CAD & Atherosclerosis

PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, cancer is eclipsing cardiovascular disease as a cause of mortality in high income nations, according to new data from a global prospective study.

“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.

Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.

Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).

The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.

“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.

Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.

“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.

“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”

The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.

Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.

“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”

Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.

“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.

“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”

“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.

Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.

Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.

Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.

Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”

Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.

Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.

The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, cancer is eclipsing cardiovascular disease as a cause of mortality in high income nations, according to new data from a global prospective study.

“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.

Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.

Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).

The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.

“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.

Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.

“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.

“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”

The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.

Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.

“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”

Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.

“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.

“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”

“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.

Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.

Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.

Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.

Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”

Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.

Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.

The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, cancer is eclipsing cardiovascular disease as a cause of mortality in high income nations, according to new data from a global prospective study.

“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.

Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.

Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).

The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.

“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.

Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.

“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.

“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”

The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.

Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.

“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”

Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.

“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.

“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”

“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.

Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.

Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.

Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.

Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”

Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.

Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.

The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

At 8 weeks of follow-up, 90% of the dual-therapy group had achieved the new ESC guideline-recommended target of an LDL cholesterol less than 55 mg/dL, compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.

“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”

The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.

Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.

In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.

The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.

The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.

The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.

The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

At 8 weeks of follow-up, 90% of the dual-therapy group had achieved the new ESC guideline-recommended target of an LDL cholesterol less than 55 mg/dL, compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.

“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”

The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.

Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.

In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.

The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.

The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.

The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.

The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

At 8 weeks of follow-up, 90% of the dual-therapy group had achieved the new ESC guideline-recommended target of an LDL cholesterol less than 55 mg/dL, compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).

The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.

“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”

The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.

Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.

In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.

The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.

The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.

The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.

The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with left main coronary artery disease and low or intermediate coronary disease complexity, no significant differences were observed between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery with respect to the composite rate of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The findings come from an analysis of data from the EXCEL trial, which lead investigator Gregg W. Stone, MD, presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

“PCI may be considered an acceptable revascularization modality for selected patients with left main coronary artery disease, a decision which should be made after heart team discussion, taking into account each patient’s individual risk factors and preferences,” said Dr. Stone, professor of medicine and professor of population health sciences and policy at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Between September 2010 and March 2014, Dr. Stone and his colleagues at 126 sites in 17 countries enrolled 1,905 patients with left main CAD and site-assessed low or intermediate CAD complexity (SYNTAX score of up to 32) for randomization into one of two arms: 948 to revascularization with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent and 957 to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The primary outcome was the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. Long-term additional secondary outcomes included their components at 5 years, as well as therapy failure (definite stent thrombosis or symptomatic graft stenosis or occlusion), all revascularizations, and all cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack).

Dr. Stone reported that at 5 years, the primary composite of death, stroke, or MI occurred in 22.0% of patients in the PCI group and 19.2% of patients in the CABG group, a nonsignificant difference at P = 0.13).

However, when the researchers broke the results into three distinct risk periods within the 5-year time frame, they found that, with longer follow-up, came more of an advantage for CABG. The relative risk of PCI vs. CABG for the primary outcome favored PCI over CABG in the first 30 days (4.9% vs. 8%; hazard ratio, 0.61; P = .008), was neutral at 30 days to 1 year (4.1 vs. 3.8%; HR, 1.07; P = .76), and reversed at 1-5 years (15.1% vs. 9.7%; HR, 1.61; P less than .001). Using restricted mean survival time analysis, Dr. Stone and his colleagues found that, at the end of the 5-year follow-up period, event-free survival time was 5.2 days longer after PCI, compared with CABG. This translates into “a very similar event-free survival of a burden of disease from these two therapies at the end of 5 years,” he said.

In their analysis of secondary endpoints, some differences were noted, including an elevated risk of all-cause mortality in the PCI group, compared with the CABG group (13% vs. 9.9%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.38), yet no differences in definite cardiovascular mortality (5% vs. 4.5%; OR, 1.13) or in MI (10.6% vs. 9.1%; OR 1.14). In addition, there were fewer cerebrovascular events in the PCI vs. CABG groups (3.3% vs. 5.2%; OR, 0.61). “Overall, all of these differences were relatively small given the 5-year perspective,” Dr. Stone said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. He concluded that the early benefits of PCI attributable to reduced periprocedural risk “were attenuated by the greater number of events occurring during follow-up with CABG, such that at 5 years the cumulative mean time free from adverse events was similar with both treatments.” He noted that a 10-year or longer follow-up is required to characterize the very late safety profile of PCI and CABG as both stents and bypass grafts progressively fail over time.

Discussant Dharam Kumbhani, MD, an interventional cardiologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said that the findings from EXCEL “help us move the field forward and help us understand this concept of risk with PCI versus CABG. It really does help inform shared decision-making with patients.”

Results of the study were published online at the time of presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406). The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone disclosed having relationships with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies but had no relevant disclosures for this study.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stone G et al. TCT 2019. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406.
 

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with left main coronary artery disease and low or intermediate coronary disease complexity, no significant differences were observed between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery with respect to the composite rate of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The findings come from an analysis of data from the EXCEL trial, which lead investigator Gregg W. Stone, MD, presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

“PCI may be considered an acceptable revascularization modality for selected patients with left main coronary artery disease, a decision which should be made after heart team discussion, taking into account each patient’s individual risk factors and preferences,” said Dr. Stone, professor of medicine and professor of population health sciences and policy at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Between September 2010 and March 2014, Dr. Stone and his colleagues at 126 sites in 17 countries enrolled 1,905 patients with left main CAD and site-assessed low or intermediate CAD complexity (SYNTAX score of up to 32) for randomization into one of two arms: 948 to revascularization with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent and 957 to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The primary outcome was the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. Long-term additional secondary outcomes included their components at 5 years, as well as therapy failure (definite stent thrombosis or symptomatic graft stenosis or occlusion), all revascularizations, and all cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack).

Dr. Stone reported that at 5 years, the primary composite of death, stroke, or MI occurred in 22.0% of patients in the PCI group and 19.2% of patients in the CABG group, a nonsignificant difference at P = 0.13).

However, when the researchers broke the results into three distinct risk periods within the 5-year time frame, they found that, with longer follow-up, came more of an advantage for CABG. The relative risk of PCI vs. CABG for the primary outcome favored PCI over CABG in the first 30 days (4.9% vs. 8%; hazard ratio, 0.61; P = .008), was neutral at 30 days to 1 year (4.1 vs. 3.8%; HR, 1.07; P = .76), and reversed at 1-5 years (15.1% vs. 9.7%; HR, 1.61; P less than .001). Using restricted mean survival time analysis, Dr. Stone and his colleagues found that, at the end of the 5-year follow-up period, event-free survival time was 5.2 days longer after PCI, compared with CABG. This translates into “a very similar event-free survival of a burden of disease from these two therapies at the end of 5 years,” he said.

In their analysis of secondary endpoints, some differences were noted, including an elevated risk of all-cause mortality in the PCI group, compared with the CABG group (13% vs. 9.9%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.38), yet no differences in definite cardiovascular mortality (5% vs. 4.5%; OR, 1.13) or in MI (10.6% vs. 9.1%; OR 1.14). In addition, there were fewer cerebrovascular events in the PCI vs. CABG groups (3.3% vs. 5.2%; OR, 0.61). “Overall, all of these differences were relatively small given the 5-year perspective,” Dr. Stone said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. He concluded that the early benefits of PCI attributable to reduced periprocedural risk “were attenuated by the greater number of events occurring during follow-up with CABG, such that at 5 years the cumulative mean time free from adverse events was similar with both treatments.” He noted that a 10-year or longer follow-up is required to characterize the very late safety profile of PCI and CABG as both stents and bypass grafts progressively fail over time.

Discussant Dharam Kumbhani, MD, an interventional cardiologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said that the findings from EXCEL “help us move the field forward and help us understand this concept of risk with PCI versus CABG. It really does help inform shared decision-making with patients.”

Results of the study were published online at the time of presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406). The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone disclosed having relationships with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies but had no relevant disclosures for this study.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stone G et al. TCT 2019. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406.
 

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with left main coronary artery disease and low or intermediate coronary disease complexity, no significant differences were observed between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery with respect to the composite rate of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

The findings come from an analysis of data from the EXCEL trial, which lead investigator Gregg W. Stone, MD, presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

“PCI may be considered an acceptable revascularization modality for selected patients with left main coronary artery disease, a decision which should be made after heart team discussion, taking into account each patient’s individual risk factors and preferences,” said Dr. Stone, professor of medicine and professor of population health sciences and policy at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Between September 2010 and March 2014, Dr. Stone and his colleagues at 126 sites in 17 countries enrolled 1,905 patients with left main CAD and site-assessed low or intermediate CAD complexity (SYNTAX score of up to 32) for randomization into one of two arms: 948 to revascularization with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent and 957 to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The primary outcome was the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. Long-term additional secondary outcomes included their components at 5 years, as well as therapy failure (definite stent thrombosis or symptomatic graft stenosis or occlusion), all revascularizations, and all cerebrovascular events (stroke or transient ischemic attack).

Dr. Stone reported that at 5 years, the primary composite of death, stroke, or MI occurred in 22.0% of patients in the PCI group and 19.2% of patients in the CABG group, a nonsignificant difference at P = 0.13).

However, when the researchers broke the results into three distinct risk periods within the 5-year time frame, they found that, with longer follow-up, came more of an advantage for CABG. The relative risk of PCI vs. CABG for the primary outcome favored PCI over CABG in the first 30 days (4.9% vs. 8%; hazard ratio, 0.61; P = .008), was neutral at 30 days to 1 year (4.1 vs. 3.8%; HR, 1.07; P = .76), and reversed at 1-5 years (15.1% vs. 9.7%; HR, 1.61; P less than .001). Using restricted mean survival time analysis, Dr. Stone and his colleagues found that, at the end of the 5-year follow-up period, event-free survival time was 5.2 days longer after PCI, compared with CABG. This translates into “a very similar event-free survival of a burden of disease from these two therapies at the end of 5 years,” he said.

In their analysis of secondary endpoints, some differences were noted, including an elevated risk of all-cause mortality in the PCI group, compared with the CABG group (13% vs. 9.9%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.38), yet no differences in definite cardiovascular mortality (5% vs. 4.5%; OR, 1.13) or in MI (10.6% vs. 9.1%; OR 1.14). In addition, there were fewer cerebrovascular events in the PCI vs. CABG groups (3.3% vs. 5.2%; OR, 0.61). “Overall, all of these differences were relatively small given the 5-year perspective,” Dr. Stone said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. He concluded that the early benefits of PCI attributable to reduced periprocedural risk “were attenuated by the greater number of events occurring during follow-up with CABG, such that at 5 years the cumulative mean time free from adverse events was similar with both treatments.” He noted that a 10-year or longer follow-up is required to characterize the very late safety profile of PCI and CABG as both stents and bypass grafts progressively fail over time.

Discussant Dharam Kumbhani, MD, an interventional cardiologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said that the findings from EXCEL “help us move the field forward and help us understand this concept of risk with PCI versus CABG. It really does help inform shared decision-making with patients.”

Results of the study were published online at the time of presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406). The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone disclosed having relationships with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies but had no relevant disclosures for this study.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Stone G et al. TCT 2019. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406.
 

SAN FRANCISCO – A postmarket analysis of the coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) system validated the safety and utility of the procedure first described in the Disrupt CAD I study.

“We now have an efficient technology to treat calcium that is safe to use, simple to learn, and able to achieve 100% success in delivering stents, with low final residual stenosis (7.8%),” Carlo Di Mario, MD, said in an interview in advance of the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. “This was accomplished with a low rate of complications.”

Developed by Shockwave Medical, coronary IVL is an innovative lesion preparation tool designed to fracture challenging calcium using sonic pressure waves in order to facilitate stent delivery, deployment, and optimal expansion. In a feasibility study known as DISRUPT CAD I, Dr. Di Mario, director of structural interventional cardiology at Careggi University Hospital in Florence, Italy, and his colleagues performed the procedure in 60 patients (Circulation 2019;139:834-6). Clinical success, defined as residual stenosis of less than 50% post PCI with no evidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was 95%, while device success, defined as successful delivery and IVL treatment at target lesion, reached 98.3%.

In an effort to ensure that results of DISRUPT CAD 1 were generalizable to a broader population, Dr. Di Mario and his colleagues enrolled 120 subjects at 15 sites in nine European countries into DISRUPT CAD II, a postmarket, single-arm study. They underwent vessel preparation for stent implantation with IVL, and the primary endpoint was in-hospital MACE, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. The researchers also performed an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy to evaluate the mechanism of action of IVL and to quantify coronary artery calcium characteristics and calcium plaque fracture.

The mean age of the 120 patients was 72 years, 78% were male, 80% had hypertension, 72% had hyperlipidemia, 32% had diabetes, and 65% had class I or II angina. Most of the patients (94%) had severe calcification, with a mean lesion length of about 26 mm. The lesions were concentric in 70% of cases, and 30% had side-branch involvement.

Dr. Di Mario and his associates reported that IVL was delivered successfully in all cases. It also delivered stents successfully in all cases, with a high acute luminal gain (a mean of 1.7 mm²), and low residual stenosis (7.8%). The primary endpoint occurred in 5.8% of patients, consisting of seven non–Q-wave myocardial infarctions. The IVL mechanism of action was shown to be intraplaque calcium fracture, which occurred in about 80% of lesions analyzed by OCT.

“Based on my previous experience with IVL, I was confident that it could modify the calcium, but the results of the OCT substudy of the Disrupt CAD II utilizing OCT to evaluate the mechanism of action was clearly more positive than expected,” said Dr. Di Mario, who was a coprincipal investigator for the trial. “It demonstrated that IVL creates visible calcium fractures in the majority of cases and confirmed that full stent expansion secondary to the circumferential calcium modification is achievable, despite that nearly all the patients (94%) had severe coronary artery calcification. We know from previous work that full stent expansion is required to minimize complications and improve clinical outcomes, which was not always achievable before IVL.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it lacked a concurrent control group, “but it was run very carefully with complete monitoring of events and core lab and CEC [clinical endpoint committee] adjudication,” he said. “Also, the study was used to confirm short-term safety, and as such, did not include long term follow-up.”

In an interview at the meeting, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, called the findings “reassuring,” but said that he looks forward to results from the trial of the system currently under way in the United States known as the DISRUPT CAD III IDE Study. “The technology is accessible to many physicians because it’s a balloon-based technology,” he said. “Yet in terms of performance, we need to not only evaluate short-term outcomes, we need to see long-term outcomes as well, to make sure there are no untoward effects.”

Shockwave C² Coronary IVL catheters are commercially available for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease in Europe and other select countries; in the United States they are limited to investigational use within the DISRUPT CAD III IDE Study.

At the meeting, Ziad A. Ali, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia University/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, presented results from Disrupt CAD II, and the content was published online at the time of presentation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr. Di Mario disclosed that Shockwave Medical provided a grant for the study to Careggi University Hospital. Dr. Ali reported having personal equity and fees from Shockwave Medical, as well as grants from other companies outside the scope of the study.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Di Mario C et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Sep 25 doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008434.

SAN FRANCISCO – A postmarket analysis of the coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) system validated the safety and utility of the procedure first described in the Disrupt CAD I study.

“We now have an efficient technology to treat calcium that is safe to use, simple to learn, and able to achieve 100% success in delivering stents, with low final residual stenosis (7.8%),” Carlo Di Mario, MD, said in an interview in advance of the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. “This was accomplished with a low rate of complications.”

Developed by Shockwave Medical, coronary IVL is an innovative lesion preparation tool designed to fracture challenging calcium using sonic pressure waves in order to facilitate stent delivery, deployment, and optimal expansion. In a feasibility study known as DISRUPT CAD I, Dr. Di Mario, director of structural interventional cardiology at Careggi University Hospital in Florence, Italy, and his colleagues performed the procedure in 60 patients (Circulation 2019;139:834-6). Clinical success, defined as residual stenosis of less than 50% post PCI with no evidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was 95%, while device success, defined as successful delivery and IVL treatment at target lesion, reached 98.3%.

In an effort to ensure that results of DISRUPT CAD 1 were generalizable to a broader population, Dr. Di Mario and his colleagues enrolled 120 subjects at 15 sites in nine European countries into DISRUPT CAD II, a postmarket, single-arm study. They underwent vessel preparation for stent implantation with IVL, and the primary endpoint was in-hospital MACE, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. The researchers also performed an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy to evaluate the mechanism of action of IVL and to quantify coronary artery calcium characteristics and calcium plaque fracture.

The mean age of the 120 patients was 72 years, 78% were male, 80% had hypertension, 72% had hyperlipidemia, 32% had diabetes, and 65% had class I or II angina. Most of the patients (94%) had severe calcification, with a mean lesion length of about 26 mm. The lesions were concentric in 70% of cases, and 30% had side-branch involvement.

Dr. Di Mario and his associates reported that IVL was delivered successfully in all cases. It also delivered stents successfully in all cases, with a high acute luminal gain (a mean of 1.7 mm²), and low residual stenosis (7.8%). The primary endpoint occurred in 5.8% of patients, consisting of seven non–Q-wave myocardial infarctions. The IVL mechanism of action was shown to be intraplaque calcium fracture, which occurred in about 80% of lesions analyzed by OCT.

“Based on my previous experience with IVL, I was confident that it could modify the calcium, but the results of the OCT substudy of the Disrupt CAD II utilizing OCT to evaluate the mechanism of action was clearly more positive than expected,” said Dr. Di Mario, who was a coprincipal investigator for the trial. “It demonstrated that IVL creates visible calcium fractures in the majority of cases and confirmed that full stent expansion secondary to the circumferential calcium modification is achievable, despite that nearly all the patients (94%) had severe coronary artery calcification. We know from previous work that full stent expansion is required to minimize complications and improve clinical outcomes, which was not always achievable before IVL.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it lacked a concurrent control group, “but it was run very carefully with complete monitoring of events and core lab and CEC [clinical endpoint committee] adjudication,” he said. “Also, the study was used to confirm short-term safety, and as such, did not include long term follow-up.”

In an interview at the meeting, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, called the findings “reassuring,” but said that he looks forward to results from the trial of the system currently under way in the United States known as the DISRUPT CAD III IDE Study. “The technology is accessible to many physicians because it’s a balloon-based technology,” he said. “Yet in terms of performance, we need to not only evaluate short-term outcomes, we need to see long-term outcomes as well, to make sure there are no untoward effects.”

Shockwave C² Coronary IVL catheters are commercially available for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease in Europe and other select countries; in the United States they are limited to investigational use within the DISRUPT CAD III IDE Study.

At the meeting, Ziad A. Ali, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia University/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, presented results from Disrupt CAD II, and the content was published online at the time of presentation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr. Di Mario disclosed that Shockwave Medical provided a grant for the study to Careggi University Hospital. Dr. Ali reported having personal equity and fees from Shockwave Medical, as well as grants from other companies outside the scope of the study.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Di Mario C et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Sep 25 doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008434.

SAN FRANCISCO – A postmarket analysis of the coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) system validated the safety and utility of the procedure first described in the Disrupt CAD I study.

“We now have an efficient technology to treat calcium that is safe to use, simple to learn, and able to achieve 100% success in delivering stents, with low final residual stenosis (7.8%),” Carlo Di Mario, MD, said in an interview in advance of the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. “This was accomplished with a low rate of complications.”

Developed by Shockwave Medical, coronary IVL is an innovative lesion preparation tool designed to fracture challenging calcium using sonic pressure waves in order to facilitate stent delivery, deployment, and optimal expansion. In a feasibility study known as DISRUPT CAD I, Dr. Di Mario, director of structural interventional cardiology at Careggi University Hospital in Florence, Italy, and his colleagues performed the procedure in 60 patients (Circulation 2019;139:834-6). Clinical success, defined as residual stenosis of less than 50% post PCI with no evidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was 95%, while device success, defined as successful delivery and IVL treatment at target lesion, reached 98.3%.

In an effort to ensure that results of DISRUPT CAD 1 were generalizable to a broader population, Dr. Di Mario and his colleagues enrolled 120 subjects at 15 sites in nine European countries into DISRUPT CAD II, a postmarket, single-arm study. They underwent vessel preparation for stent implantation with IVL, and the primary endpoint was in-hospital MACE, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. The researchers also performed an optical coherence tomography (OCT) substudy to evaluate the mechanism of action of IVL and to quantify coronary artery calcium characteristics and calcium plaque fracture.

The mean age of the 120 patients was 72 years, 78% were male, 80% had hypertension, 72% had hyperlipidemia, 32% had diabetes, and 65% had class I or II angina. Most of the patients (94%) had severe calcification, with a mean lesion length of about 26 mm. The lesions were concentric in 70% of cases, and 30% had side-branch involvement.

Dr. Di Mario and his associates reported that IVL was delivered successfully in all cases. It also delivered stents successfully in all cases, with a high acute luminal gain (a mean of 1.7 mm²), and low residual stenosis (7.8%). The primary endpoint occurred in 5.8% of patients, consisting of seven non–Q-wave myocardial infarctions. The IVL mechanism of action was shown to be intraplaque calcium fracture, which occurred in about 80% of lesions analyzed by OCT.

“Based on my previous experience with IVL, I was confident that it could modify the calcium, but the results of the OCT substudy of the Disrupt CAD II utilizing OCT to evaluate the mechanism of action was clearly more positive than expected,” said Dr. Di Mario, who was a coprincipal investigator for the trial. “It demonstrated that IVL creates visible calcium fractures in the majority of cases and confirmed that full stent expansion secondary to the circumferential calcium modification is achievable, despite that nearly all the patients (94%) had severe coronary artery calcification. We know from previous work that full stent expansion is required to minimize complications and improve clinical outcomes, which was not always achievable before IVL.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it lacked a concurrent control group, “but it was run very carefully with complete monitoring of events and core lab and CEC [clinical endpoint committee] adjudication,” he said. “Also, the study was used to confirm short-term safety, and as such, did not include long term follow-up.”

In an interview at the meeting, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, called the findings “reassuring,” but said that he looks forward to results from the trial of the system currently under way in the United States known as the DISRUPT CAD III IDE Study. “The technology is accessible to many physicians because it’s a balloon-based technology,” he said. “Yet in terms of performance, we need to not only evaluate short-term outcomes, we need to see long-term outcomes as well, to make sure there are no untoward effects.”

Shockwave C² Coronary IVL catheters are commercially available for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease in Europe and other select countries; in the United States they are limited to investigational use within the DISRUPT CAD III IDE Study.

At the meeting, Ziad A. Ali, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia University/New York–Presbyterian Hospital, presented results from Disrupt CAD II, and the content was published online at the time of presentation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr. Di Mario disclosed that Shockwave Medical provided a grant for the study to Careggi University Hospital. Dr. Ali reported having personal equity and fees from Shockwave Medical, as well as grants from other companies outside the scope of the study.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Di Mario C et al. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Sep 25 doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008434.

PARIS – The 2019 dyslipidemia management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology set an LDL cholesterol target for very-high-risk people of less than 55 mg/dL (as well as at least a 50% cut from baseline), a class I recommendation. This marks the first time a cardiology society has either recommended a target goal for this measure below 70 mg/dL or endorsed treating patients to still-lower cholesterol once their level was already under 70 mg/dL.*

The guidelines went further by suggesting consideration of an even lower treatment target for LDL-cholesterol in very-high-risk, secondary prevention patients who have already had at least two atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events during the past 2 years, a setting that could justify an LDL-cholesterol goal of less than 40 mg/dL (along with a cut from baseline of at least 50%), a class IIb recommendation that denotes a “may be considered,” endorsement.

“In all the trials, lower was better. There was no lower level of LDL cholesterol that’s been studied that was not better” for patient outcomes, Colin Baigent, BMBCH, said while presenting the new guideline at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). “It’s very clear” that the full treatment benefit from lowering LDL-cholesterol extends to getting very-high risk patients below these levels, said Dr. Baigent, professor of cardiology at Oxford (England) University and one of three chairs of the ESC’s dyslipidemia guideline-writing panel.

While this change was seen as a notably aggressive goal and too fixed on a specific number by at least one author of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guideline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun;73[24]:e285-e350), it was embraced by another U.S. expert not involved in writing the most recent U.S. recommendations.

“A goal for LDL-cholesterol of less than 55 mg/dL is reasonable; it’s well documented” by trial evidence “and I support it,” said Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora. Dr. Eckel added that he “also supports” an LDL-cholesterol of less than 40 mg/dL in very-high-risk patients with a history of multiple events or with multiple residual risk factors, and he said he has applied this lower LDL-cholesterol goal in his practice for selected patients. But Dr. Eckel acknowledged in an interview that the evidence for it was less clear-cut than was the evidence behind a goal of less than 55 mg/dL. He also supported the concept of including a treatment goal in U.S. lipid recommendations, which in recent versions has been missing. “I fall back on a cholesterol goal for practical purposes” of making the success of cholesterol-lowering treatment easier to track.

The new ESC goal was characterized as “arbitrary” by Neil J. Stone, MD, vice-chair of the panel that wrote the 2018 AHA/ACC guideline, which relied on treating secondary-prevention patients at high risk to an LDL-cholesterol at least 50% less than before treatment, and recommended continued intensification for patients whose LDL-cholesterol level remained at or above 70 mg/dL.

“If the patient is at 58 mg/dL I’m not sure anyone can tell me what the difference is,” compared with reaching less than 55 mg/dL, Dr. Stone said in an interview. “I worry about focusing on a number and not on the concept that people at the very highest risk deserve the most intensive treatment; the Europeans agree, but they have a different way of looking at it. Despite this difference in approach, the new ESC guidelines and the 2018 U.S. guideline “are more similar than different,” stressed Dr. Stone, professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“It’s a mind shift that clinicians need to be most aggressive in treating patients with the highest risk” even when their LDL-cholesterol is low but not yet at the target level, Dr. Collins said during a discussion session at the congress.

The new ESC guidelines is about “both getting the LDL-cholesterol down to a certain level and also about achieving a big [at least 50%] change” from baseline. “I think the ESC guidelines make that crystal clear,” said Marc S. Sabatine, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the sole American to participate in the ESC guidelines-writing panel.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I commend the [ESC] guideline for focusing on the science and on what is best for patients. The U.S. guidelines conflated the science and the cost, and the recommendations got watered down by cost considerations,” said Dr. Sabatine, who has led several studies of PCSK9 inhibitors.

Dr. Baigent added that the panel “deliberated long and hard on cost, but we felt that we had to focus on the evidence. The cost will shift” in the future, he predicted.

Other U.S. physicians highlighted the need to take drug cost into account when writing public health policy documents such as lipid-management guidelines and questioned whether this more liberal use of PCSK9 inhibitors was justified.

“I think that in the absence of familial hypercholesterolemia you need to waffle around the edges to justify a PCSK9 inhibitor,” said Dr. Eckel. “The cost of PCSK9 inhibitors has come down, but at $6,000 per year you can’t ignore their cost.”

“In the U.S. we need to be mindful of the cost of treatment,” said Dr. Stone. “The ESC guidelines are probably more aggressive” than the 2018 U.S. guideline. “They use PCSK9 inhibitors perhaps more than we do; we [in the United States] prefer generic ezetimibe. A lot has to do with the definitions of risk. The European guidelines have a lot of risk definitions that differ” from the U.S. guideline, he said.

Members of the ESC guidelines panel acknowledged that the SCORE risk-assessment charts could overestimate risk in older people who need primary prevention treatment, as well as underestimate the risk in younger adults.

This inherent age bias in the SCORE risk tables make it “extremely important to contextualize” a person’s risk “by considering other risk factors,” advised Brian A. Ference, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor at Cambridge (England) University who was a member of the ESC guidelines writing group.

The new ESC guidelines say that risk categorization “must be interpreted in light of the clinician’s knowledge and experience, and of the patient’s pretest likelihood” of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Baigent has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eckel has been an expert witness on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Sabatine and Dr. Ference have received honoraria and research funding from several companies including those that market lipid-lowering drugs. Dr. Stone and Dr. Collins had no disclosures.

*Correction, 9/20/19: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the ESC guidelines were the first by a medical society to recommend the lower cholesterol goals. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists included targets below 55 mg/dL in their 2017 dyslipidemia management guidelines.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mach F et al. Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.

PARIS – The 2019 dyslipidemia management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology set an LDL cholesterol target for very-high-risk people of less than 55 mg/dL (as well as at least a 50% cut from baseline), a class I recommendation. This marks the first time a cardiology society has either recommended a target goal for this measure below 70 mg/dL or endorsed treating patients to still-lower cholesterol once their level was already under 70 mg/dL.*

The guidelines went further by suggesting consideration of an even lower treatment target for LDL-cholesterol in very-high-risk, secondary prevention patients who have already had at least two atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events during the past 2 years, a setting that could justify an LDL-cholesterol goal of less than 40 mg/dL (along with a cut from baseline of at least 50%), a class IIb recommendation that denotes a “may be considered,” endorsement.

“In all the trials, lower was better. There was no lower level of LDL cholesterol that’s been studied that was not better” for patient outcomes, Colin Baigent, BMBCH, said while presenting the new guideline at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). “It’s very clear” that the full treatment benefit from lowering LDL-cholesterol extends to getting very-high risk patients below these levels, said Dr. Baigent, professor of cardiology at Oxford (England) University and one of three chairs of the ESC’s dyslipidemia guideline-writing panel.

While this change was seen as a notably aggressive goal and too fixed on a specific number by at least one author of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guideline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun;73[24]:e285-e350), it was embraced by another U.S. expert not involved in writing the most recent U.S. recommendations.

“A goal for LDL-cholesterol of less than 55 mg/dL is reasonable; it’s well documented” by trial evidence “and I support it,” said Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora. Dr. Eckel added that he “also supports” an LDL-cholesterol of less than 40 mg/dL in very-high-risk patients with a history of multiple events or with multiple residual risk factors, and he said he has applied this lower LDL-cholesterol goal in his practice for selected patients. But Dr. Eckel acknowledged in an interview that the evidence for it was less clear-cut than was the evidence behind a goal of less than 55 mg/dL. He also supported the concept of including a treatment goal in U.S. lipid recommendations, which in recent versions has been missing. “I fall back on a cholesterol goal for practical purposes” of making the success of cholesterol-lowering treatment easier to track.

The new ESC goal was characterized as “arbitrary” by Neil J. Stone, MD, vice-chair of the panel that wrote the 2018 AHA/ACC guideline, which relied on treating secondary-prevention patients at high risk to an LDL-cholesterol at least 50% less than before treatment, and recommended continued intensification for patients whose LDL-cholesterol level remained at or above 70 mg/dL.

“If the patient is at 58 mg/dL I’m not sure anyone can tell me what the difference is,” compared with reaching less than 55 mg/dL, Dr. Stone said in an interview. “I worry about focusing on a number and not on the concept that people at the very highest risk deserve the most intensive treatment; the Europeans agree, but they have a different way of looking at it. Despite this difference in approach, the new ESC guidelines and the 2018 U.S. guideline “are more similar than different,” stressed Dr. Stone, professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“It’s a mind shift that clinicians need to be most aggressive in treating patients with the highest risk” even when their LDL-cholesterol is low but not yet at the target level, Dr. Collins said during a discussion session at the congress.

The new ESC guidelines is about “both getting the LDL-cholesterol down to a certain level and also about achieving a big [at least 50%] change” from baseline. “I think the ESC guidelines make that crystal clear,” said Marc S. Sabatine, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the sole American to participate in the ESC guidelines-writing panel.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I commend the [ESC] guideline for focusing on the science and on what is best for patients. The U.S. guidelines conflated the science and the cost, and the recommendations got watered down by cost considerations,” said Dr. Sabatine, who has led several studies of PCSK9 inhibitors.

Dr. Baigent added that the panel “deliberated long and hard on cost, but we felt that we had to focus on the evidence. The cost will shift” in the future, he predicted.

Other U.S. physicians highlighted the need to take drug cost into account when writing public health policy documents such as lipid-management guidelines and questioned whether this more liberal use of PCSK9 inhibitors was justified.

“I think that in the absence of familial hypercholesterolemia you need to waffle around the edges to justify a PCSK9 inhibitor,” said Dr. Eckel. “The cost of PCSK9 inhibitors has come down, but at $6,000 per year you can’t ignore their cost.”

“In the U.S. we need to be mindful of the cost of treatment,” said Dr. Stone. “The ESC guidelines are probably more aggressive” than the 2018 U.S. guideline. “They use PCSK9 inhibitors perhaps more than we do; we [in the United States] prefer generic ezetimibe. A lot has to do with the definitions of risk. The European guidelines have a lot of risk definitions that differ” from the U.S. guideline, he said.

Members of the ESC guidelines panel acknowledged that the SCORE risk-assessment charts could overestimate risk in older people who need primary prevention treatment, as well as underestimate the risk in younger adults.

This inherent age bias in the SCORE risk tables make it “extremely important to contextualize” a person’s risk “by considering other risk factors,” advised Brian A. Ference, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor at Cambridge (England) University who was a member of the ESC guidelines writing group.

The new ESC guidelines say that risk categorization “must be interpreted in light of the clinician’s knowledge and experience, and of the patient’s pretest likelihood” of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Baigent has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eckel has been an expert witness on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Sabatine and Dr. Ference have received honoraria and research funding from several companies including those that market lipid-lowering drugs. Dr. Stone and Dr. Collins had no disclosures.

*Correction, 9/20/19: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the ESC guidelines were the first by a medical society to recommend the lower cholesterol goals. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists included targets below 55 mg/dL in their 2017 dyslipidemia management guidelines.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mach F et al. Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.

PARIS – The 2019 dyslipidemia management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology set an LDL cholesterol target for very-high-risk people of less than 55 mg/dL (as well as at least a 50% cut from baseline), a class I recommendation. This marks the first time a cardiology society has either recommended a target goal for this measure below 70 mg/dL or endorsed treating patients to still-lower cholesterol once their level was already under 70 mg/dL.*

The guidelines went further by suggesting consideration of an even lower treatment target for LDL-cholesterol in very-high-risk, secondary prevention patients who have already had at least two atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events during the past 2 years, a setting that could justify an LDL-cholesterol goal of less than 40 mg/dL (along with a cut from baseline of at least 50%), a class IIb recommendation that denotes a “may be considered,” endorsement.

“In all the trials, lower was better. There was no lower level of LDL cholesterol that’s been studied that was not better” for patient outcomes, Colin Baigent, BMBCH, said while presenting the new guideline at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). “It’s very clear” that the full treatment benefit from lowering LDL-cholesterol extends to getting very-high risk patients below these levels, said Dr. Baigent, professor of cardiology at Oxford (England) University and one of three chairs of the ESC’s dyslipidemia guideline-writing panel.

While this change was seen as a notably aggressive goal and too fixed on a specific number by at least one author of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cholesterol management guideline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun;73[24]:e285-e350), it was embraced by another U.S. expert not involved in writing the most recent U.S. recommendations.

“A goal for LDL-cholesterol of less than 55 mg/dL is reasonable; it’s well documented” by trial evidence “and I support it,” said Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora. Dr. Eckel added that he “also supports” an LDL-cholesterol of less than 40 mg/dL in very-high-risk patients with a history of multiple events or with multiple residual risk factors, and he said he has applied this lower LDL-cholesterol goal in his practice for selected patients. But Dr. Eckel acknowledged in an interview that the evidence for it was less clear-cut than was the evidence behind a goal of less than 55 mg/dL. He also supported the concept of including a treatment goal in U.S. lipid recommendations, which in recent versions has been missing. “I fall back on a cholesterol goal for practical purposes” of making the success of cholesterol-lowering treatment easier to track.

The new ESC goal was characterized as “arbitrary” by Neil J. Stone, MD, vice-chair of the panel that wrote the 2018 AHA/ACC guideline, which relied on treating secondary-prevention patients at high risk to an LDL-cholesterol at least 50% less than before treatment, and recommended continued intensification for patients whose LDL-cholesterol level remained at or above 70 mg/dL.

“If the patient is at 58 mg/dL I’m not sure anyone can tell me what the difference is,” compared with reaching less than 55 mg/dL, Dr. Stone said in an interview. “I worry about focusing on a number and not on the concept that people at the very highest risk deserve the most intensive treatment; the Europeans agree, but they have a different way of looking at it. Despite this difference in approach, the new ESC guidelines and the 2018 U.S. guideline “are more similar than different,” stressed Dr. Stone, professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

“It’s a mind shift that clinicians need to be most aggressive in treating patients with the highest risk” even when their LDL-cholesterol is low but not yet at the target level, Dr. Collins said during a discussion session at the congress.

The new ESC guidelines is about “both getting the LDL-cholesterol down to a certain level and also about achieving a big [at least 50%] change” from baseline. “I think the ESC guidelines make that crystal clear,” said Marc S. Sabatine, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the sole American to participate in the ESC guidelines-writing panel.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I commend the [ESC] guideline for focusing on the science and on what is best for patients. The U.S. guidelines conflated the science and the cost, and the recommendations got watered down by cost considerations,” said Dr. Sabatine, who has led several studies of PCSK9 inhibitors.

Dr. Baigent added that the panel “deliberated long and hard on cost, but we felt that we had to focus on the evidence. The cost will shift” in the future, he predicted.

Other U.S. physicians highlighted the need to take drug cost into account when writing public health policy documents such as lipid-management guidelines and questioned whether this more liberal use of PCSK9 inhibitors was justified.

“I think that in the absence of familial hypercholesterolemia you need to waffle around the edges to justify a PCSK9 inhibitor,” said Dr. Eckel. “The cost of PCSK9 inhibitors has come down, but at $6,000 per year you can’t ignore their cost.”

“In the U.S. we need to be mindful of the cost of treatment,” said Dr. Stone. “The ESC guidelines are probably more aggressive” than the 2018 U.S. guideline. “They use PCSK9 inhibitors perhaps more than we do; we [in the United States] prefer generic ezetimibe. A lot has to do with the definitions of risk. The European guidelines have a lot of risk definitions that differ” from the U.S. guideline, he said.

Members of the ESC guidelines panel acknowledged that the SCORE risk-assessment charts could overestimate risk in older people who need primary prevention treatment, as well as underestimate the risk in younger adults.

This inherent age bias in the SCORE risk tables make it “extremely important to contextualize” a person’s risk “by considering other risk factors,” advised Brian A. Ference, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor at Cambridge (England) University who was a member of the ESC guidelines writing group.

The new ESC guidelines say that risk categorization “must be interpreted in light of the clinician’s knowledge and experience, and of the patient’s pretest likelihood” of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Baigent has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eckel has been an expert witness on behalf of Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Sabatine and Dr. Ference have received honoraria and research funding from several companies including those that market lipid-lowering drugs. Dr. Stone and Dr. Collins had no disclosures.

*Correction, 9/20/19: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the ESC guidelines were the first by a medical society to recommend the lower cholesterol goals. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists included targets below 55 mg/dL in their 2017 dyslipidemia management guidelines.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Mach F et al. Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.

PARIS – For patients with peripheral artery disease, statin therapy is a literal lifeline, nearly halving mortality risk, according to new research presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Patients with peripheral manifestations of cardiovascular disease “are a population with an extremely high risk to suffer a heart attack or a stroke,” said Joern Dopheide, MD, during a press conference at the meeting. Despite the known benefits of statins, including the reduction of all-cause and cardiovascular death and the reduction of morbidity, adherence to guideline-directed statin therapy is far from optimal, said Dr. Dopheide of Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) not taking statins had a mortality rate of 34%, more than three times that of patients adherent to an intensified statin regimen. More surprisingly, patients who had been on a statin and then stopped the medication also had a mortality rate of 33%, indistinguishable from those who had never been treated with a statin.

Although statin adherence is low in general, it’s especially low in patients with PAD, said Dr. Dopheide. Still, he said, “few systematic data exist on the prognostic value of statin adherence and the correlation between adherence and cardiovascular outcome in PAD patients.”

Accordingly, Dr. Dopheide and his coinvestigators sought to determine the association between statin adherence and survival in PAD patients. The researchers obtained baseline and follow-up data for a cohort of 691 symptomatic PAD patients seen at a single site, looking at statin dosage, LDL cholesterol levels, and survival.

The patients were followed for a period of 50 months. Dr. Dopheide said that “Over the time course, we were able to increase the statin adherence from about 73% to about 81%, and parallel to that, we were able to reduce the LDL cholesterol levels from about 97 to 83 mg/dL, and we were able to increase the intensity of patients on statin therapy.”

Dr. Dopheide said that he and his colleagues saw a dose-response effect, so that the biggest drop in cholesterol was seen in patients on high statin doses, on more potent statins, or both.

Intensity was increased in some cases by upping statin dose – the mean statin dose climbed from 50 to 58 mg daily during the study period. An alternative strategy was to switch to a more potent statin such as atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; sometimes both intensity and dose were boosted.

“We were able to see that patients who were always on their statin therapy had a pretty low mortality rate of about 20%,” a figure that was halved for patients on more intensive statin therapy, who had a mortality rate of 10% across the study period, said Dr. Dopheide. “Patients in whom we started a statin therapy still profited from it, and had only a 15% mortality,” he added.

Some of the most surprising – and disturbing – study findings involved those who reduced their statin dose: “When patients discontinued their usual dose and decreased it, they suffered an even higher mortality rate, of nearly 43%. So that was kind of surprising and shocking to us.”

Identifying these high-risk patients and keeping them adherent is a substantial clinical challenge, but an important goal, said Dr. Dopheide. “We know that patients with peripheral arterial disease are a little more underrepresented in daily practice; it’s hard to identify them, especially when they are asymptomatic,” he acknowledged. However, once a PAD patient is identified, “One should at least keep the patient on the statin dosage they have,” or initiate statins if needed.

Further, warned Dr. Dopheide, “One should never discontinue statin or decrease the dosage,” adding that PAD patients should be informed that they are at “very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.” These patients “should regard their statin therapy as one of the most important and life-saving medications they can take,” he said.

Dr. Dopheide reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dopheide, J., et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P5363.

PARIS – For patients with peripheral artery disease, statin therapy is a literal lifeline, nearly halving mortality risk, according to new research presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Patients with peripheral manifestations of cardiovascular disease “are a population with an extremely high risk to suffer a heart attack or a stroke,” said Joern Dopheide, MD, during a press conference at the meeting. Despite the known benefits of statins, including the reduction of all-cause and cardiovascular death and the reduction of morbidity, adherence to guideline-directed statin therapy is far from optimal, said Dr. Dopheide of Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) not taking statins had a mortality rate of 34%, more than three times that of patients adherent to an intensified statin regimen. More surprisingly, patients who had been on a statin and then stopped the medication also had a mortality rate of 33%, indistinguishable from those who had never been treated with a statin.

Although statin adherence is low in general, it’s especially low in patients with PAD, said Dr. Dopheide. Still, he said, “few systematic data exist on the prognostic value of statin adherence and the correlation between adherence and cardiovascular outcome in PAD patients.”

Accordingly, Dr. Dopheide and his coinvestigators sought to determine the association between statin adherence and survival in PAD patients. The researchers obtained baseline and follow-up data for a cohort of 691 symptomatic PAD patients seen at a single site, looking at statin dosage, LDL cholesterol levels, and survival.

The patients were followed for a period of 50 months. Dr. Dopheide said that “Over the time course, we were able to increase the statin adherence from about 73% to about 81%, and parallel to that, we were able to reduce the LDL cholesterol levels from about 97 to 83 mg/dL, and we were able to increase the intensity of patients on statin therapy.”

Dr. Dopheide said that he and his colleagues saw a dose-response effect, so that the biggest drop in cholesterol was seen in patients on high statin doses, on more potent statins, or both.

Intensity was increased in some cases by upping statin dose – the mean statin dose climbed from 50 to 58 mg daily during the study period. An alternative strategy was to switch to a more potent statin such as atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; sometimes both intensity and dose were boosted.

“We were able to see that patients who were always on their statin therapy had a pretty low mortality rate of about 20%,” a figure that was halved for patients on more intensive statin therapy, who had a mortality rate of 10% across the study period, said Dr. Dopheide. “Patients in whom we started a statin therapy still profited from it, and had only a 15% mortality,” he added.

Some of the most surprising – and disturbing – study findings involved those who reduced their statin dose: “When patients discontinued their usual dose and decreased it, they suffered an even higher mortality rate, of nearly 43%. So that was kind of surprising and shocking to us.”

Identifying these high-risk patients and keeping them adherent is a substantial clinical challenge, but an important goal, said Dr. Dopheide. “We know that patients with peripheral arterial disease are a little more underrepresented in daily practice; it’s hard to identify them, especially when they are asymptomatic,” he acknowledged. However, once a PAD patient is identified, “One should at least keep the patient on the statin dosage they have,” or initiate statins if needed.

Further, warned Dr. Dopheide, “One should never discontinue statin or decrease the dosage,” adding that PAD patients should be informed that they are at “very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.” These patients “should regard their statin therapy as one of the most important and life-saving medications they can take,” he said.

Dr. Dopheide reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dopheide, J., et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P5363.

PARIS – For patients with peripheral artery disease, statin therapy is a literal lifeline, nearly halving mortality risk, according to new research presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Patients with peripheral manifestations of cardiovascular disease “are a population with an extremely high risk to suffer a heart attack or a stroke,” said Joern Dopheide, MD, during a press conference at the meeting. Despite the known benefits of statins, including the reduction of all-cause and cardiovascular death and the reduction of morbidity, adherence to guideline-directed statin therapy is far from optimal, said Dr. Dopheide of Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) not taking statins had a mortality rate of 34%, more than three times that of patients adherent to an intensified statin regimen. More surprisingly, patients who had been on a statin and then stopped the medication also had a mortality rate of 33%, indistinguishable from those who had never been treated with a statin.

Although statin adherence is low in general, it’s especially low in patients with PAD, said Dr. Dopheide. Still, he said, “few systematic data exist on the prognostic value of statin adherence and the correlation between adherence and cardiovascular outcome in PAD patients.”

Accordingly, Dr. Dopheide and his coinvestigators sought to determine the association between statin adherence and survival in PAD patients. The researchers obtained baseline and follow-up data for a cohort of 691 symptomatic PAD patients seen at a single site, looking at statin dosage, LDL cholesterol levels, and survival.

The patients were followed for a period of 50 months. Dr. Dopheide said that “Over the time course, we were able to increase the statin adherence from about 73% to about 81%, and parallel to that, we were able to reduce the LDL cholesterol levels from about 97 to 83 mg/dL, and we were able to increase the intensity of patients on statin therapy.”

Dr. Dopheide said that he and his colleagues saw a dose-response effect, so that the biggest drop in cholesterol was seen in patients on high statin doses, on more potent statins, or both.

Intensity was increased in some cases by upping statin dose – the mean statin dose climbed from 50 to 58 mg daily during the study period. An alternative strategy was to switch to a more potent statin such as atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; sometimes both intensity and dose were boosted.

“We were able to see that patients who were always on their statin therapy had a pretty low mortality rate of about 20%,” a figure that was halved for patients on more intensive statin therapy, who had a mortality rate of 10% across the study period, said Dr. Dopheide. “Patients in whom we started a statin therapy still profited from it, and had only a 15% mortality,” he added.

Some of the most surprising – and disturbing – study findings involved those who reduced their statin dose: “When patients discontinued their usual dose and decreased it, they suffered an even higher mortality rate, of nearly 43%. So that was kind of surprising and shocking to us.”

Identifying these high-risk patients and keeping them adherent is a substantial clinical challenge, but an important goal, said Dr. Dopheide. “We know that patients with peripheral arterial disease are a little more underrepresented in daily practice; it’s hard to identify them, especially when they are asymptomatic,” he acknowledged. However, once a PAD patient is identified, “One should at least keep the patient on the statin dosage they have,” or initiate statins if needed.

Further, warned Dr. Dopheide, “One should never discontinue statin or decrease the dosage,” adding that PAD patients should be informed that they are at “very high risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.” These patients “should regard their statin therapy as one of the most important and life-saving medications they can take,” he said.

Dr. Dopheide reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Dopheide, J., et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P5363.

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

Regardless of where people live in the world, air pollution is linked to increased rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and all-cause mortality, according to one of the largest studies ever to assess the effects of inhalable particulate matter (PM), published Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These data reinforce the evidence of a link between mortality and PM concentration established in regional and local studies,” reported Cong Liu of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and an international team of researchers.

“Many people are experiencing worse allergy and asthma symptoms in the setting of increased heat and worse air quality,” Caren G. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It is often not appreciated that these are complications of climate change.”

Other such complications include heat-related illnesses and severe weather events, as well as the less visible manifestations, such as shifts in the epidemiology of vector-borne infectious disease, Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying Mr. Liu’s study.

“The stark reality is that high levels of greenhouse gases caused by the combustion of fossil fuels – and the resulting rise in temperature and sea levels and intensification of extreme weather – are having profound consequences for human health and health systems,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:773-4.).

In the new air pollution study, Mr. Liu and colleagues analyzed 59.6 million deaths from 652 cities across 24 countries, “thereby greatly increasing the generalizability of the association and decreasing the likelihood that the reported associations are subject to confounding bias,” wrote John R. Balmes, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, in an editorial about the study (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:774-6).

The researchers compared air pollution data from 1986-2015 from the Multi-City Multi-Country (MCC) Collaborative Research Network to mortality data reported from individual countries. They assessed PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 mcg or less (PM10; n = 598 cities) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 mcg or less (PM_2.5; n=499 cities).

Mr. Liu’s team used a time-series analysis – a standard upon which the majority of air pollution research relies. These studies “include daily measures of health events (e.g., daily mortality), regressed against concentrations of PM (e.g., 24-hour average PM_2.5) and weather variables (e.g., daily average temperature) for a given geographic area,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “The population serves as its own control, and confounding by population characteristics is negligible because these are stable over short time frames.”

The researchers found a 0.44% increase in daily all-cause mortality for each 10-mcg/m³ increase in the 2-day moving average (current and previous day) of PM₁₀. The same increase was linked to a 0.36% increase in daily cardiovascular mortality and a 0.47% increase in daily respiratory mortality. Similarly, a 10-mcg/m³ increase in the PM_2.5 average was linked to 0.68% increase in all-cause mortality, a 0.55% increase in cardiovascular mortality, and 0.74% increase in respiratory mortality.

Locations with higher annual mean temperatures showed stronger associations, and all these associations remained statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for gaseous pollutants.

Although the majority of countries and cities included in the study came from the northern hemisphere, the researchers noted that the magnitude of effect they found, particularly for PM₁₀ concentrations, matched up with that seen in previous studies of multiple cities or countries.

Still, they found “significant evidence of spatial heterogeneity in the associations between PM concentration and daily mortality across countries and regions.” Among the factors that could contribute to those variations are “different PM components, long-term air pollution levels, population susceptibility, and different lengths of study periods,” they speculated.

What makes this study remarkable – despite decades of previous similar studies – is its size and the implications of a curvilinear shape in its concentration-response relation, according to Dr. Balmes.

“The current study of PM data from many regions around the world provides the strongest evidence to date that higher levels of exposure may be associated with a lower per-unit risk,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “Regions that have lower exposures had a higher per-unit risk. This finding has profound policy implications, especially given that no threshold of effect was found. Even high-income countries, such as the United States, with relatively good air quality could still see public health benefits from further reduction of ambient PM concentrations.”

The policy implications, however, extend well beyond clean air regulations because the findings represent just one aspect of climate change’s negative effects on health, which are “frighteningly broad,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote.

“As climate change continues to alter disease patterns and disrupt health systems, its effects on human health will become harder to ignore,” they wrote. “We, as a medical community, have the responsibility and the opportunity to mobilize the urgent, large-scale climate action required to protect health – as well as the ingenuity to develop novel and bold interventions to avert the most catastrophic outcomes.”

The new research and associated commentary marked the introduction of a new NEJM topic on climate change effects on health and health systems.
 

SOURCE: Liu C et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:705-15.

This article was updated 8/22/19.

Regardless of where people live in the world, air pollution is linked to increased rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and all-cause mortality, according to one of the largest studies ever to assess the effects of inhalable particulate matter (PM), published Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These data reinforce the evidence of a link between mortality and PM concentration established in regional and local studies,” reported Cong Liu of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and an international team of researchers.

“Many people are experiencing worse allergy and asthma symptoms in the setting of increased heat and worse air quality,” Caren G. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It is often not appreciated that these are complications of climate change.”

Other such complications include heat-related illnesses and severe weather events, as well as the less visible manifestations, such as shifts in the epidemiology of vector-borne infectious disease, Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying Mr. Liu’s study.

“The stark reality is that high levels of greenhouse gases caused by the combustion of fossil fuels – and the resulting rise in temperature and sea levels and intensification of extreme weather – are having profound consequences for human health and health systems,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:773-4.).

In the new air pollution study, Mr. Liu and colleagues analyzed 59.6 million deaths from 652 cities across 24 countries, “thereby greatly increasing the generalizability of the association and decreasing the likelihood that the reported associations are subject to confounding bias,” wrote John R. Balmes, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, in an editorial about the study (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:774-6).

The researchers compared air pollution data from 1986-2015 from the Multi-City Multi-Country (MCC) Collaborative Research Network to mortality data reported from individual countries. They assessed PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 mcg or less (PM10; n = 598 cities) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 mcg or less (PM_2.5; n=499 cities).

Mr. Liu’s team used a time-series analysis – a standard upon which the majority of air pollution research relies. These studies “include daily measures of health events (e.g., daily mortality), regressed against concentrations of PM (e.g., 24-hour average PM_2.5) and weather variables (e.g., daily average temperature) for a given geographic area,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “The population serves as its own control, and confounding by population characteristics is negligible because these are stable over short time frames.”

The researchers found a 0.44% increase in daily all-cause mortality for each 10-mcg/m³ increase in the 2-day moving average (current and previous day) of PM₁₀. The same increase was linked to a 0.36% increase in daily cardiovascular mortality and a 0.47% increase in daily respiratory mortality. Similarly, a 10-mcg/m³ increase in the PM_2.5 average was linked to 0.68% increase in all-cause mortality, a 0.55% increase in cardiovascular mortality, and 0.74% increase in respiratory mortality.

Locations with higher annual mean temperatures showed stronger associations, and all these associations remained statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for gaseous pollutants.

Although the majority of countries and cities included in the study came from the northern hemisphere, the researchers noted that the magnitude of effect they found, particularly for PM₁₀ concentrations, matched up with that seen in previous studies of multiple cities or countries.

Still, they found “significant evidence of spatial heterogeneity in the associations between PM concentration and daily mortality across countries and regions.” Among the factors that could contribute to those variations are “different PM components, long-term air pollution levels, population susceptibility, and different lengths of study periods,” they speculated.

What makes this study remarkable – despite decades of previous similar studies – is its size and the implications of a curvilinear shape in its concentration-response relation, according to Dr. Balmes.

“The current study of PM data from many regions around the world provides the strongest evidence to date that higher levels of exposure may be associated with a lower per-unit risk,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “Regions that have lower exposures had a higher per-unit risk. This finding has profound policy implications, especially given that no threshold of effect was found. Even high-income countries, such as the United States, with relatively good air quality could still see public health benefits from further reduction of ambient PM concentrations.”

The policy implications, however, extend well beyond clean air regulations because the findings represent just one aspect of climate change’s negative effects on health, which are “frighteningly broad,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote.

“As climate change continues to alter disease patterns and disrupt health systems, its effects on human health will become harder to ignore,” they wrote. “We, as a medical community, have the responsibility and the opportunity to mobilize the urgent, large-scale climate action required to protect health – as well as the ingenuity to develop novel and bold interventions to avert the most catastrophic outcomes.”

The new research and associated commentary marked the introduction of a new NEJM topic on climate change effects on health and health systems.
 

SOURCE: Liu C et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:705-15.

This article was updated 8/22/19.

Regardless of where people live in the world, air pollution is linked to increased rates of cardiovascular disease, respiratory problems, and all-cause mortality, according to one of the largest studies ever to assess the effects of inhalable particulate matter (PM), published Aug. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“These data reinforce the evidence of a link between mortality and PM concentration established in regional and local studies,” reported Cong Liu of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and an international team of researchers.

“Many people are experiencing worse allergy and asthma symptoms in the setting of increased heat and worse air quality,” Caren G. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It is often not appreciated that these are complications of climate change.”

Other such complications include heat-related illnesses and severe weather events, as well as the less visible manifestations, such as shifts in the epidemiology of vector-borne infectious disease, Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote in an editorial accompanying Mr. Liu’s study.

“The stark reality is that high levels of greenhouse gases caused by the combustion of fossil fuels – and the resulting rise in temperature and sea levels and intensification of extreme weather – are having profound consequences for human health and health systems,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:773-4.).

In the new air pollution study, Mr. Liu and colleagues analyzed 59.6 million deaths from 652 cities across 24 countries, “thereby greatly increasing the generalizability of the association and decreasing the likelihood that the reported associations are subject to confounding bias,” wrote John R. Balmes, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley, in an editorial about the study (N Engl J Med. 2019;381:774-6).

The researchers compared air pollution data from 1986-2015 from the Multi-City Multi-Country (MCC) Collaborative Research Network to mortality data reported from individual countries. They assessed PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 mcg or less (PM10; n = 598 cities) and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 mcg or less (PM_2.5; n=499 cities).

Mr. Liu’s team used a time-series analysis – a standard upon which the majority of air pollution research relies. These studies “include daily measures of health events (e.g., daily mortality), regressed against concentrations of PM (e.g., 24-hour average PM_2.5) and weather variables (e.g., daily average temperature) for a given geographic area,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “The population serves as its own control, and confounding by population characteristics is negligible because these are stable over short time frames.”

The researchers found a 0.44% increase in daily all-cause mortality for each 10-mcg/m³ increase in the 2-day moving average (current and previous day) of PM₁₀. The same increase was linked to a 0.36% increase in daily cardiovascular mortality and a 0.47% increase in daily respiratory mortality. Similarly, a 10-mcg/m³ increase in the PM_2.5 average was linked to 0.68% increase in all-cause mortality, a 0.55% increase in cardiovascular mortality, and 0.74% increase in respiratory mortality.

Locations with higher annual mean temperatures showed stronger associations, and all these associations remained statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for gaseous pollutants.

Although the majority of countries and cities included in the study came from the northern hemisphere, the researchers noted that the magnitude of effect they found, particularly for PM₁₀ concentrations, matched up with that seen in previous studies of multiple cities or countries.

Still, they found “significant evidence of spatial heterogeneity in the associations between PM concentration and daily mortality across countries and regions.” Among the factors that could contribute to those variations are “different PM components, long-term air pollution levels, population susceptibility, and different lengths of study periods,” they speculated.

What makes this study remarkable – despite decades of previous similar studies – is its size and the implications of a curvilinear shape in its concentration-response relation, according to Dr. Balmes.

“The current study of PM data from many regions around the world provides the strongest evidence to date that higher levels of exposure may be associated with a lower per-unit risk,” Dr. Balmes wrote. “Regions that have lower exposures had a higher per-unit risk. This finding has profound policy implications, especially given that no threshold of effect was found. Even high-income countries, such as the United States, with relatively good air quality could still see public health benefits from further reduction of ambient PM concentrations.”

The policy implications, however, extend well beyond clean air regulations because the findings represent just one aspect of climate change’s negative effects on health, which are “frighteningly broad,” Dr. Solomon and colleagues wrote.

“As climate change continues to alter disease patterns and disrupt health systems, its effects on human health will become harder to ignore,” they wrote. “We, as a medical community, have the responsibility and the opportunity to mobilize the urgent, large-scale climate action required to protect health – as well as the ingenuity to develop novel and bold interventions to avert the most catastrophic outcomes.”

The new research and associated commentary marked the introduction of a new NEJM topic on climate change effects on health and health systems.
 

SOURCE: Liu C et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:705-15.

This article was updated 8/22/19.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.

An 88-year-old man with hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and atrial fibrillation presents with severe cerebral palsy and is diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. He is found to have 90% left anterior descending artery occlusion and receives a drug-eluting stent. His current medications include warfarin, tiotropium, amlodipine, aspirin, and lisinopril. What anticoagulant therapy should he receive?

A) Clopidogrel, warfarin, and aspirin

B) Clopidogrel and aspirin

C) Clopidogrel and warfarin

D) Warfarin

E) Warfarin and aspirin

This issue comes up frequently with our patients with atrial fibrillation who are on anticoagulation, then have a coronary event and have a stent placed. What is the best approach to anticoagulation? I think for this patient adding clopidogrel, continuing warfarin, and stopping aspirin would be the best of the options presented.

Elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. They also have a greater chance of accumulating cardiovascular disease (atrial fibrillation, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and valvular disease) that requires anticoagulation. Dewilde et al. studied the difference in bleeding risk in patients who were on oral anticoagulants who then underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention.¹ Patients were assigned clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel plus aspirin in addition to their oral anticoagulant (warfarin). There was a significant increase in all-cause mortality in the patients who received clopidogrel plus aspirin (P = .027), and no significant difference in cardiac mortality between the two groups. There was a much higher risk of bleeding (44.4%) in the patients receiving triple therapy, compared with the double-therapy group (19.4%; P less than .0001).

In a large meta-analysis of over 7,000 patients by D’Ascenzo et al., there was no difference in thrombotic risk between double and triple therapy, and lower bleeding risk in patients who received double therapy.²

In a recently published article, Lopes et al. looked at the benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillation.³ The study included 4,614 patients, all of whom received a P2Y12 inhibitor. In addition, they received either apixaban or warfarin, and either aspirin or placebo. The patients who received apixaban had a lower risk of bleeding than those receiving warfarin (P less than .001), and those receiving aspirin had a higher risk than those receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.89; P less than .001). Patients using the combination of apixaban plus placebo had the lowest event rate per 100 years (16.8), followed by warfarin plus placebo (26.7), then apixaban plus aspirin (33.6), with warfarin plus aspirin having the highest event rate (49.1). The conclusion for the study was that regimens with apixaban without aspirin had less bleeding and hospitalizations without increased ischemic events, compared with regimens of warfarin with or without aspirin.

I think it is best to avoid aspirin in patients who are anticoagulated with warfarin, and likely this extends to Xa inhibitors as well.

Pearl: Avoid using triple anticoagulant therapy by eliminating aspirin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dewilde WJ et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1107-15.

2. D’Ascenzo F et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2015 May 1;115(9):1185-93.

3. Lopes RD et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380(16):1509-24.