowledging this to patients can help them feel less isolated and vulnerable. Our patients with diagnosed psychiatric disorders will be more susceptible to crippling anxiety, exacerbations in panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, and resurgence of suicidal ideation in the face of uncertainty and despair. They may also be more likely to experience the socioeconomic fallout of this pandemic. But it’s not just these individuals who will be hit with intense feelings as we wonder what the next day, month, or 6 months hold for us, our families, our friends, our country, and our world.

Recently, I had one of the more surreal experiences of my professional life. I work as a consulation-liaison psychiatrist on the medical wards, and I was consulted to treat a young woman from Central America with schizophrenia who made a serious suicide attempt in mid-February before COVID-19 was part of the lexicon.

After an overdose, she developed aspiration pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome and ended up in the ICU on a respirator for 3 weeks. Her doctors and family were certain she would die, but she miraculously survived. By the time she was extubated and less delirious from her medically induced coma, the hospital had restricted all visitors because of COVID-19.

Because I speak Spanish, we developed as decent a working relationship as we could, considering the patient’s delirium and blunted affect. On top of restarting her antipsychotics, I had to inform her that her family was no longer allowed to come visit her. Outside of this room, I vacillated on how to tell a woman with a history of paranoia that the hospital would not allow her family to visit because we were in the middle of a pandemic. A contagious virus had quickly spread around the world, cases were now spiking in the United States, much of the country was on lockdown, and the hospital was limiting visitors because asymptomatic individuals could bring the virus into the hospital or be infected by asymptomatic staff.

As the words came out of my mouth, she looked at me as I have looked at psychotic individuals as they spin me yarns of impossible explanation for their symptoms when I know they’re simply psychotic and living in an alternate reality. Imagine just waking up from a coma and your doctor coming in to tell you: “The U.S. is on lockdown because a deadly virus is spreading throughout our country.” You’d think you’ve woken up in a zombie film. Yet, the patient simply nodded and asked: “Will I be able to use the phone to call my family?” I sighed with relief and helped her dial her brother’s number.

Haven’t we all listened to insane stories while keeping a straight face and then answered with a politely bland question? Just a few months ago, I treated a homeless woman with schizophrenia who calmly explained to me that her large malignant ovarian tumor (which I could see protruding under her gown) was the unborn heir of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. If she allowed the doctors to take it out (that is, treat her cancer) she’d be assassinated by the Russian intelligence agency. She refused to let the doctors sentence her to death. Ultimately, we allowed her to refuse treatment. Despite a month of treatment with antipsychotic medication, her psychotic beliefs did not change, and we could not imagine forcing her through surgery and chemotherapy. She died in hospice.

I’ve walked the valleys of bizarro land many times. Working through the dark reality of COVID-19 should be no match for us psychiatrists who have listened to dark stories and responded with words of comfort or empathic silence. As mental health clinicians, I believe we are well equipped to fight on the front lines of the pandemic of fear that has arrested our country. We can make ourselves available to our patients, friends, family, and institutions – medical or otherwise – that are grappling with how to cope with the psychological impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Posada is a consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va., and associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. She changed key details about the patients discussed to protect their confidentiality. Dr. Posada has no conflicts of interest.

Alirocumab achieved a mean 63-mg/dL reduction in LDL cholesterol in the ODYSSEY HoFH study, the largest-ever randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of lipid-lowering in adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), Dirk Blom, MD, said in a video 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.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Alirocumab achieved a mean 63-mg/dL reduction in LDL cholesterol in the ODYSSEY HoFH study, the largest-ever randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of lipid-lowering in adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), Dirk Blom, MD, said in a video 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.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Alirocumab achieved a mean 63-mg/dL reduction in LDL cholesterol in the ODYSSEY HoFH study, the largest-ever randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of lipid-lowering in adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), Dirk Blom, MD, said in a video 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.

bjancin@mdedge.com

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the COMPASS trial of patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease (PAD), the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, provided a larger absolute benefit on cardiovascular endpoints — including a threefold greater reduction in all-cause mortality — in patients with diabetes compared with the overall population.

The results of the diabetes subset of the COMPASS trial were presented by Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, Massachusetts, on March 28 at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). They were also simultaneously published online in Circulation.

“Use of dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is particularly attractive in high-risk patients such as those with diabetes,” Bhatt concluded.

The COMPASS trial was first reported in 2017 and showed a new low dose of rivaroxaban (2.5-mg twice-daily; Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) plus aspirin, 100 mg once daily, was associated with a reduction in ischemic events and mortality and a superior net clinical benefit, balancing ischemic benefit with severe bleeding, compared with aspirin alone for secondary prevention in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

But clinicians have been slow to prescribe rivaroxaban in this new and very large population.

“It’s been more than 2 years now since main COMPASS results, and there isn’t a sense that this therapy has really caught on,” chair of the current ACC session at which the diabetes subgroup results were presented, Hadley Wilson, MD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina, commented:

He asked Bhatt whether the diabetes subgroup may be “the tipping point that will make people aware of rivaroxaban and then that may trickle down to other patients.”

Bhatt said that he hoped that would be the case. “We as a steering committee of this trial could say the results were positive so rivaroxaban should now be used in everyone with stable coronary or peripheral arterial disease, but that is impractical and as you out point out it hasn’t happened,” he replied.

“In PAD/vascular medicine we have embraced this new therapy. In the broader cardiology world there are a lot of patients with stable coronary arterial disease at high ischemic risk who could take rivaroxaban, but its use is bound to be limited by it being a branded drug and the fact that there is a bleeding risk,” Bhatt explained.

“I think we need to identify patients with the highest ischemic risk and focus drugs such as these with a financial cost and a bleeding risk on those who most likely will derive the greatest absolute reduction in risk,” he said. “The PAD subgroup is one group where this is the case, and now we have shown the diabetes subgroup is another. And there is no incremental bleeding risk in this group over the whole population, so they get a much greater benefit without a greater risk. I hope this helps get rivaroxaban at the new lower dose used much more often.”

A total of 18,278 patients were randomly assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or aspirin alone in the COMPASS trial. Of these, 6922 had diabetes mellitus at baseline and 11,356 did not have diabetes.

Results from the current analysis show a consistent and similar relative risk reduction for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin in patients both with and without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 0.74 for patients with diabetes and 0.77 for those without diabetes, the researchers report.

Because of the higher baseline risk in the diabetes subgroup, these patients had numerically larger absolute risk reductions with rivaroxaban than those without diabetes for the primary efficacy endpoint at 3 years (2.3% vs 1.4%) and for all-cause mortality (1.9% vs 0.6%).

These results translate into a number needed to treat (NNT) with rivaroxaban for 3 years to prevent one CV death, MI, or stroke of 44 for the diabetes group vs 73 for the nondiabetes group; the NNT to prevent one all-cause death was 54 for the diabetes group vs 167 for the nondiabetes group, the authors write.

Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes, the absolute net clinical benefit (MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, or bleeding leading to death or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ) for rivaroxaban was “particularly favorable” in the diabetes group (2.7% fewer events in the diabetes group vs 1.0% fewer events in the nondiabetes group), they add.

Panelist at the ACC Featured Clinical Research session at which these results were presented, Jennifer Robinson, MD, University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, asked Bhatt how clinicians were supposed to decide which of the many new agents now becoming available for patients with stable coronary artery disease to prescribe first.

“We often forget about rivaroxaban when we’re thinking about what to add next for our secondary prevention patients,” she said. “You also led the REDUCE-IT trial showing benefit of icosapent ethyl, icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl icosapent ethyl and there is also ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors. For your patients with coronary disease who are already on a high dose statin which one of these would you add next?”

“That is what physicians need to ponder all the time,” Bhatt replied. “And when a patient has several risk factors that are not well controlled, I guess it’s all important. I go through a checklist with my patients and try and figure what they’re not on that could further reduce their risk.”

“In the COMPASS trial there was an overall positive result with rivaroxaban in the whole population. And now we have shown that patients with diabetes had an even greater absolute risk reduction. That pattern has also been seen with other classes of agents including the statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and icosapent ethyl,” Bhatt noted.

“In patients with diabetes, I will usually target whatever is standing out most at that time. If their glycemic control is completely out of whack, then that is what I would focus on first, and these days often with a SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 agonist. If the LDL was out of control, I would add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor. If the triglycerides were high, I would add icosapent ethyl. If multiple things were out of control, I would usually focus on the number most out of kilter first and try not to forget about everything else.”

But Bhatt noted that the challenge with rivaroxaban is that there is no test of thrombosis risk that would prompt the physician to take action. “Basically, the doctor just has to remember to do it. In that regard I would consider whether patients are at low bleeding risk and are they still at high ischemic risk despite controlling other risk factors and, if so, then I would add this low dose of rivaroxaban.”

Another panel member, Sekar Kathiresan, MD, asked Bhatt whether he recommended using available scores to assess the bleeding/thrombosis risk/benefits of adding an antithrombotic.

Bhatt replied: “That’s a terrific question. I guess the right answer is that we should be doing that, but in reality I have to concede that I don’t use these scores. They have shown appropriate C statistics in populations, but they are not fantastic in individual patients.”

“I have to confess that I use the eyeball test. There is nothing as good at predicting future bleeding as past bleeding. So if a patient has had bleeding problems on aspirin alone I wouldn’t add rivaroxaban. But if a patient hasn’t bled before, especially if they had some experience of dual antiplatelet therapy, then they would be good candidates for a low vascular dose of rivaroxaban,” he said.

“It is not as easy as with other drugs as there is always a bleeding trade-off with an antithrombotic. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So patients need careful assessment when considering prescribing rivaroxaban and regular reassessment over time to check if they have had any bleeding,” he added.

The COMPASS study was funded by Bayer. Bhatt reports honoraria from Bayer via the Population Health Research Institute for his role on the COMPASS trial and other research funding from Bayer to the Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 20-LB-20544-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not too many years ago, clinicians who treat patients with heart failure, especially those at high risk for decompensation, lamented what seemed a dearth of new drug therapy options.

Now, with the toolbox brimming with new guideline-supported alternatives, a novel investigational agent—one with a mechanism unlike that of any approved heart failure drug—has turned in positive results in a large randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Importantly, it entered an especially high-risk population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); everyone in the trial had experienced a prior, usually quite recent, heart failure exacerbation.

In such patients, the addition of vericiguat (Merck/Bayer) to standard drug and device therapies was followed by a moderately but significantly reduced relative risk for the trial’s primary clinical endpoint over about 11 months.

Recipients benefited with a 10% drop in adjusted risk (P = .019) for cardiovascular (CV) death or first heart failure hospitalization compared to a placebo control group.

But researchers leading the 5050-patient Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA), as well as unaffiliated experts who have studied the trial, say that in this case, risk reduction in absolute numbers is a more telling outcome.

“Remember who we’re talking about here in terms of the patients who have this degree of morbidity and mortality,” VICTORIA study chair Paul W. Armstrong, MD, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, pointing to the “incredible placebo-group event rate and relatively modest follow-up of 10.8 months.”

The control group’s primary-endpoint event rate was 37.8 per 100 patient-years, 4.2 points higher than the rate for patients who received vericiguat. “And from there you get a number needed to treat of 24 to prevent one event, which is low,” Armstrong said.

“Think about the hundreds of thousands of people with this disease and what that means at the public health level.” About one in four patients with heart failure experience such exacerbations each year, he said.

Armstrong is lead author on the 42-country trial’s publication today in the New England Journal of Medicine, timed to coincide with his online presentation for the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). The annual session was conducted virtually this year following the traditional live meeting’s cancelation due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The VICTORIA presentation and publication flesh out the cursory top-line primary results that Merck unveiled in November 2019, which had not included the magnitude of the vericiguat relative benefit for the primary endpoint.

The trial represents “another win” for the treatment of heart failure, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, said as an invited discussant following Armstrong’s presentation.

“Hospitalization for heart failure generates a major inflection point in the natural history of this condition, with a marked change in the risk for re-hospitalization and death. Up until now, no prior therapies have attenuated this risk, except for more intensive processes and care improvement strategies,” he said.

“Now we have a therapy that may be the first one to change that natural history after a person with heart failure has had a worsening event.”

Interestingly, the primary-endpoint reduction was driven by a significant drop in heart failure hospitalizations, even within a fairly short follow-up time.

“What was fascinating is that the requisite number of events were accrued in less than 12 months — meaning that inexplicably, this is one of the few times we’ve had a trial where the event rate realized was higher than the event rate predicted,” Yancy observed for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Although the effect size was similar to what was observed for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in DAPA-HF and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in PARADIGM-HF, he said, VICTORIA’s population was much sicker and had an “astonishingly high” event rate even while receiving aggressive background heart failure therapy.

It included “triple therapy with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 60% of patients, and at least double therapy in 90% of patients.” Also, Yancy said, 30% of the population had implantable devices, such as defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers.

It included “triple therapy with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 60% of patients, and at least double therapy in 90% of patients.” Also, Yancy said, 30% of the population had implantable devices, such as defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers.

Such patients with advanced, late-stage disease are common as the latest therapies for heart failure prolong their survival, notes Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, also as an invited discussant after Armstrong’s presentation.

“It’s a unique population with longer disease duration, more severe disease, and narrow options,” one in which personalized approaches are needed. Yet VICTORIA-like patients “have been actively excluded from all the trials that have shown benefit,” she said.

“VICTORIA finally addresses this population of decompensated patients,” she said, and seems to show that vericiguat may help some of them.

At the University of Glasgow, United Kingdom, John J.V. McMurray, MBChB, MD, agreed that the relative risk reduction was “small but significant,” but also that the control group’s event rate was “very high, reflecting the inclusion and exclusion criteria.”

As a result, McMurray told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, there was “quite a large absolute risk reduction and small number needed to treat. Also on the positive side: no significant excess of the adverse effects we might have been concerned about,” for example, hypotension.

Vericiguat, if ultimately approved in heart failure, “isn’t going to be first-line or widely used, but it is an additional asset,” he said. “Anything that helps in heart failure is valuable. There are always patients who can’t tolerate treatments, and always people who need more done.”

It’s appealing that the drug works by a long but unfruitfully explored mechanism that has little to do directly with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Vericiguat is a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator that boosts cyclic guanosine monophosphate activity along several pathways, potentiating the salutary pulmonary artery–vasodilating effects of nitric oxide. It improved natriuretic peptide levels in the preceding phase 2 SOCRATES-REDUCED study.

“This is not a me-too drug. It’s a new avenue for heart failure patients,” Armstrong said in an interview. It’s taken once daily, “was relatively easy to titrate up to the target dose, pretty well tolerated, and very safe. And remarkably, you don’t need to measure renal function.”

However, because the drug’s mechanism resides in the same neighborhood of biochemical pathways affected by chronic nitrates and by phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, such as sildenafil and tadalafil, patients taking those drugs were excluded from VICTORIA. Acute nitrates were allowed, however.

Symptomatic hypotension occurred in less than 10% and syncope in 4% or less of both groups; neither difference between the two groups was significant. Anemia developed more often in patients receiving vericiguat (7.6%) than in the control group (5.7%).

“We think that on balance, vericiguat is a useful alternative option for patients. But certainly the only thing we can say at this point is it works in the high-risk population that we studied,” Armstrong said. “Whether it works in lower-risk populations and how it compares is speculation, of course.”

The drug’s cost, whatever it might be if approved, is another factor affecting how it would be used, noted several observers.

“We don’t know what the cost-effectiveness will be. It should be reasonable because the benefit was on hospitalization. That’s a costly outcome,” Yancy said.

McMurray was also hopeful. “If the treatment is well tolerated and reasonably priced, it may still be a valuable asset for at least a subset of patients.”

VICTORIA was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Bayer AG. Armstrong discloses receiving research grants from Merck, Bayer AG, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and CSL Ltd and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer AG, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Y ancy has previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Stevenson has previously disclosed receiving research grants from Novartis, consulting or serving on an advisory board for Abbott and travel expenses or meals from Novartis and St Jude Medical. McMurray has previously disclosed nonfinancial support or other support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardiorentis, Amgen, Oxford University/Bayer, Theracos, AbbVie, DalCor, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Vifor-Fresenius.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Presented March 28, 2020. Session 402-08.

N Engl J Med. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text; Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not too many years ago, clinicians who treat patients with heart failure, especially those at high risk for decompensation, lamented what seemed a dearth of new drug therapy options.

Now, with the toolbox brimming with new guideline-supported alternatives, a novel investigational agent—one with a mechanism unlike that of any approved heart failure drug—has turned in positive results in a large randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Importantly, it entered an especially high-risk population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); everyone in the trial had experienced a prior, usually quite recent, heart failure exacerbation.

In such patients, the addition of vericiguat (Merck/Bayer) to standard drug and device therapies was followed by a moderately but significantly reduced relative risk for the trial’s primary clinical endpoint over about 11 months.

Recipients benefited with a 10% drop in adjusted risk (P = .019) for cardiovascular (CV) death or first heart failure hospitalization compared to a placebo control group.

But researchers leading the 5050-patient Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA), as well as unaffiliated experts who have studied the trial, say that in this case, risk reduction in absolute numbers is a more telling outcome.

“Remember who we’re talking about here in terms of the patients who have this degree of morbidity and mortality,” VICTORIA study chair Paul W. Armstrong, MD, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, pointing to the “incredible placebo-group event rate and relatively modest follow-up of 10.8 months.”

The control group’s primary-endpoint event rate was 37.8 per 100 patient-years, 4.2 points higher than the rate for patients who received vericiguat. “And from there you get a number needed to treat of 24 to prevent one event, which is low,” Armstrong said.

“Think about the hundreds of thousands of people with this disease and what that means at the public health level.” About one in four patients with heart failure experience such exacerbations each year, he said.

Armstrong is lead author on the 42-country trial’s publication today in the New England Journal of Medicine, timed to coincide with his online presentation for the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). The annual session was conducted virtually this year following the traditional live meeting’s cancelation due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The VICTORIA presentation and publication flesh out the cursory top-line primary results that Merck unveiled in November 2019, which had not included the magnitude of the vericiguat relative benefit for the primary endpoint.

The trial represents “another win” for the treatment of heart failure, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, said as an invited discussant following Armstrong’s presentation.

“Hospitalization for heart failure generates a major inflection point in the natural history of this condition, with a marked change in the risk for re-hospitalization and death. Up until now, no prior therapies have attenuated this risk, except for more intensive processes and care improvement strategies,” he said.

“Now we have a therapy that may be the first one to change that natural history after a person with heart failure has had a worsening event.”

Interestingly, the primary-endpoint reduction was driven by a significant drop in heart failure hospitalizations, even within a fairly short follow-up time.

“What was fascinating is that the requisite number of events were accrued in less than 12 months — meaning that inexplicably, this is one of the few times we’ve had a trial where the event rate realized was higher than the event rate predicted,” Yancy observed for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Although the effect size was similar to what was observed for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in DAPA-HF and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in PARADIGM-HF, he said, VICTORIA’s population was much sicker and had an “astonishingly high” event rate even while receiving aggressive background heart failure therapy.

It included “triple therapy with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 60% of patients, and at least double therapy in 90% of patients.” Also, Yancy said, 30% of the population had implantable devices, such as defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers.

It included “triple therapy with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 60% of patients, and at least double therapy in 90% of patients.” Also, Yancy said, 30% of the population had implantable devices, such as defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers.

Such patients with advanced, late-stage disease are common as the latest therapies for heart failure prolong their survival, notes Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, also as an invited discussant after Armstrong’s presentation.

“It’s a unique population with longer disease duration, more severe disease, and narrow options,” one in which personalized approaches are needed. Yet VICTORIA-like patients “have been actively excluded from all the trials that have shown benefit,” she said.

“VICTORIA finally addresses this population of decompensated patients,” she said, and seems to show that vericiguat may help some of them.

At the University of Glasgow, United Kingdom, John J.V. McMurray, MBChB, MD, agreed that the relative risk reduction was “small but significant,” but also that the control group’s event rate was “very high, reflecting the inclusion and exclusion criteria.”

As a result, McMurray told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, there was “quite a large absolute risk reduction and small number needed to treat. Also on the positive side: no significant excess of the adverse effects we might have been concerned about,” for example, hypotension.

Vericiguat, if ultimately approved in heart failure, “isn’t going to be first-line or widely used, but it is an additional asset,” he said. “Anything that helps in heart failure is valuable. There are always patients who can’t tolerate treatments, and always people who need more done.”

It’s appealing that the drug works by a long but unfruitfully explored mechanism that has little to do directly with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Vericiguat is a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator that boosts cyclic guanosine monophosphate activity along several pathways, potentiating the salutary pulmonary artery–vasodilating effects of nitric oxide. It improved natriuretic peptide levels in the preceding phase 2 SOCRATES-REDUCED study.

“This is not a me-too drug. It’s a new avenue for heart failure patients,” Armstrong said in an interview. It’s taken once daily, “was relatively easy to titrate up to the target dose, pretty well tolerated, and very safe. And remarkably, you don’t need to measure renal function.”

However, because the drug’s mechanism resides in the same neighborhood of biochemical pathways affected by chronic nitrates and by phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, such as sildenafil and tadalafil, patients taking those drugs were excluded from VICTORIA. Acute nitrates were allowed, however.

Symptomatic hypotension occurred in less than 10% and syncope in 4% or less of both groups; neither difference between the two groups was significant. Anemia developed more often in patients receiving vericiguat (7.6%) than in the control group (5.7%).

“We think that on balance, vericiguat is a useful alternative option for patients. But certainly the only thing we can say at this point is it works in the high-risk population that we studied,” Armstrong said. “Whether it works in lower-risk populations and how it compares is speculation, of course.”

The drug’s cost, whatever it might be if approved, is another factor affecting how it would be used, noted several observers.

“We don’t know what the cost-effectiveness will be. It should be reasonable because the benefit was on hospitalization. That’s a costly outcome,” Yancy said.

McMurray was also hopeful. “If the treatment is well tolerated and reasonably priced, it may still be a valuable asset for at least a subset of patients.”

VICTORIA was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Bayer AG. Armstrong discloses receiving research grants from Merck, Bayer AG, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and CSL Ltd and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer AG, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Y ancy has previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Stevenson has previously disclosed receiving research grants from Novartis, consulting or serving on an advisory board for Abbott and travel expenses or meals from Novartis and St Jude Medical. McMurray has previously disclosed nonfinancial support or other support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardiorentis, Amgen, Oxford University/Bayer, Theracos, AbbVie, DalCor, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Vifor-Fresenius.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Presented March 28, 2020. Session 402-08.

N Engl J Med. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text; Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Not too many years ago, clinicians who treat patients with heart failure, especially those at high risk for decompensation, lamented what seemed a dearth of new drug therapy options.

Now, with the toolbox brimming with new guideline-supported alternatives, a novel investigational agent—one with a mechanism unlike that of any approved heart failure drug—has turned in positive results in a large randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Importantly, it entered an especially high-risk population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); everyone in the trial had experienced a prior, usually quite recent, heart failure exacerbation.

In such patients, the addition of vericiguat (Merck/Bayer) to standard drug and device therapies was followed by a moderately but significantly reduced relative risk for the trial’s primary clinical endpoint over about 11 months.

Recipients benefited with a 10% drop in adjusted risk (P = .019) for cardiovascular (CV) death or first heart failure hospitalization compared to a placebo control group.

But researchers leading the 5050-patient Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (VICTORIA), as well as unaffiliated experts who have studied the trial, say that in this case, risk reduction in absolute numbers is a more telling outcome.

“Remember who we’re talking about here in terms of the patients who have this degree of morbidity and mortality,” VICTORIA study chair Paul W. Armstrong, MD, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, pointing to the “incredible placebo-group event rate and relatively modest follow-up of 10.8 months.”

The control group’s primary-endpoint event rate was 37.8 per 100 patient-years, 4.2 points higher than the rate for patients who received vericiguat. “And from there you get a number needed to treat of 24 to prevent one event, which is low,” Armstrong said.

“Think about the hundreds of thousands of people with this disease and what that means at the public health level.” About one in four patients with heart failure experience such exacerbations each year, he said.

Armstrong is lead author on the 42-country trial’s publication today in the New England Journal of Medicine, timed to coincide with his online presentation for the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). The annual session was conducted virtually this year following the traditional live meeting’s cancelation due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The VICTORIA presentation and publication flesh out the cursory top-line primary results that Merck unveiled in November 2019, which had not included the magnitude of the vericiguat relative benefit for the primary endpoint.

The trial represents “another win” for the treatment of heart failure, Clyde W. Yancy, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, said as an invited discussant following Armstrong’s presentation.

“Hospitalization for heart failure generates a major inflection point in the natural history of this condition, with a marked change in the risk for re-hospitalization and death. Up until now, no prior therapies have attenuated this risk, except for more intensive processes and care improvement strategies,” he said.

“Now we have a therapy that may be the first one to change that natural history after a person with heart failure has had a worsening event.”

Interestingly, the primary-endpoint reduction was driven by a significant drop in heart failure hospitalizations, even within a fairly short follow-up time.

“What was fascinating is that the requisite number of events were accrued in less than 12 months — meaning that inexplicably, this is one of the few times we’ve had a trial where the event rate realized was higher than the event rate predicted,” Yancy observed for theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Although the effect size was similar to what was observed for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in DAPA-HF and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) in PARADIGM-HF, he said, VICTORIA’s population was much sicker and had an “astonishingly high” event rate even while receiving aggressive background heart failure therapy.

It included “triple therapy with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 60% of patients, and at least double therapy in 90% of patients.” Also, Yancy said, 30% of the population had implantable devices, such as defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers.

It included “triple therapy with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 60% of patients, and at least double therapy in 90% of patients.” Also, Yancy said, 30% of the population had implantable devices, such as defibrillators and biventricular pacemakers.

Such patients with advanced, late-stage disease are common as the latest therapies for heart failure prolong their survival, notes Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, also as an invited discussant after Armstrong’s presentation.

“It’s a unique population with longer disease duration, more severe disease, and narrow options,” one in which personalized approaches are needed. Yet VICTORIA-like patients “have been actively excluded from all the trials that have shown benefit,” she said.

“VICTORIA finally addresses this population of decompensated patients,” she said, and seems to show that vericiguat may help some of them.

At the University of Glasgow, United Kingdom, John J.V. McMurray, MBChB, MD, agreed that the relative risk reduction was “small but significant,” but also that the control group’s event rate was “very high, reflecting the inclusion and exclusion criteria.”

As a result, McMurray told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, there was “quite a large absolute risk reduction and small number needed to treat. Also on the positive side: no significant excess of the adverse effects we might have been concerned about,” for example, hypotension.

Vericiguat, if ultimately approved in heart failure, “isn’t going to be first-line or widely used, but it is an additional asset,” he said. “Anything that helps in heart failure is valuable. There are always patients who can’t tolerate treatments, and always people who need more done.”

It’s appealing that the drug works by a long but unfruitfully explored mechanism that has little to do directly with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Vericiguat is a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator that boosts cyclic guanosine monophosphate activity along several pathways, potentiating the salutary pulmonary artery–vasodilating effects of nitric oxide. It improved natriuretic peptide levels in the preceding phase 2 SOCRATES-REDUCED study.

“This is not a me-too drug. It’s a new avenue for heart failure patients,” Armstrong said in an interview. It’s taken once daily, “was relatively easy to titrate up to the target dose, pretty well tolerated, and very safe. And remarkably, you don’t need to measure renal function.”

However, because the drug’s mechanism resides in the same neighborhood of biochemical pathways affected by chronic nitrates and by phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, such as sildenafil and tadalafil, patients taking those drugs were excluded from VICTORIA. Acute nitrates were allowed, however.

Symptomatic hypotension occurred in less than 10% and syncope in 4% or less of both groups; neither difference between the two groups was significant. Anemia developed more often in patients receiving vericiguat (7.6%) than in the control group (5.7%).

“We think that on balance, vericiguat is a useful alternative option for patients. But certainly the only thing we can say at this point is it works in the high-risk population that we studied,” Armstrong said. “Whether it works in lower-risk populations and how it compares is speculation, of course.”

The drug’s cost, whatever it might be if approved, is another factor affecting how it would be used, noted several observers.

“We don’t know what the cost-effectiveness will be. It should be reasonable because the benefit was on hospitalization. That’s a costly outcome,” Yancy said.

McMurray was also hopeful. “If the treatment is well tolerated and reasonably priced, it may still be a valuable asset for at least a subset of patients.”

VICTORIA was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Bayer AG. Armstrong discloses receiving research grants from Merck, Bayer AG, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and CSL Ltd and consulting fees from Merck, Bayer AG, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Y ancy has previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Stevenson has previously disclosed receiving research grants from Novartis, consulting or serving on an advisory board for Abbott and travel expenses or meals from Novartis and St Jude Medical. McMurray has previously disclosed nonfinancial support or other support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cardiorentis, Amgen, Oxford University/Bayer, Theracos, AbbVie, DalCor, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Vifor-Fresenius.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Presented March 28, 2020. Session 402-08.

N Engl J Med. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text; Circulation. Published online March 28, 2020. Full text.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.