User login
What 2019’s top five CAD trials tell us
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.
“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
AUGUSTUS
For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.
“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.
In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).
A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.
“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.
How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?
“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2
These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.
Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
COLCOT
This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.
“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.
Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.
“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.
These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
COMPLETE
This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.
“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
EXCEL
Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.
The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.
“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.
PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.
He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”
Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.
“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
AUGUSTUS
For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.
“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.
In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).
A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.
“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.
How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?
“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2
These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.
Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
COLCOT
This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.
“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.
Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.
“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.
These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
COMPLETE
This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.
“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
EXCEL
Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.
The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.
“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.
PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.
He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”
Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.
“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
AUGUSTUS
For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.
“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.
In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).
Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).
A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.
“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.
How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?
“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2
These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.
Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
COLCOT
This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.
“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.
Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.
“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.
These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
COMPLETE
This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.
“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
EXCEL
Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.
The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.
“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.
PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.
He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”
Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
FFR use nearly halved 1-year mortality risk in ischemic heart disease
Use of fractional flow reserve significantly improved 1-year mortality rates in adults with stable ischemic heart disease, according to a review of 17,989 patients.
Although fractional flow reserve (FFR) has demonstrated value in guiding coronary revascularization, its impact on outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease has not been well studied in a large population, wrote Rushi V. Parikh, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers analyzed data from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program for adults who underwent coronary angiography between January 2009 and September 2017. The study included patients with angiographically intermediate disease, defined as 40%-69% diameter stenosis on visual inspection.
The rate of FFR use increased from 14.8% to 18.5% during the study period for all patients with intermediate lesions, and from 44% to 75% for those who had percutaneous coronary intervention, the researchers wrote.
Overall, based on hazard models, 1-year mortality was significantly lower in patients who underwent FFR, compared with those who had angiography only (2.8% vs. 5.9%; P less than 0.001). In addition, FFR use in revascularization was associated with a 43% reduced 1-year mortality risk, compared with angiography only.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, inability to distinguish between cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality, lack of data on the technical performance of the FFR, and a relatively short follow-up period, the researchers noted.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and support the use of FFR-guided revascularization in patients with angiographically intermediate stenosis, they wrote.
“Future registry-based studies accounting for all physiologic modalities are warranted to accurately quantify the landscape of coronary physiology-guided revascularization,” they added.
The study was supported in part by the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center in Aurora, Colo. Lead author Dr. Parikh had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Parikh RV et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75:409-19.
Although the study suggests that the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has increased, it remains underused despite evidence and recommendations, wrote Julien Adjedj, MD, and Benoit Guillon, MD, in an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75:420-1).
“Of course, time, cost, and need for hyperemia are often perceived as stumbling blocks. Yet, the real question is whether the cardiology community – not only interventional cardiologists – has truly adopted FFR (i.e., using it routinely and treating according to the results),” they wrote.
The editorialists noted that, in this study, typical predictors of FFR included younger age, multivessel or left main disease, previous history of percutaneous coronary intervention, no heart failure, and higher left ventricular ejection fraction.
“However, neither the absence of documented ischemia nor the presence of symptoms influenced the use of FFR. Significant site-level variation in FFR was observed,” they wrote. “This important finding suggests that the main reason for FFR underutilization in the contemporary era is operator belief regarding the utility of coronary physiology, and that revised reimbursement policies and additional education/training may not have a meaningful impact on FFR adoption.”
The editorialists emphasized that, although FFR use has increased, the findings of a significant decrease in mortality support additional use of FFR “and good reasons to do so.”
Dr. Adjedj is affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland, and had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Guillon is affiliated with the University Hospital Jean Minjoz in Besançon, France, and disclosed a grant from Sanofi and participation in a conference for Abbott.
Although the study suggests that the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has increased, it remains underused despite evidence and recommendations, wrote Julien Adjedj, MD, and Benoit Guillon, MD, in an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75:420-1).
“Of course, time, cost, and need for hyperemia are often perceived as stumbling blocks. Yet, the real question is whether the cardiology community – not only interventional cardiologists – has truly adopted FFR (i.e., using it routinely and treating according to the results),” they wrote.
The editorialists noted that, in this study, typical predictors of FFR included younger age, multivessel or left main disease, previous history of percutaneous coronary intervention, no heart failure, and higher left ventricular ejection fraction.
“However, neither the absence of documented ischemia nor the presence of symptoms influenced the use of FFR. Significant site-level variation in FFR was observed,” they wrote. “This important finding suggests that the main reason for FFR underutilization in the contemporary era is operator belief regarding the utility of coronary physiology, and that revised reimbursement policies and additional education/training may not have a meaningful impact on FFR adoption.”
The editorialists emphasized that, although FFR use has increased, the findings of a significant decrease in mortality support additional use of FFR “and good reasons to do so.”
Dr. Adjedj is affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland, and had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Guillon is affiliated with the University Hospital Jean Minjoz in Besançon, France, and disclosed a grant from Sanofi and participation in a conference for Abbott.
Although the study suggests that the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has increased, it remains underused despite evidence and recommendations, wrote Julien Adjedj, MD, and Benoit Guillon, MD, in an accompanying editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75:420-1).
“Of course, time, cost, and need for hyperemia are often perceived as stumbling blocks. Yet, the real question is whether the cardiology community – not only interventional cardiologists – has truly adopted FFR (i.e., using it routinely and treating according to the results),” they wrote.
The editorialists noted that, in this study, typical predictors of FFR included younger age, multivessel or left main disease, previous history of percutaneous coronary intervention, no heart failure, and higher left ventricular ejection fraction.
“However, neither the absence of documented ischemia nor the presence of symptoms influenced the use of FFR. Significant site-level variation in FFR was observed,” they wrote. “This important finding suggests that the main reason for FFR underutilization in the contemporary era is operator belief regarding the utility of coronary physiology, and that revised reimbursement policies and additional education/training may not have a meaningful impact on FFR adoption.”
The editorialists emphasized that, although FFR use has increased, the findings of a significant decrease in mortality support additional use of FFR “and good reasons to do so.”
Dr. Adjedj is affiliated with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois in Lausanne, Switzerland, and had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Guillon is affiliated with the University Hospital Jean Minjoz in Besançon, France, and disclosed a grant from Sanofi and participation in a conference for Abbott.
Use of fractional flow reserve significantly improved 1-year mortality rates in adults with stable ischemic heart disease, according to a review of 17,989 patients.
Although fractional flow reserve (FFR) has demonstrated value in guiding coronary revascularization, its impact on outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease has not been well studied in a large population, wrote Rushi V. Parikh, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers analyzed data from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program for adults who underwent coronary angiography between January 2009 and September 2017. The study included patients with angiographically intermediate disease, defined as 40%-69% diameter stenosis on visual inspection.
The rate of FFR use increased from 14.8% to 18.5% during the study period for all patients with intermediate lesions, and from 44% to 75% for those who had percutaneous coronary intervention, the researchers wrote.
Overall, based on hazard models, 1-year mortality was significantly lower in patients who underwent FFR, compared with those who had angiography only (2.8% vs. 5.9%; P less than 0.001). In addition, FFR use in revascularization was associated with a 43% reduced 1-year mortality risk, compared with angiography only.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, inability to distinguish between cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality, lack of data on the technical performance of the FFR, and a relatively short follow-up period, the researchers noted.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and support the use of FFR-guided revascularization in patients with angiographically intermediate stenosis, they wrote.
“Future registry-based studies accounting for all physiologic modalities are warranted to accurately quantify the landscape of coronary physiology-guided revascularization,” they added.
The study was supported in part by the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center in Aurora, Colo. Lead author Dr. Parikh had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Parikh RV et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75:409-19.
Use of fractional flow reserve significantly improved 1-year mortality rates in adults with stable ischemic heart disease, according to a review of 17,989 patients.
Although fractional flow reserve (FFR) has demonstrated value in guiding coronary revascularization, its impact on outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease has not been well studied in a large population, wrote Rushi V. Parikh, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.
In a study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers analyzed data from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program for adults who underwent coronary angiography between January 2009 and September 2017. The study included patients with angiographically intermediate disease, defined as 40%-69% diameter stenosis on visual inspection.
The rate of FFR use increased from 14.8% to 18.5% during the study period for all patients with intermediate lesions, and from 44% to 75% for those who had percutaneous coronary intervention, the researchers wrote.
Overall, based on hazard models, 1-year mortality was significantly lower in patients who underwent FFR, compared with those who had angiography only (2.8% vs. 5.9%; P less than 0.001). In addition, FFR use in revascularization was associated with a 43% reduced 1-year mortality risk, compared with angiography only.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational nature of the study, inability to distinguish between cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality, lack of data on the technical performance of the FFR, and a relatively short follow-up period, the researchers noted.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and support the use of FFR-guided revascularization in patients with angiographically intermediate stenosis, they wrote.
“Future registry-based studies accounting for all physiologic modalities are warranted to accurately quantify the landscape of coronary physiology-guided revascularization,” they added.
The study was supported in part by the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center in Aurora, Colo. Lead author Dr. Parikh had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Parikh RV et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75:409-19.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Key clinical point: Use of fractional flow reserve to assist in revascularization significantly reduced the 1-year mortality risk in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
Major finding:
Study details: The data come from a review of 17,989 patients who underwent coronary angiography during 2009-2017.
Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Aurora, Colo. Lead author Dr. Parikh had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Source: Parikh RV et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75:409-19.
New Vascepa indication opens up treatment to millions; “Most significant event since statins”
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.
The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.
The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.
Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”
The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.
Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.
In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.
The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.
“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”
Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”
He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.
Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.
“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.
“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
No price change foreseen
Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.
Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.
“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.
“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”
Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.
“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
Some still unsure
But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.
One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.
“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.
“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.
However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.
Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Redo PCI or CABG, left main patients pay a price: EXCEL
Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).
“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”
That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.
Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.
The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).
The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).
The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).
The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.
Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”
Enhancing durability
“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.
In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.
“There are also data suggesting careful image guidance during complex PCI is associated with a mortality benefit,” they wrote. “In a similar fashion, arterial revascularization (especially with a mammary artery graft to the [left anterior descending]) and complete revascularization during CABG needs to be achieved.”
“Surgeons need to be intellectually challenged to not take the easy way out and just do a saphenous vein graft,” Dr. Shemin agreed. “And because we are dealing with an underlying progressive disease, continued medical and preventive measures to prevent atherosclerosis are key.”
Higher body mass index, insulin-treated diabetes, and hemodynamic support during the procedure were associated with a higher risk for repeat revascularization after PCI, whereas statin use at discharge was protective.
Younger age, female sex, and peripheral vascular disease were independent predictors of repeat revascularization after CABG.
Most redo procedures were performed by PCI in both groups. However, repeat revascularization by CABG was more common during follow-up in patients randomized to initial PCI vs. CABG (3.3% vs .0.8%; P = .0002) and was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality.
“This observation suggests that CABG should be reserved for repeat revascularization procedures that are not amenable to repeat PCI, irrespective of the initial revascularization approach,” the authors wrote.
The editorialists point out that more than half of EXCEL patients with one repeat revascularization went on to have another. Overall, 55.1% of patients underwent one repeat revascularization, 22.2% underwent two redos, and 22.7% underwent more than two redos.
Although enhancing the durability of the initial revascularization is an important goal, “one might also conclude that a safer and potentially more durable treatment specifically developed for recurrent lesions is as equally an important objective,” they opined.
5-year kerfuffle
As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.
However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.
On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.
“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.
“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”
EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).
“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”
That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.
Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.
The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).
The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).
The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).
The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.
Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”
Enhancing durability
“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.
In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.
“There are also data suggesting careful image guidance during complex PCI is associated with a mortality benefit,” they wrote. “In a similar fashion, arterial revascularization (especially with a mammary artery graft to the [left anterior descending]) and complete revascularization during CABG needs to be achieved.”
“Surgeons need to be intellectually challenged to not take the easy way out and just do a saphenous vein graft,” Dr. Shemin agreed. “And because we are dealing with an underlying progressive disease, continued medical and preventive measures to prevent atherosclerosis are key.”
Higher body mass index, insulin-treated diabetes, and hemodynamic support during the procedure were associated with a higher risk for repeat revascularization after PCI, whereas statin use at discharge was protective.
Younger age, female sex, and peripheral vascular disease were independent predictors of repeat revascularization after CABG.
Most redo procedures were performed by PCI in both groups. However, repeat revascularization by CABG was more common during follow-up in patients randomized to initial PCI vs. CABG (3.3% vs .0.8%; P = .0002) and was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality.
“This observation suggests that CABG should be reserved for repeat revascularization procedures that are not amenable to repeat PCI, irrespective of the initial revascularization approach,” the authors wrote.
The editorialists point out that more than half of EXCEL patients with one repeat revascularization went on to have another. Overall, 55.1% of patients underwent one repeat revascularization, 22.2% underwent two redos, and 22.7% underwent more than two redos.
Although enhancing the durability of the initial revascularization is an important goal, “one might also conclude that a safer and potentially more durable treatment specifically developed for recurrent lesions is as equally an important objective,” they opined.
5-year kerfuffle
As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.
However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.
On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.
“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.
“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”
EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).
“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”
That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.
Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.
The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).
The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).
The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).
The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.
Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”
Enhancing durability
“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.
In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.
“There are also data suggesting careful image guidance during complex PCI is associated with a mortality benefit,” they wrote. “In a similar fashion, arterial revascularization (especially with a mammary artery graft to the [left anterior descending]) and complete revascularization during CABG needs to be achieved.”
“Surgeons need to be intellectually challenged to not take the easy way out and just do a saphenous vein graft,” Dr. Shemin agreed. “And because we are dealing with an underlying progressive disease, continued medical and preventive measures to prevent atherosclerosis are key.”
Higher body mass index, insulin-treated diabetes, and hemodynamic support during the procedure were associated with a higher risk for repeat revascularization after PCI, whereas statin use at discharge was protective.
Younger age, female sex, and peripheral vascular disease were independent predictors of repeat revascularization after CABG.
Most redo procedures were performed by PCI in both groups. However, repeat revascularization by CABG was more common during follow-up in patients randomized to initial PCI vs. CABG (3.3% vs .0.8%; P = .0002) and was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality.
“This observation suggests that CABG should be reserved for repeat revascularization procedures that are not amenable to repeat PCI, irrespective of the initial revascularization approach,” the authors wrote.
The editorialists point out that more than half of EXCEL patients with one repeat revascularization went on to have another. Overall, 55.1% of patients underwent one repeat revascularization, 22.2% underwent two redos, and 22.7% underwent more than two redos.
Although enhancing the durability of the initial revascularization is an important goal, “one might also conclude that a safer and potentially more durable treatment specifically developed for recurrent lesions is as equally an important objective,” they opined.
5-year kerfuffle
As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.
However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.
On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.
“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.
“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”
EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Why STEMI patients benefit from PCI of nonculprit lesions
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
PHILADELPHIA – Nearly half of patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery disease in the landmark COMPLETE trial had an obstructive coronary lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology in a segment far from the culprit lesion, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This novel finding from an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy of COMPLETE provides a likely mechanistic explanation for the major clinical benefits documented in the full COMPLETE trial, noted Dr. Pinilla-Echeverri, a cardiologist at the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
COMPLETE was a multinational trial which randomized 4,041 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease to culprit lesion–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or additional routine angiography–guided staged PCI of nonculprit obstructive lesions with at least 70% stenosis. As previously reported, the risk of the coprimary composite endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization was reduced by 49% over 3 years of follow-up in the group with staged PCI of nonculprit lesions, with an impressive number needed to treat of just 13 (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).
Dr. Pinella-Echeverri reported on the 93 patients who participated in the OCT substudy, the purpose of which was to determine the prevalence of high-risk, vulnerable plaque in obstructive and nonobstructive nonculprit lesions. For this purpose, vulnerable plaque was defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA), a coronary lesion known to pose high risk of worsening stenosis, plaque rupture, and cardiovascular events.
Of note, these 93 patients had a total of 425 diseased segments: 150 obstructive and 275 nonobstructive.
“This is reassuring that the concept of acute coronary syndrome implies a diffuse pathophysiology of affecting not only the culprit segment but the coronary vasculature as a whole,” Dr. Pinella-Echeverri observed.
The main study finding, however, was that TCFA was significantly more prevalent in obstructive, compared with nonobstructive, nonculprit lesions by a margin of 35% to 23%. The obstructive and nonobstructive TCFA lesions had a similar lipid-rich composition; however, the obstructive ones were significantly longer and had a smaller mean lumen area.
When breaking down the prevalence of TCFA per patient, 47% of patients had a nonculprit obstructive lesion with vulnerable plaque morphology. Another 20% had nonobstructive TCFA lesions. And only 32% of the STEMI patients had no TCFA in their obstructive or nonobstructive segments.
Discussant Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD, commented: “This [OCT substudy result] immediately explains the clinical benefit observed with preventive PCI in STEMI patients with obstructive multivessel disease.”
The finding that 20% of the STEMI patients had nonobstructive lesions with vulnerable plaque morphology by OCT provides powerful support for the current guideline-recommended strategy of immediately starting STEMI patients on intensive lipid-lowering therapy, added Dr. Van de Werf, professor of medicine at the Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium).
He argued that the decision to revascularize nonculprit lesions by means of PCI versus the more complete revascularization achieved via coronary artery bypass graft surgery shouldn’t be made during the initial primary PCI, citing evidence that when the decision gets made at that time, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less likely to be chosen.
“I believe that OCT and [fractional flow reserve] should not be performed during the index primary PCI, not only for the comfort of the patient, but also for the better selection of complete revascularization. Interventional cardiologists should not forget that CABG might be a better revascularization treatment in some cases, such as left main disease and diabetes mellitus,” the cardiologist cautioned.
The COMPLETE OCT Substudy was supported by Abbott Vascular, the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis use
Researchers are recommending routine screening of marijuana use in cardiovascular care settings.
A review of current evidence suggests an association between marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects, as well as interactions between marijuana and cardiovascular medications.
Although more research is needed, the review authors suggested patients may benefit from marijuana screening and testing as well as discussions about the potential risks of marijuana use in the setting of cardiovascular disease.
Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York and colleagues conducted this review, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The authors noted that research on marijuana use and cardiovascular disease is limited. The different forms of cannabis and various routes of administration have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about marijuana products. Additionally, there have been no randomized, controlled trials of marijuana products in the United States because such trials are illegal; however, there are observational studies linking marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects.
Snapshot of available evidence
One study showed that smoking marijuana produces many of the same cardiotoxic chemicals produced by smoking tobacco (BMJ. 2003 May 3;326[7396]:942-3). Another study suggested marijuana smokers may have greater exposure to harmful chemicals (J Psychoactive Drugs. 1988 Jan-Mar;20[1]:43-6).
More specifically, a meta-analysis suggested that smoking marijuana was one of the top three triggers of myocardial infarction (Lancet. 2011 Feb 26;377[9767]:732-40). And in a systematic analysis, 28 of 33 studies linked marijuana use to an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (Clin Toxicol [Phila]. 2019 Oct;57[10]:831-41).
Furthermore, a study of 2.5 million marijuana users showed that 3% experienced arrhythmias (Int J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 1;264:91-2). A population survey showed that people who smoked marijuana in the past year experienced a 3.3-fold higher rate of cerebrovascular events (Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Jun;40[3]:226-30).
Studies have also indicated that cannabinoids can affect cardiovascular medications, including antiarrhythmics, calcium-channel blockers, isosorbide dinitrate/mononitrate, statins, beta-blockers, warfarin, theophylline, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Medicines [Basel]. 2018 Dec 23;6[1] pii: E3; Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2017;32:249-62; Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009 Jul;19[7]:559-62; Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Jul;43[7]:1347-53; Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Sep;201:25-38).
Reviewer recommendations
Cardiovascular specialists should be informed about regulations governing marijuana products, as well as “potential health consequences of marijuana and its derivatives,” according to Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues.
The authors recommend routinely screening patients for marijuana use, perhaps using the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory (PLoS One. 2017 May 26;12[5]:e0178194) or the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018 Jun;27[2]:e1597).
The authors say urine toxicology “may be reasonable” for patients with myocardial infarction or new-onset heart failure. Such testing is required for patients undergoing a heart transplant because marijuana use may affect their candidacy.
Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues say cardiovascular specialists should inform patients about the risks associated with marijuana use. The authors recommend shared decision making for patients who use marijuana for symptom management or palliative purposes.
Three review authors disclosed relationships with many different pharmaceutical companies. One author disclosed relationships with Medscape Cardiology and WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.025.
Researchers are recommending routine screening of marijuana use in cardiovascular care settings.
A review of current evidence suggests an association between marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects, as well as interactions between marijuana and cardiovascular medications.
Although more research is needed, the review authors suggested patients may benefit from marijuana screening and testing as well as discussions about the potential risks of marijuana use in the setting of cardiovascular disease.
Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York and colleagues conducted this review, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The authors noted that research on marijuana use and cardiovascular disease is limited. The different forms of cannabis and various routes of administration have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about marijuana products. Additionally, there have been no randomized, controlled trials of marijuana products in the United States because such trials are illegal; however, there are observational studies linking marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects.
Snapshot of available evidence
One study showed that smoking marijuana produces many of the same cardiotoxic chemicals produced by smoking tobacco (BMJ. 2003 May 3;326[7396]:942-3). Another study suggested marijuana smokers may have greater exposure to harmful chemicals (J Psychoactive Drugs. 1988 Jan-Mar;20[1]:43-6).
More specifically, a meta-analysis suggested that smoking marijuana was one of the top three triggers of myocardial infarction (Lancet. 2011 Feb 26;377[9767]:732-40). And in a systematic analysis, 28 of 33 studies linked marijuana use to an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (Clin Toxicol [Phila]. 2019 Oct;57[10]:831-41).
Furthermore, a study of 2.5 million marijuana users showed that 3% experienced arrhythmias (Int J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 1;264:91-2). A population survey showed that people who smoked marijuana in the past year experienced a 3.3-fold higher rate of cerebrovascular events (Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Jun;40[3]:226-30).
Studies have also indicated that cannabinoids can affect cardiovascular medications, including antiarrhythmics, calcium-channel blockers, isosorbide dinitrate/mononitrate, statins, beta-blockers, warfarin, theophylline, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Medicines [Basel]. 2018 Dec 23;6[1] pii: E3; Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2017;32:249-62; Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009 Jul;19[7]:559-62; Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Jul;43[7]:1347-53; Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Sep;201:25-38).
Reviewer recommendations
Cardiovascular specialists should be informed about regulations governing marijuana products, as well as “potential health consequences of marijuana and its derivatives,” according to Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues.
The authors recommend routinely screening patients for marijuana use, perhaps using the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory (PLoS One. 2017 May 26;12[5]:e0178194) or the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018 Jun;27[2]:e1597).
The authors say urine toxicology “may be reasonable” for patients with myocardial infarction or new-onset heart failure. Such testing is required for patients undergoing a heart transplant because marijuana use may affect their candidacy.
Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues say cardiovascular specialists should inform patients about the risks associated with marijuana use. The authors recommend shared decision making for patients who use marijuana for symptom management or palliative purposes.
Three review authors disclosed relationships with many different pharmaceutical companies. One author disclosed relationships with Medscape Cardiology and WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.025.
Researchers are recommending routine screening of marijuana use in cardiovascular care settings.
A review of current evidence suggests an association between marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects, as well as interactions between marijuana and cardiovascular medications.
Although more research is needed, the review authors suggested patients may benefit from marijuana screening and testing as well as discussions about the potential risks of marijuana use in the setting of cardiovascular disease.
Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York and colleagues conducted this review, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The authors noted that research on marijuana use and cardiovascular disease is limited. The different forms of cannabis and various routes of administration have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about marijuana products. Additionally, there have been no randomized, controlled trials of marijuana products in the United States because such trials are illegal; however, there are observational studies linking marijuana use and adverse cardiovascular effects.
Snapshot of available evidence
One study showed that smoking marijuana produces many of the same cardiotoxic chemicals produced by smoking tobacco (BMJ. 2003 May 3;326[7396]:942-3). Another study suggested marijuana smokers may have greater exposure to harmful chemicals (J Psychoactive Drugs. 1988 Jan-Mar;20[1]:43-6).
More specifically, a meta-analysis suggested that smoking marijuana was one of the top three triggers of myocardial infarction (Lancet. 2011 Feb 26;377[9767]:732-40). And in a systematic analysis, 28 of 33 studies linked marijuana use to an increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (Clin Toxicol [Phila]. 2019 Oct;57[10]:831-41).
Furthermore, a study of 2.5 million marijuana users showed that 3% experienced arrhythmias (Int J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 1;264:91-2). A population survey showed that people who smoked marijuana in the past year experienced a 3.3-fold higher rate of cerebrovascular events (Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016 Jun;40[3]:226-30).
Studies have also indicated that cannabinoids can affect cardiovascular medications, including antiarrhythmics, calcium-channel blockers, isosorbide dinitrate/mononitrate, statins, beta-blockers, warfarin, theophylline, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Medicines [Basel]. 2018 Dec 23;6[1] pii: E3; Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2017;32:249-62; Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009 Jul;19[7]:559-62; Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Jul;43[7]:1347-53; Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Sep;201:25-38).
Reviewer recommendations
Cardiovascular specialists should be informed about regulations governing marijuana products, as well as “potential health consequences of marijuana and its derivatives,” according to Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues.
The authors recommend routinely screening patients for marijuana use, perhaps using the Daily Sessions, Frequency, Age of Onset, and Quantity of Cannabis Use Inventory (PLoS One. 2017 May 26;12[5]:e0178194) or the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2018 Jun;27[2]:e1597).
The authors say urine toxicology “may be reasonable” for patients with myocardial infarction or new-onset heart failure. Such testing is required for patients undergoing a heart transplant because marijuana use may affect their candidacy.
Dr. DeFilippis and colleagues say cardiovascular specialists should inform patients about the risks associated with marijuana use. The authors recommend shared decision making for patients who use marijuana for symptom management or palliative purposes.
Three review authors disclosed relationships with many different pharmaceutical companies. One author disclosed relationships with Medscape Cardiology and WebMD, which are owned by the same parent company as MDedge.
SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.025.
FROM JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Coronary function testing during angiography boosts 1-year angina outcomes
PHILADELPHIA – Longer and more extensive follow-up of the positive CorMicA trial confirmed that clinicians who receive added information on the presence or absence of microvascular coronary disease or coronary vasospasm in patients with chronic, stable angina but without detectable coronary obstruction adjust patient treatment in ways that produce better outcomes.
For example, expanded 1-year follow-up of the 151-patient, multicenter, CorMicA randomized study showed that stable angina patients without coronary obstruction treated by clinicians aware of microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease had blood pressures that averaged about 12/5 mm Hg lower than those of patients in the control arm, in which this information was kept blinded.
Clinicians in the study who received information about diagnoses of microvascular angina, vasospastic angina, both, or neither, generally better tailored the treatments they gave these patients, were more likely to prescribe cardiac rehabilitation to these patients, and successfully capped increases in blood pressure that occurred in the control patients, Colin Berry, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The investigators made the diagnoses of microvascular and vasospastic angina using an “invasive diagnostic procedure” that involved placing a wire with pressure and temperature sensors in a selected coronary artery and measuring flow patterns that resulted from a systemic infusion of adenosine and from incremental, intracoronary infusions of acetylcholine.
The CorMicA results “tell us that, if we use existing drugs and nonpharmacologic treatments, we can improve patients’ quality of life,” said Dr. Berry, co-lead investigator of the study and professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow. “There were probably two drivers of change in treatment” between the intervention arm where clinicians learned whether their patients had microvascular angina or vasospasm, and the control arm where this information was kept blinded. Some patients reclassified as having microvascular disease or vasospasm were restarted on standard agents for treatment of coronary artery disease such as statins and ACE inhibitors that had previously been stopped, noted Dr. Berry. The identification of a specific type of vascular disorder also helped guide treatment. For example, patients identified as having vasospasm were taken off of beta-blockers, which are contraindicated in these patients, and instead began treatment with a calcium channel antagonist, he said.
“CorMicA was a landmark trial. The interventional cardiologists at my center believe that the testing [for microvascular and vasospastic angina] should be used routinely, based on the reported data,” said Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, a cardiologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The CorMicA (Coronary Microvascular Angina) trial enrolled 391 patients at either of two hospitals in Scotland during November 2016–November 2017. All patients were scheduled for clinically indicated, elective diagnostic angiography for suspected stable angina. Clinicians identified a coronary obstruction in 206 patients that excluded them from the main CorMicA analysis. They focused on the 181 without coronary obstruction visible by angiography, and specifically the 151 of these patients who underwent the invasive diagnostic procedure, with 76 randomized to have their diagnostic-procedure results relayed to their treating physicians and 75 patients whose diagnostic results remained blinded. The study’s primary endpoint was the mean difference in angina severity at 6 months after treatment assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. After 6 months, the between-group difference in average SAQ summary scores was 11.7 units, a statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful benefit that linked with knowledge of the coronary function of patients based on invasive testing (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 11;72[23 Part A]:2841-55).
The prespecified 1-year follow-up with another SAQ took place for 142 of the 151 randomized patients, and showed ongoing separation of SAQ scores between the intervention and control patients, reaching a statistically significant mean difference of 13.6 units, Dr. Berry reported. Other benefits that linked with dissemination of results from the invasive diagnostic procedure included maintenance of the quality-of-life benefit seen after 6 months, an incremental further reduction in illness perception from 6 to 12 months, and a substantial further improvement in global treatment satisfaction, which grew from a 30% higher level in the intervention group compared with controls at 6 months to a 44% between-group difference after 12 months. Concurrently with Dr. Berry’s report, the results appeared online (JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jan 13;13[1] 33-45).
Additional findings for various clinical measures that were not part of the 6-month findings provided further insight into the impact that clinician knowledge about microvascular disease or vasospasm had on patients. These metrics suggested that the benefits in the intervention patients may have largely resulted from their avoiding elevations in risk markers that occurred among controls who received routine care.
For example, after 12 months, average 12/5 mm Hg differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the two arms was nearly all because of pressure increases from baseline in the control patients with only very small drops in pressure from baseline among the intervention patients. Weight measurements after 1 year showed that the control patients were on average 1.3 kg heavier than the intervention patients, again mostly because of weight increases among the controls. Enrollment in a cardiac rehabilitation program at 12 months had occurred for 40% of the intervention patients and 16% of the controls, a 73% relative increase in the intervention arm, Dr. Berry reported.
The invasive, coronary, physiological assessments used in CorMicA led to stratified medical therapy and created an opportunity for better long-term angina treatment in patients without obstructive coronary disease, Dr. Berry concluded. He stressed the need to further test this hypothesis in larger, prospective studies, and to assess its cost effectiveness. But the proof-of-concept demonstrated by the CorMicA results indicate a role for more thorough investigation of coronary dysfunction when obstructive disease is absent, with the opportunity to use this information to better tailor treatment. The findings also highlight the potential for new drug development that can address nonobstructive microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease, he said.
Dr. Berry has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Novartis, and Siemens Healthcare. Dr. Reynolds had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ford TJ. AHA 2019, session FS.AOS.03 abstract.
PHILADELPHIA – Longer and more extensive follow-up of the positive CorMicA trial confirmed that clinicians who receive added information on the presence or absence of microvascular coronary disease or coronary vasospasm in patients with chronic, stable angina but without detectable coronary obstruction adjust patient treatment in ways that produce better outcomes.
For example, expanded 1-year follow-up of the 151-patient, multicenter, CorMicA randomized study showed that stable angina patients without coronary obstruction treated by clinicians aware of microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease had blood pressures that averaged about 12/5 mm Hg lower than those of patients in the control arm, in which this information was kept blinded.
Clinicians in the study who received information about diagnoses of microvascular angina, vasospastic angina, both, or neither, generally better tailored the treatments they gave these patients, were more likely to prescribe cardiac rehabilitation to these patients, and successfully capped increases in blood pressure that occurred in the control patients, Colin Berry, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The investigators made the diagnoses of microvascular and vasospastic angina using an “invasive diagnostic procedure” that involved placing a wire with pressure and temperature sensors in a selected coronary artery and measuring flow patterns that resulted from a systemic infusion of adenosine and from incremental, intracoronary infusions of acetylcholine.
The CorMicA results “tell us that, if we use existing drugs and nonpharmacologic treatments, we can improve patients’ quality of life,” said Dr. Berry, co-lead investigator of the study and professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow. “There were probably two drivers of change in treatment” between the intervention arm where clinicians learned whether their patients had microvascular angina or vasospasm, and the control arm where this information was kept blinded. Some patients reclassified as having microvascular disease or vasospasm were restarted on standard agents for treatment of coronary artery disease such as statins and ACE inhibitors that had previously been stopped, noted Dr. Berry. The identification of a specific type of vascular disorder also helped guide treatment. For example, patients identified as having vasospasm were taken off of beta-blockers, which are contraindicated in these patients, and instead began treatment with a calcium channel antagonist, he said.
“CorMicA was a landmark trial. The interventional cardiologists at my center believe that the testing [for microvascular and vasospastic angina] should be used routinely, based on the reported data,” said Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, a cardiologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The CorMicA (Coronary Microvascular Angina) trial enrolled 391 patients at either of two hospitals in Scotland during November 2016–November 2017. All patients were scheduled for clinically indicated, elective diagnostic angiography for suspected stable angina. Clinicians identified a coronary obstruction in 206 patients that excluded them from the main CorMicA analysis. They focused on the 181 without coronary obstruction visible by angiography, and specifically the 151 of these patients who underwent the invasive diagnostic procedure, with 76 randomized to have their diagnostic-procedure results relayed to their treating physicians and 75 patients whose diagnostic results remained blinded. The study’s primary endpoint was the mean difference in angina severity at 6 months after treatment assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. After 6 months, the between-group difference in average SAQ summary scores was 11.7 units, a statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful benefit that linked with knowledge of the coronary function of patients based on invasive testing (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 11;72[23 Part A]:2841-55).
The prespecified 1-year follow-up with another SAQ took place for 142 of the 151 randomized patients, and showed ongoing separation of SAQ scores between the intervention and control patients, reaching a statistically significant mean difference of 13.6 units, Dr. Berry reported. Other benefits that linked with dissemination of results from the invasive diagnostic procedure included maintenance of the quality-of-life benefit seen after 6 months, an incremental further reduction in illness perception from 6 to 12 months, and a substantial further improvement in global treatment satisfaction, which grew from a 30% higher level in the intervention group compared with controls at 6 months to a 44% between-group difference after 12 months. Concurrently with Dr. Berry’s report, the results appeared online (JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jan 13;13[1] 33-45).
Additional findings for various clinical measures that were not part of the 6-month findings provided further insight into the impact that clinician knowledge about microvascular disease or vasospasm had on patients. These metrics suggested that the benefits in the intervention patients may have largely resulted from their avoiding elevations in risk markers that occurred among controls who received routine care.
For example, after 12 months, average 12/5 mm Hg differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the two arms was nearly all because of pressure increases from baseline in the control patients with only very small drops in pressure from baseline among the intervention patients. Weight measurements after 1 year showed that the control patients were on average 1.3 kg heavier than the intervention patients, again mostly because of weight increases among the controls. Enrollment in a cardiac rehabilitation program at 12 months had occurred for 40% of the intervention patients and 16% of the controls, a 73% relative increase in the intervention arm, Dr. Berry reported.
The invasive, coronary, physiological assessments used in CorMicA led to stratified medical therapy and created an opportunity for better long-term angina treatment in patients without obstructive coronary disease, Dr. Berry concluded. He stressed the need to further test this hypothesis in larger, prospective studies, and to assess its cost effectiveness. But the proof-of-concept demonstrated by the CorMicA results indicate a role for more thorough investigation of coronary dysfunction when obstructive disease is absent, with the opportunity to use this information to better tailor treatment. The findings also highlight the potential for new drug development that can address nonobstructive microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease, he said.
Dr. Berry has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Novartis, and Siemens Healthcare. Dr. Reynolds had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ford TJ. AHA 2019, session FS.AOS.03 abstract.
PHILADELPHIA – Longer and more extensive follow-up of the positive CorMicA trial confirmed that clinicians who receive added information on the presence or absence of microvascular coronary disease or coronary vasospasm in patients with chronic, stable angina but without detectable coronary obstruction adjust patient treatment in ways that produce better outcomes.
For example, expanded 1-year follow-up of the 151-patient, multicenter, CorMicA randomized study showed that stable angina patients without coronary obstruction treated by clinicians aware of microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease had blood pressures that averaged about 12/5 mm Hg lower than those of patients in the control arm, in which this information was kept blinded.
Clinicians in the study who received information about diagnoses of microvascular angina, vasospastic angina, both, or neither, generally better tailored the treatments they gave these patients, were more likely to prescribe cardiac rehabilitation to these patients, and successfully capped increases in blood pressure that occurred in the control patients, Colin Berry, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. The investigators made the diagnoses of microvascular and vasospastic angina using an “invasive diagnostic procedure” that involved placing a wire with pressure and temperature sensors in a selected coronary artery and measuring flow patterns that resulted from a systemic infusion of adenosine and from incremental, intracoronary infusions of acetylcholine.
The CorMicA results “tell us that, if we use existing drugs and nonpharmacologic treatments, we can improve patients’ quality of life,” said Dr. Berry, co-lead investigator of the study and professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow. “There were probably two drivers of change in treatment” between the intervention arm where clinicians learned whether their patients had microvascular angina or vasospasm, and the control arm where this information was kept blinded. Some patients reclassified as having microvascular disease or vasospasm were restarted on standard agents for treatment of coronary artery disease such as statins and ACE inhibitors that had previously been stopped, noted Dr. Berry. The identification of a specific type of vascular disorder also helped guide treatment. For example, patients identified as having vasospasm were taken off of beta-blockers, which are contraindicated in these patients, and instead began treatment with a calcium channel antagonist, he said.
“CorMicA was a landmark trial. The interventional cardiologists at my center believe that the testing [for microvascular and vasospastic angina] should be used routinely, based on the reported data,” said Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, a cardiologist at NYU Langone Health in New York.
The CorMicA (Coronary Microvascular Angina) trial enrolled 391 patients at either of two hospitals in Scotland during November 2016–November 2017. All patients were scheduled for clinically indicated, elective diagnostic angiography for suspected stable angina. Clinicians identified a coronary obstruction in 206 patients that excluded them from the main CorMicA analysis. They focused on the 181 without coronary obstruction visible by angiography, and specifically the 151 of these patients who underwent the invasive diagnostic procedure, with 76 randomized to have their diagnostic-procedure results relayed to their treating physicians and 75 patients whose diagnostic results remained blinded. The study’s primary endpoint was the mean difference in angina severity at 6 months after treatment assessed by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. After 6 months, the between-group difference in average SAQ summary scores was 11.7 units, a statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful benefit that linked with knowledge of the coronary function of patients based on invasive testing (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 11;72[23 Part A]:2841-55).
The prespecified 1-year follow-up with another SAQ took place for 142 of the 151 randomized patients, and showed ongoing separation of SAQ scores between the intervention and control patients, reaching a statistically significant mean difference of 13.6 units, Dr. Berry reported. Other benefits that linked with dissemination of results from the invasive diagnostic procedure included maintenance of the quality-of-life benefit seen after 6 months, an incremental further reduction in illness perception from 6 to 12 months, and a substantial further improvement in global treatment satisfaction, which grew from a 30% higher level in the intervention group compared with controls at 6 months to a 44% between-group difference after 12 months. Concurrently with Dr. Berry’s report, the results appeared online (JACC: Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jan 13;13[1] 33-45).
Additional findings for various clinical measures that were not part of the 6-month findings provided further insight into the impact that clinician knowledge about microvascular disease or vasospasm had on patients. These metrics suggested that the benefits in the intervention patients may have largely resulted from their avoiding elevations in risk markers that occurred among controls who received routine care.
For example, after 12 months, average 12/5 mm Hg differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the two arms was nearly all because of pressure increases from baseline in the control patients with only very small drops in pressure from baseline among the intervention patients. Weight measurements after 1 year showed that the control patients were on average 1.3 kg heavier than the intervention patients, again mostly because of weight increases among the controls. Enrollment in a cardiac rehabilitation program at 12 months had occurred for 40% of the intervention patients and 16% of the controls, a 73% relative increase in the intervention arm, Dr. Berry reported.
The invasive, coronary, physiological assessments used in CorMicA led to stratified medical therapy and created an opportunity for better long-term angina treatment in patients without obstructive coronary disease, Dr. Berry concluded. He stressed the need to further test this hypothesis in larger, prospective studies, and to assess its cost effectiveness. But the proof-of-concept demonstrated by the CorMicA results indicate a role for more thorough investigation of coronary dysfunction when obstructive disease is absent, with the opportunity to use this information to better tailor treatment. The findings also highlight the potential for new drug development that can address nonobstructive microvascular or vasospastic coronary disease, he said.
Dr. Berry has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Novartis, and Siemens Healthcare. Dr. Reynolds had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Ford TJ. AHA 2019, session FS.AOS.03 abstract.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
ODYSSEY Outcomes: Alirocumab cut stroke, PAD, VTE
PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab linked with a significant cut in the rates of peripheral artery disease events and ischemic strokes without increasing the rate of hemorrhagic strokes, and alirocumab treatment also showed a trend toward an association with a reduced rate of venous thromboembolic events in prespecified, ancillary analyses of data collected from more than 18,000 patients in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial.
The analyses that looked at peripheral artery disease (PAD) events and venous thromboembolism (VTE) events also suggested that the apparent ability of alirocumab to reduce their incidence may have been largely mediated through a reduction in Lp(a) lipoprotein, with less of a contribution from the drug’s primary action of reducing LDL cholesterol, Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
When used on top of intensive statin treatment, as in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial, treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab “may be useful to prevent PAD events, particularly in patients with high levels of Lp(a),” said Dr. Schwartz, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora. In the analysis he reported, patients treated with alirocumab for a median of 2.8 years had a statistically significant 31% reduced rate of PAD or VTE event and a significant 31% reduced rate of PAD events alone, compared with control patients who received placebo, he reported. Alirocumab treatment was also associated with a 33% lower rate of VTE events only, but the overall rate of these events was low, and this difference just missed statistical significance with a P value of .06.
“Levels of Lp(a), but not LDL cholesterol, predicted the risk of PAD events,” and in patients on alirocumab treatment “the magnitude of Lp(a) reduction, but not LDL-cholesterol reduction, was associated with a reduction in PAD events and VTE.” The reduction in PAD events linked with alirocumab treatment “may be related to Lp(a) lowering,” Dr. Schwartz suggested.
The link between alirocumab treatment and a reduction in ischemic stroke with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes appeared in a separate prespecified analysis from ODYSSEY Outcomes that looked at the rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and their combined incidence during the median 2.8 year of study follow-up. Patients treated with alirocumab had a statistically significant 27% reduction in their rate of ischemic strokes compared with patients on placebo, and a statistically significant 28% relative reduction in the rate of any stroke with alirocumab treatment, J. Wouter Jukema, MD, said in a separate report at the meeting. The rate of hemorrhagic strokes was small, and showed a nominal 17% reduction in patients treated with alirocumab, compared with controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Further analysis of the stroke outcomes also showed that these reductions in total strokes occurred with alirocumab treatment at roughly similar rates regardless of baseline level of LDL cholesterol or history of a prior cerebrovascular event. Analysis also showed that the rate of hemorrhagic strokes was consistently low regardless of the on-treatment level of LDL cholesterol. Even among patients whose LDL cholesterol level fell below 25 mg/dL on alirocumab treatment, the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes during follow-up was 0.1%, “a very reassuring finding,” said Dr. Jukema, professor of cardiology at Leiden (The Netherlands) University. The stroke analyses did not examine possible linkages of these effects with changes in level of Lp(a).
ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) included 18,924 patients who had experienced an acute coronary syndrome event within the prior 12 months and had an LDL cholesterol level of at least 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin treatment and randomized them to treatment with alirocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina, which alirocumab effectively reduced compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-107).
The PAD analysis tallied the combined rate of acute limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation related to PAD, and the VTE cases included patients who developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. All cases were nonadjudicated reports from participating investigators. Because Lp(a) makes up a portion of LDL cholesterol, Dr. Schwartz and associates calculated adjusted values for LDL cholesterol that were independent of Lp(a).
In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as baseline Lp(a) and the calculated level of LDL cholesterol, every 1 mg/dL decrease in Lp(a) linked with a statistically significant, nearly 1% decrease in the rate of either a PAD or VTE event, while the change in LDL cholesterol had no significant relationship with this endpoint, said Dr. Schwartz.
The impact of Lp(a) lowering was most dramatic among the subgroups of patients who entered the study with the highest levels of Lp(a). “In the lowest quartile [for baseline level of Lp(a)] the effect of treatment [with alirocumab] was inconsequential; all of the action was in the upper two quartiles,” he said. Dr. Schwartz highlighted that 90% of patients in the study were on an “intense” statin dosage, and 97% received some statin treatment. Against that treatment background, the findings showed that patients still had residual cardiovascular disease risk that did not appear to respond to changes in LDL cholesterol but which did appear to respond to a reduction in Lp(a) produced by alirocumab. Dr. Schwartz further suggested that alirocumab’s reduction of Lp(a) might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on reducing VTE incidence, possibly because Lp(a) is structurally similar to plasminogen and hence can have prothrombotic effects.
ODYSSEY Outcomes was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Schwartz has received research support from Sanofi and from Resverlogix, Roche, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Jukema has been a speaker for and received research support from Sanofi Regeneron, and has also been a speaker for Amgen, MSD, and Roche and has also received research support from Biotronik
SOURCE: Schwartz GG et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 309; Jukema JW et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 334.
PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab linked with a significant cut in the rates of peripheral artery disease events and ischemic strokes without increasing the rate of hemorrhagic strokes, and alirocumab treatment also showed a trend toward an association with a reduced rate of venous thromboembolic events in prespecified, ancillary analyses of data collected from more than 18,000 patients in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial.
The analyses that looked at peripheral artery disease (PAD) events and venous thromboembolism (VTE) events also suggested that the apparent ability of alirocumab to reduce their incidence may have been largely mediated through a reduction in Lp(a) lipoprotein, with less of a contribution from the drug’s primary action of reducing LDL cholesterol, Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
When used on top of intensive statin treatment, as in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial, treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab “may be useful to prevent PAD events, particularly in patients with high levels of Lp(a),” said Dr. Schwartz, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora. In the analysis he reported, patients treated with alirocumab for a median of 2.8 years had a statistically significant 31% reduced rate of PAD or VTE event and a significant 31% reduced rate of PAD events alone, compared with control patients who received placebo, he reported. Alirocumab treatment was also associated with a 33% lower rate of VTE events only, but the overall rate of these events was low, and this difference just missed statistical significance with a P value of .06.
“Levels of Lp(a), but not LDL cholesterol, predicted the risk of PAD events,” and in patients on alirocumab treatment “the magnitude of Lp(a) reduction, but not LDL-cholesterol reduction, was associated with a reduction in PAD events and VTE.” The reduction in PAD events linked with alirocumab treatment “may be related to Lp(a) lowering,” Dr. Schwartz suggested.
The link between alirocumab treatment and a reduction in ischemic stroke with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes appeared in a separate prespecified analysis from ODYSSEY Outcomes that looked at the rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and their combined incidence during the median 2.8 year of study follow-up. Patients treated with alirocumab had a statistically significant 27% reduction in their rate of ischemic strokes compared with patients on placebo, and a statistically significant 28% relative reduction in the rate of any stroke with alirocumab treatment, J. Wouter Jukema, MD, said in a separate report at the meeting. The rate of hemorrhagic strokes was small, and showed a nominal 17% reduction in patients treated with alirocumab, compared with controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Further analysis of the stroke outcomes also showed that these reductions in total strokes occurred with alirocumab treatment at roughly similar rates regardless of baseline level of LDL cholesterol or history of a prior cerebrovascular event. Analysis also showed that the rate of hemorrhagic strokes was consistently low regardless of the on-treatment level of LDL cholesterol. Even among patients whose LDL cholesterol level fell below 25 mg/dL on alirocumab treatment, the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes during follow-up was 0.1%, “a very reassuring finding,” said Dr. Jukema, professor of cardiology at Leiden (The Netherlands) University. The stroke analyses did not examine possible linkages of these effects with changes in level of Lp(a).
ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) included 18,924 patients who had experienced an acute coronary syndrome event within the prior 12 months and had an LDL cholesterol level of at least 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin treatment and randomized them to treatment with alirocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina, which alirocumab effectively reduced compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-107).
The PAD analysis tallied the combined rate of acute limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation related to PAD, and the VTE cases included patients who developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. All cases were nonadjudicated reports from participating investigators. Because Lp(a) makes up a portion of LDL cholesterol, Dr. Schwartz and associates calculated adjusted values for LDL cholesterol that were independent of Lp(a).
In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as baseline Lp(a) and the calculated level of LDL cholesterol, every 1 mg/dL decrease in Lp(a) linked with a statistically significant, nearly 1% decrease in the rate of either a PAD or VTE event, while the change in LDL cholesterol had no significant relationship with this endpoint, said Dr. Schwartz.
The impact of Lp(a) lowering was most dramatic among the subgroups of patients who entered the study with the highest levels of Lp(a). “In the lowest quartile [for baseline level of Lp(a)] the effect of treatment [with alirocumab] was inconsequential; all of the action was in the upper two quartiles,” he said. Dr. Schwartz highlighted that 90% of patients in the study were on an “intense” statin dosage, and 97% received some statin treatment. Against that treatment background, the findings showed that patients still had residual cardiovascular disease risk that did not appear to respond to changes in LDL cholesterol but which did appear to respond to a reduction in Lp(a) produced by alirocumab. Dr. Schwartz further suggested that alirocumab’s reduction of Lp(a) might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on reducing VTE incidence, possibly because Lp(a) is structurally similar to plasminogen and hence can have prothrombotic effects.
ODYSSEY Outcomes was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Schwartz has received research support from Sanofi and from Resverlogix, Roche, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Jukema has been a speaker for and received research support from Sanofi Regeneron, and has also been a speaker for Amgen, MSD, and Roche and has also received research support from Biotronik
SOURCE: Schwartz GG et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 309; Jukema JW et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 334.
PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab linked with a significant cut in the rates of peripheral artery disease events and ischemic strokes without increasing the rate of hemorrhagic strokes, and alirocumab treatment also showed a trend toward an association with a reduced rate of venous thromboembolic events in prespecified, ancillary analyses of data collected from more than 18,000 patients in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial.
The analyses that looked at peripheral artery disease (PAD) events and venous thromboembolism (VTE) events also suggested that the apparent ability of alirocumab to reduce their incidence may have been largely mediated through a reduction in Lp(a) lipoprotein, with less of a contribution from the drug’s primary action of reducing LDL cholesterol, Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
When used on top of intensive statin treatment, as in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial, treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab “may be useful to prevent PAD events, particularly in patients with high levels of Lp(a),” said Dr. Schwartz, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora. In the analysis he reported, patients treated with alirocumab for a median of 2.8 years had a statistically significant 31% reduced rate of PAD or VTE event and a significant 31% reduced rate of PAD events alone, compared with control patients who received placebo, he reported. Alirocumab treatment was also associated with a 33% lower rate of VTE events only, but the overall rate of these events was low, and this difference just missed statistical significance with a P value of .06.
“Levels of Lp(a), but not LDL cholesterol, predicted the risk of PAD events,” and in patients on alirocumab treatment “the magnitude of Lp(a) reduction, but not LDL-cholesterol reduction, was associated with a reduction in PAD events and VTE.” The reduction in PAD events linked with alirocumab treatment “may be related to Lp(a) lowering,” Dr. Schwartz suggested.
The link between alirocumab treatment and a reduction in ischemic stroke with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes appeared in a separate prespecified analysis from ODYSSEY Outcomes that looked at the rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and their combined incidence during the median 2.8 year of study follow-up. Patients treated with alirocumab had a statistically significant 27% reduction in their rate of ischemic strokes compared with patients on placebo, and a statistically significant 28% relative reduction in the rate of any stroke with alirocumab treatment, J. Wouter Jukema, MD, said in a separate report at the meeting. The rate of hemorrhagic strokes was small, and showed a nominal 17% reduction in patients treated with alirocumab, compared with controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Further analysis of the stroke outcomes also showed that these reductions in total strokes occurred with alirocumab treatment at roughly similar rates regardless of baseline level of LDL cholesterol or history of a prior cerebrovascular event. Analysis also showed that the rate of hemorrhagic strokes was consistently low regardless of the on-treatment level of LDL cholesterol. Even among patients whose LDL cholesterol level fell below 25 mg/dL on alirocumab treatment, the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes during follow-up was 0.1%, “a very reassuring finding,” said Dr. Jukema, professor of cardiology at Leiden (The Netherlands) University. The stroke analyses did not examine possible linkages of these effects with changes in level of Lp(a).
ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) included 18,924 patients who had experienced an acute coronary syndrome event within the prior 12 months and had an LDL cholesterol level of at least 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin treatment and randomized them to treatment with alirocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina, which alirocumab effectively reduced compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-107).
The PAD analysis tallied the combined rate of acute limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation related to PAD, and the VTE cases included patients who developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. All cases were nonadjudicated reports from participating investigators. Because Lp(a) makes up a portion of LDL cholesterol, Dr. Schwartz and associates calculated adjusted values for LDL cholesterol that were independent of Lp(a).
In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as baseline Lp(a) and the calculated level of LDL cholesterol, every 1 mg/dL decrease in Lp(a) linked with a statistically significant, nearly 1% decrease in the rate of either a PAD or VTE event, while the change in LDL cholesterol had no significant relationship with this endpoint, said Dr. Schwartz.
The impact of Lp(a) lowering was most dramatic among the subgroups of patients who entered the study with the highest levels of Lp(a). “In the lowest quartile [for baseline level of Lp(a)] the effect of treatment [with alirocumab] was inconsequential; all of the action was in the upper two quartiles,” he said. Dr. Schwartz highlighted that 90% of patients in the study were on an “intense” statin dosage, and 97% received some statin treatment. Against that treatment background, the findings showed that patients still had residual cardiovascular disease risk that did not appear to respond to changes in LDL cholesterol but which did appear to respond to a reduction in Lp(a) produced by alirocumab. Dr. Schwartz further suggested that alirocumab’s reduction of Lp(a) might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on reducing VTE incidence, possibly because Lp(a) is structurally similar to plasminogen and hence can have prothrombotic effects.
ODYSSEY Outcomes was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Schwartz has received research support from Sanofi and from Resverlogix, Roche, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Jukema has been a speaker for and received research support from Sanofi Regeneron, and has also been a speaker for Amgen, MSD, and Roche and has also received research support from Biotronik
SOURCE: Schwartz GG et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 309; Jukema JW et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 334.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA 2019
Icosapent ethyl approved for cardiovascular risk reduction
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) has gained an indication from the Food and Drug Administration for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with high triglycerides who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. 
as an add-on to maximally tolerated statin therapy,” the agency said in an announcement.
The decision, announced on Dec. 13, was based primarily on results of REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. It showed that patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
In a November meeting, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee voted unanimously for approval.
The agency notes that, in clinical trials, icosapent ethyl was linked to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter requiring hospitalization, especially in patients with a history of either condition. The highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid was also associated with an increased risk of bleeding events, particularly in those taking blood-thinning drugs that increase the risk of bleeding, such as aspirin, clopidogrel, or warfarin.
The most common side effects reported in the clinical trials for icosapent ethyl were musculoskeletal pain, peripheral edema, atrial fibrillation, and arthralgia.
The complete indication is “as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adult patients with elevated triglyceride levels (at least 150 mg/dL) and established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus and two or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease,” according to a statement from Amalin, which markets Vascepa.
The drug was approved in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) has gained an indication from the Food and Drug Administration for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with high triglycerides who are at high risk for cardiovascular events.
as an add-on to maximally tolerated statin therapy,” the agency said in an announcement.
The decision, announced on Dec. 13, was based primarily on results of REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. It showed that patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
In a November meeting, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee voted unanimously for approval.
The agency notes that, in clinical trials, icosapent ethyl was linked to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter requiring hospitalization, especially in patients with a history of either condition. The highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid was also associated with an increased risk of bleeding events, particularly in those taking blood-thinning drugs that increase the risk of bleeding, such as aspirin, clopidogrel, or warfarin.
The most common side effects reported in the clinical trials for icosapent ethyl were musculoskeletal pain, peripheral edema, atrial fibrillation, and arthralgia.
The complete indication is “as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adult patients with elevated triglyceride levels (at least 150 mg/dL) and established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus and two or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease,” according to a statement from Amalin, which markets Vascepa.
The drug was approved in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) has gained an indication from the Food and Drug Administration for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with high triglycerides who are at high risk for cardiovascular events.
as an add-on to maximally tolerated statin therapy,” the agency said in an announcement.
The decision, announced on Dec. 13, was based primarily on results of REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. It showed that patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
In a November meeting, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee voted unanimously for approval.
The agency notes that, in clinical trials, icosapent ethyl was linked to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter requiring hospitalization, especially in patients with a history of either condition. The highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid was also associated with an increased risk of bleeding events, particularly in those taking blood-thinning drugs that increase the risk of bleeding, such as aspirin, clopidogrel, or warfarin.
The most common side effects reported in the clinical trials for icosapent ethyl were musculoskeletal pain, peripheral edema, atrial fibrillation, and arthralgia.
The complete indication is “as an adjunct to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization in adult patients with elevated triglyceride levels (at least 150 mg/dL) and established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus and two or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease,” according to a statement from Amalin, which markets Vascepa.
The drug was approved in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
Lp(a) molar concentration flags CVD, diabetes risk
Lipoprotein(a) molar concentration, rather than apolipoprotein(a) size, appears to be the factor that drives lipoprotein(a)-based cardiovascular disease, according to research published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The causal association between lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), and cardiovascular disease has been previously established, but exactly what attribute of Lp(a) is related to cardiovascular risk is not known, Daniel F. Gudbjartsson, PhD, of deCODE genetics and the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote in their study. The researchers set out to determine whether Lp(a) molar concentration or apolipoprotein(a), or apo(a), size affects cardiovascular risk. In addition, Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues examined the relationship between Lp(a) and type 2 diabetes. While low levels of Lp(a) have been linked to type 2 diabetes, the researchers sought to examine whether low Lp(a) molar concentration levels were also associated with type 2 diabetes risk.
“With Lp(a)-lowering drugs being developed, it is important to understand which attributes of Lp(a) best capture the cardiovascular risk and the consequences of Lp(a) lowering,” noted Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues.
Using Mendelian randomization, the researchers assessed Lp(a) molar concentration and kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeat sequence variants to determine a causal relationship between both variants and disease risk. Lp(a) molar concentration serum samples were measured using particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay, while KIV-2 repeats were genotyped with real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Overall, 143,087 participants from Iceland had their genetic information analyzed; of these, 17,715 participants had coronary artery disease, and 8,734 had type 2 diabetes. Lp(a) molecular concentration was analyzed in 12,137 participants and genetically imputed into 130,950 Icelanders, and KIV-2 repeats were estimated in 22,771 Icelanders and genetically imputed into 120,316 Icelanders.
Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues found there was a dose-dependent association between Lp(a) molar concentration and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease, aortic valve stenosis, heart failure, and lifespan. In participants in whom Lp(a) molar concentration was at the 79th percentile (50 units of molarity [nM]), the odds ratio was 1.11, and for those in the 99th percentile (250 nM), there was an odds ratio of 2.01 when compared with participants with a median Lp(a) molar concentration of 14 nM. “Lp(a) molar concentration fully explained the Lp(a) association with CAD, and there was no residual association with apo(a) size,” the researchers said.
Participants who were not at increased risk for CAD included those with few KIV-2 repeats and participants with the splice variant G4925A. “This suggested that risk prediction based on Lp(a) should only depend on molar concentration and that treatment of Lp(a) should focus on lowering the molar concentration in subjects with high Lp(a) levels, regardless of the apo(a) size distribution,” Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues wrote.
Among participants with type 2 diabetes examined, the 10% of participants with Lp(a) molar concentrations of less than 3.5 nM were at the highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
In an accompanying editorial, Benoit J. Arsenault, PhD, of the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, said that the findings of an association between Lp(a) concentration and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) from Gudbjartsson et al. are important, particularly if they can be replicated in more diverse populations (doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.083). “Investigating the association between Lp(a) levels, apo(a) isoform size, and ASCVD risk in different populations is important because the distribution of Lp(a) levels appears to be different across ethnic groups,” he said.
Despite the link between absolute Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular outcome trials will need be conducted, Dr. Arsenault noted.
“In the post-statin and post-genomic era, finding much needed therapeutic targets for residual cardiovascular risk can be compared to a gold-digging expedition. Like a map to the location of the gold, GWAS [genome-wide association studies] and Mendelian randomization studies are consistently pointing us in the direction of Lp(a),” he said. “It is time to coordinate our efforts to dig where the map told us, to see once and for all if we will find the golden target of residual cardiovascular risk that we are hoping for and to give hope to high-risk patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.”
Dr. Gudbjartsson and 19 other authors reported being employees of deCODE genetics, owned by Amgen, which is developing Lp(a)-lowering drugs related to the study findings. The other authors reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Arsenault reported being supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec: Santé and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; has received research funding from Pfizer, Merck, and Ionis; and was a former consultant for Pfizer and Novartis.
SOURCE: Gudbjartsson DF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.019.
Lipoprotein(a) molar concentration, rather than apolipoprotein(a) size, appears to be the factor that drives lipoprotein(a)-based cardiovascular disease, according to research published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The causal association between lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), and cardiovascular disease has been previously established, but exactly what attribute of Lp(a) is related to cardiovascular risk is not known, Daniel F. Gudbjartsson, PhD, of deCODE genetics and the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote in their study. The researchers set out to determine whether Lp(a) molar concentration or apolipoprotein(a), or apo(a), size affects cardiovascular risk. In addition, Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues examined the relationship between Lp(a) and type 2 diabetes. While low levels of Lp(a) have been linked to type 2 diabetes, the researchers sought to examine whether low Lp(a) molar concentration levels were also associated with type 2 diabetes risk.
“With Lp(a)-lowering drugs being developed, it is important to understand which attributes of Lp(a) best capture the cardiovascular risk and the consequences of Lp(a) lowering,” noted Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues.
Using Mendelian randomization, the researchers assessed Lp(a) molar concentration and kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeat sequence variants to determine a causal relationship between both variants and disease risk. Lp(a) molar concentration serum samples were measured using particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay, while KIV-2 repeats were genotyped with real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Overall, 143,087 participants from Iceland had their genetic information analyzed; of these, 17,715 participants had coronary artery disease, and 8,734 had type 2 diabetes. Lp(a) molecular concentration was analyzed in 12,137 participants and genetically imputed into 130,950 Icelanders, and KIV-2 repeats were estimated in 22,771 Icelanders and genetically imputed into 120,316 Icelanders.
Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues found there was a dose-dependent association between Lp(a) molar concentration and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease, aortic valve stenosis, heart failure, and lifespan. In participants in whom Lp(a) molar concentration was at the 79th percentile (50 units of molarity [nM]), the odds ratio was 1.11, and for those in the 99th percentile (250 nM), there was an odds ratio of 2.01 when compared with participants with a median Lp(a) molar concentration of 14 nM. “Lp(a) molar concentration fully explained the Lp(a) association with CAD, and there was no residual association with apo(a) size,” the researchers said.
Participants who were not at increased risk for CAD included those with few KIV-2 repeats and participants with the splice variant G4925A. “This suggested that risk prediction based on Lp(a) should only depend on molar concentration and that treatment of Lp(a) should focus on lowering the molar concentration in subjects with high Lp(a) levels, regardless of the apo(a) size distribution,” Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues wrote.
Among participants with type 2 diabetes examined, the 10% of participants with Lp(a) molar concentrations of less than 3.5 nM were at the highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
In an accompanying editorial, Benoit J. Arsenault, PhD, of the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, said that the findings of an association between Lp(a) concentration and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) from Gudbjartsson et al. are important, particularly if they can be replicated in more diverse populations (doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.083). “Investigating the association between Lp(a) levels, apo(a) isoform size, and ASCVD risk in different populations is important because the distribution of Lp(a) levels appears to be different across ethnic groups,” he said.
Despite the link between absolute Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular outcome trials will need be conducted, Dr. Arsenault noted.
“In the post-statin and post-genomic era, finding much needed therapeutic targets for residual cardiovascular risk can be compared to a gold-digging expedition. Like a map to the location of the gold, GWAS [genome-wide association studies] and Mendelian randomization studies are consistently pointing us in the direction of Lp(a),” he said. “It is time to coordinate our efforts to dig where the map told us, to see once and for all if we will find the golden target of residual cardiovascular risk that we are hoping for and to give hope to high-risk patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.”
Dr. Gudbjartsson and 19 other authors reported being employees of deCODE genetics, owned by Amgen, which is developing Lp(a)-lowering drugs related to the study findings. The other authors reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Arsenault reported being supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec: Santé and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; has received research funding from Pfizer, Merck, and Ionis; and was a former consultant for Pfizer and Novartis.
SOURCE: Gudbjartsson DF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.019.
Lipoprotein(a) molar concentration, rather than apolipoprotein(a) size, appears to be the factor that drives lipoprotein(a)-based cardiovascular disease, according to research published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The causal association between lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), and cardiovascular disease has been previously established, but exactly what attribute of Lp(a) is related to cardiovascular risk is not known, Daniel F. Gudbjartsson, PhD, of deCODE genetics and the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, and colleagues wrote in their study. The researchers set out to determine whether Lp(a) molar concentration or apolipoprotein(a), or apo(a), size affects cardiovascular risk. In addition, Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues examined the relationship between Lp(a) and type 2 diabetes. While low levels of Lp(a) have been linked to type 2 diabetes, the researchers sought to examine whether low Lp(a) molar concentration levels were also associated with type 2 diabetes risk.
“With Lp(a)-lowering drugs being developed, it is important to understand which attributes of Lp(a) best capture the cardiovascular risk and the consequences of Lp(a) lowering,” noted Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues.
Using Mendelian randomization, the researchers assessed Lp(a) molar concentration and kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeat sequence variants to determine a causal relationship between both variants and disease risk. Lp(a) molar concentration serum samples were measured using particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay, while KIV-2 repeats were genotyped with real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Overall, 143,087 participants from Iceland had their genetic information analyzed; of these, 17,715 participants had coronary artery disease, and 8,734 had type 2 diabetes. Lp(a) molecular concentration was analyzed in 12,137 participants and genetically imputed into 130,950 Icelanders, and KIV-2 repeats were estimated in 22,771 Icelanders and genetically imputed into 120,316 Icelanders.
Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues found there was a dose-dependent association between Lp(a) molar concentration and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease, aortic valve stenosis, heart failure, and lifespan. In participants in whom Lp(a) molar concentration was at the 79th percentile (50 units of molarity [nM]), the odds ratio was 1.11, and for those in the 99th percentile (250 nM), there was an odds ratio of 2.01 when compared with participants with a median Lp(a) molar concentration of 14 nM. “Lp(a) molar concentration fully explained the Lp(a) association with CAD, and there was no residual association with apo(a) size,” the researchers said.
Participants who were not at increased risk for CAD included those with few KIV-2 repeats and participants with the splice variant G4925A. “This suggested that risk prediction based on Lp(a) should only depend on molar concentration and that treatment of Lp(a) should focus on lowering the molar concentration in subjects with high Lp(a) levels, regardless of the apo(a) size distribution,” Dr. Gudbjartsson and colleagues wrote.
Among participants with type 2 diabetes examined, the 10% of participants with Lp(a) molar concentrations of less than 3.5 nM were at the highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
In an accompanying editorial, Benoit J. Arsenault, PhD, of the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, said that the findings of an association between Lp(a) concentration and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) from Gudbjartsson et al. are important, particularly if they can be replicated in more diverse populations (doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.083). “Investigating the association between Lp(a) levels, apo(a) isoform size, and ASCVD risk in different populations is important because the distribution of Lp(a) levels appears to be different across ethnic groups,” he said.
Despite the link between absolute Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular outcome trials will need be conducted, Dr. Arsenault noted.
“In the post-statin and post-genomic era, finding much needed therapeutic targets for residual cardiovascular risk can be compared to a gold-digging expedition. Like a map to the location of the gold, GWAS [genome-wide association studies] and Mendelian randomization studies are consistently pointing us in the direction of Lp(a),” he said. “It is time to coordinate our efforts to dig where the map told us, to see once and for all if we will find the golden target of residual cardiovascular risk that we are hoping for and to give hope to high-risk patients with elevated Lp(a) levels.”
Dr. Gudbjartsson and 19 other authors reported being employees of deCODE genetics, owned by Amgen, which is developing Lp(a)-lowering drugs related to the study findings. The other authors reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Arsenault reported being supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec: Santé and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; has received research funding from Pfizer, Merck, and Ionis; and was a former consultant for Pfizer and Novartis.
SOURCE: Gudbjartsson DF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.019.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: There was a dose-dependent association between Lp(a) molar concentration and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease, aortic valve stenosis, heart failure, and lifespan.
Study details: A case-control study of genetic information from 143,087 Icelandic participants.
Disclosures: Dr. Gudbjartsson and 19 other authors reported being employees of deCODE genetics, owned by Amgen, which is developing Lp(a)-lowering drugs related to the study findings. The other authors reported no relevant conflict of interest. Dr. Arsenault reported being supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec: Santé and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; has received research funding from Pfizer, Merck, and Ionis; and was a former consultant for Pfizer and Novartis.
Source: Gudbjartsson DF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.019.