Cardiology

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Statin intolerance is far less common than previously reported, according to a new meta-analysis, with data on more than 4 million adults from around the world, looking at reported statin adverse effects.

The study puts the prevalence of statin intolerance at 6% to 10%, meaning that statin intolerance is “overestimated and overdiagnosed” in most cases, Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, from the Medical University of Lodz and the University of Zielona Góra, Poland, said in a news release.

It also means that “around 93% of patients on statin therapy can be treated effectively, with very good tolerability and without any safety issues,” Dr. Banach added.

The study, conducted on behalf of the Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration and the International Lipid Expert Panel, was published online Feb. 16 in the European Heart Journal.
 

Reassuring data

In a statement from the British nonprofit Science Media Center, Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: “Decades of evidence have proven that statins save lives. This latest analysis, showing that the risk of side effects from statins are less than previously thought, should provide reassurance to those who are recommended this medicine to reduce their risk of a heart attack or stroke.”

The reported prevalence of statin intolerance varies widely, from 2% to 3% to as high as 50%, chiefly because “there is still a lack of a clear and easy way to apply the definition of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach told this news organization.

“The ones we use in lipid clinics – by National Lipid Association (NLA), European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) – are not used or are rarely used in everyday clinical practice by GPs and other specialists,” Dr. Banach explained.

He also blames “physician inertia: When they listen to a patient complain of muscle pain, or see elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), in most of the cases, they will immediately discontinue statins, without any further investigations. One should remember that there are many secondary causes of statin intolerance,” Dr. Banach said.

To get a better handle on the true prevalence of statin intolerance, the study team did a meta-analysis of 4,143,517 patients worldwide from 176 studies: 112 randomized controlled trials and 64 cohort studies.

The overall prevalence of statin intolerance was 9.1% (95% confidence interval, 8.0%-10.0%).

The prevalence of statin intolerance was even lower when assessed with diagnostic criteria from the NLA (7.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-8.0%), the ILEP (6.7%; 95% CI, 5.0%-8.0%), and the EAS (5.9%; 95% CI, 4.0%-7.0%).

The main factors associated with an increased risk for statin intolerance are female gender, hypothyroidism, high statin dose, advanced age, concomitant use of anti-arrhythmic drugs, and obesity. Other factors include race (being Asian or African American), type 2 diabetes, alcohol use, and chronic liver and renal diseases.

“Our findings mean that we should evaluate patients’ symptoms very carefully, firstly to see whether symptoms are indeed caused by statins, and secondly to evaluate whether it might be patients’ perceptions that statins are harmful – so called nocebo or drucebo effect – which could be responsible for more than 50% of all symptoms, rather than the drug itself,” Dr. Banach said.

He encourages use of the Statin-Associated Muscle Symptom Clinical Index (SAMS-CI) to assess the likelihood that a patient’s muscle symptoms are caused or worsened by statin use.

Substantial analysis, valid results

“This is a substantial analysis [and], based on what we know about statin side effects to date, the results are likely to be broadly valid and indicate that we should not overestimate statin side effects or be too quick to stop statins without due consideration,” Riyaz Patel, MBBS, professor of cardiology, University College London, told the Science Media Center.

“Some patients do experience real side effects, and we do our best to help them with alternative therapies, as with any other medicine. However, for the vast majority of people experiencing statin side effects, we can usually work with the patient to understand the symptoms, use proven strategies to manage these, and ensure they do not miss out on the well-established benefits of statins,” Mr. Patel said.

“This is especially important for people who have already had a heart attack or stroke, where statin therapy is really important in preventing further events,” Mr. Patel added.

Also weighing in on the results, Peter Sever, MB BChir, professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Imperial College London, said: “The importance for clinicians and patients is to realize that commonly reported symptoms, such as muscle aches and pains and lethargy, are not due to the chemistry of the drug.”

“These ‘nocebo’ symptoms may be psychological in origin, but they are no less real than pharmacological symptoms in how they affect quality of life,” Mr. Sever told the Science Media Center.

“However, it’s important to note that as they are not directly caused by the drug, they should not override the decision to prescribe and take statins on account of their proven benefit in reducing death and disability from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular conditions,” he added.

This meta-analysis was conducted independently; no company or institution supported it financially. Dr. Banach is on the speakers bureau for Amgen, Herbapol, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, Mylan/Viatris, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Zentiva; is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Daichii Sankyo, Esperion, FreiaPharmaceuticals, Novartis, Polfarmex, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received grants from Amgen, Mylan/Viatris, Sanofi, and Valeant; and serves as CMO for Nomi Biotech Corporation. Dr. Samani has no relevant disclosures. Mr. Patel has received past honoraria and consulting fees from drug companies manufacturing new cholesterol-lowering drugs and currently works with NICE as a topic advisor for CVD prevention. Mr. Sever has received research grants and consultancy from Pfizer and Amgen.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with both diabetes and atrial fibrillation may derive greater benefits from non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants than from warfarin, suggests a new study.

The new research, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that taking non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants was associated with reduced diabetes complications and lower mortality vs. taking warfarin in the group examined.

In their paper, the researchers present the outcomes of a retrospective cohort study involving 30,209 patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Of these, 19,909 were treated with non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban – and 10,300 were treated with warfarin.

Dr. Huei-Kai Huang from the Hualien (Taiwan) Tzu Chi Hospital and coauthors wrote that, while diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for stroke, there’s not yet a good understanding of the effect of different oral anticoagulants on the risk for diabetes-related complications in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes.

“Recent evidence has suggested that NOAC and warfarin may have different effects on glycemic control through the vitamin K–related mechanisms,” coauthor Yu-Kang Tu, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the National Taiwan University in Taipei said in an interview. “It was therefore natural to further evaluate whether NOAC could help decrease various diabetes-related complications, compared with warfarin.”

Hazards with NOACS vs. warfarin

The researchers found that patients treated with NOACs had a 16% lower hazard of macrovascular complications – a composite of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91; P < .001) – and a 21% lower hazard of microvascular complications including dialysis and lower-extremity amputations (95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P < .001).

NOAC therapy was also associated a 22% lower hazard of death (95% CI, 0.75-0.82; P < .001) and a 9% lower hazard for glycemic emergency (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .043), which the authors defined as a composite of diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, and hypoglycemia.

In particular, patients treated with NOACs showed significantly lower hazards for coronary artery disease, stroke, dialysis, amputation of lower extremities, and death from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes, compared with warfarin users.

The study also found that patients on higher volumes of NOAC medication had greater reductions in mortality and diabetes complications.

“Although our main findings can be explained by the potential differences in underlying mechanisms of action between NOAC and warfarin, we were still surprised with the significantly lower risks of retinopathy, neuropathy, and hypoglycemia in patients taking NOAC with high medication possession ratio,” Dr. Tu said.

Study provides more diabetes-specific outcomes data

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Peter Rossing, head of complications research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen said there has long been discussion about whether the newer and more expensive NOACs offer greater benefits to patient with diabetes – beyond stroke prevention – compared with the older and cheaper warfarin. As such, this study was important in providing more diabetes-specific outcomes data and in a large population.

“The effect size they find is certainly meaningful and relevant and should support decision-making,” Dr. Rossing noted in an interview. The finding of reduced risk of amputation and mortality “fits in line with theory that maybe if you block vitamin K, you get calcification, you get vascular damage that leads to failure of the kidney and leads to limb amputations, and that is potentially prevented or not developed when you give the NOACs.”

Dr. John Camm, professor of clinical cardiology at St George’s University of London, said the findings of the benefits of NOACs in this patient group ,were confirmation of earlier, smaller studies, and were important not just for patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes, but also those prone to diabetes.

“We know from previous studies from the same database, and also from Korea, [for example], that patients who are treated with NOACs as opposed to warfarin develop less diabetes,” he explained.

Dr. Camm said many guidelines around the world now suggest NOACs, and, in some cases, even advise against using vitamin K antagonists as a first option, except in certain situations, such as when patients have rheumatic heart disease, mild to moderate mitral stenosis in rheumatic disease, or prosthetic heart valves.

The researchers applied two methods to account for covariates that may have influenced whether patients received one class of treatment or the other. These achieved ‘appropriate balance’ of baseline characteristics such as comorbidities and baseline medication use for diabetes and other conditions, Dr. Tu and colleagues wrote.

The benefits of NOACs were less evident in younger patients, and the reductions in mortality and diabetes complications associated with NOACs did not reach statistical significance in those aged under 65 years. Regarding this, Dr. Camm noted that there was a debate as to whether patients under 65 years with atrial fibrillation and diabetes should be put on an anticoagulant.

The study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with both diabetes and atrial fibrillation may derive greater benefits from non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants than from warfarin, suggests a new study.

The new research, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that taking non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants was associated with reduced diabetes complications and lower mortality vs. taking warfarin in the group examined.

In their paper, the researchers present the outcomes of a retrospective cohort study involving 30,209 patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Of these, 19,909 were treated with non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban – and 10,300 were treated with warfarin.

Dr. Huei-Kai Huang from the Hualien (Taiwan) Tzu Chi Hospital and coauthors wrote that, while diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for stroke, there’s not yet a good understanding of the effect of different oral anticoagulants on the risk for diabetes-related complications in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes.

“Recent evidence has suggested that NOAC and warfarin may have different effects on glycemic control through the vitamin K–related mechanisms,” coauthor Yu-Kang Tu, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the National Taiwan University in Taipei said in an interview. “It was therefore natural to further evaluate whether NOAC could help decrease various diabetes-related complications, compared with warfarin.”

Hazards with NOACS vs. warfarin

The researchers found that patients treated with NOACs had a 16% lower hazard of macrovascular complications – a composite of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91; P < .001) – and a 21% lower hazard of microvascular complications including dialysis and lower-extremity amputations (95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P < .001).

NOAC therapy was also associated a 22% lower hazard of death (95% CI, 0.75-0.82; P < .001) and a 9% lower hazard for glycemic emergency (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .043), which the authors defined as a composite of diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, and hypoglycemia.

In particular, patients treated with NOACs showed significantly lower hazards for coronary artery disease, stroke, dialysis, amputation of lower extremities, and death from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes, compared with warfarin users.

The study also found that patients on higher volumes of NOAC medication had greater reductions in mortality and diabetes complications.

“Although our main findings can be explained by the potential differences in underlying mechanisms of action between NOAC and warfarin, we were still surprised with the significantly lower risks of retinopathy, neuropathy, and hypoglycemia in patients taking NOAC with high medication possession ratio,” Dr. Tu said.

Study provides more diabetes-specific outcomes data

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Peter Rossing, head of complications research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen said there has long been discussion about whether the newer and more expensive NOACs offer greater benefits to patient with diabetes – beyond stroke prevention – compared with the older and cheaper warfarin. As such, this study was important in providing more diabetes-specific outcomes data and in a large population.

“The effect size they find is certainly meaningful and relevant and should support decision-making,” Dr. Rossing noted in an interview. The finding of reduced risk of amputation and mortality “fits in line with theory that maybe if you block vitamin K, you get calcification, you get vascular damage that leads to failure of the kidney and leads to limb amputations, and that is potentially prevented or not developed when you give the NOACs.”

Dr. John Camm, professor of clinical cardiology at St George’s University of London, said the findings of the benefits of NOACs in this patient group ,were confirmation of earlier, smaller studies, and were important not just for patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes, but also those prone to diabetes.

“We know from previous studies from the same database, and also from Korea, [for example], that patients who are treated with NOACs as opposed to warfarin develop less diabetes,” he explained.

Dr. Camm said many guidelines around the world now suggest NOACs, and, in some cases, even advise against using vitamin K antagonists as a first option, except in certain situations, such as when patients have rheumatic heart disease, mild to moderate mitral stenosis in rheumatic disease, or prosthetic heart valves.

The researchers applied two methods to account for covariates that may have influenced whether patients received one class of treatment or the other. These achieved ‘appropriate balance’ of baseline characteristics such as comorbidities and baseline medication use for diabetes and other conditions, Dr. Tu and colleagues wrote.

The benefits of NOACs were less evident in younger patients, and the reductions in mortality and diabetes complications associated with NOACs did not reach statistical significance in those aged under 65 years. Regarding this, Dr. Camm noted that there was a debate as to whether patients under 65 years with atrial fibrillation and diabetes should be put on an anticoagulant.

The study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with both diabetes and atrial fibrillation may derive greater benefits from non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants than from warfarin, suggests a new study.

The new research, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that taking non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants was associated with reduced diabetes complications and lower mortality vs. taking warfarin in the group examined.

In their paper, the researchers present the outcomes of a retrospective cohort study involving 30,209 patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Of these, 19,909 were treated with non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban – and 10,300 were treated with warfarin.

Dr. Huei-Kai Huang from the Hualien (Taiwan) Tzu Chi Hospital and coauthors wrote that, while diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for stroke, there’s not yet a good understanding of the effect of different oral anticoagulants on the risk for diabetes-related complications in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes.

“Recent evidence has suggested that NOAC and warfarin may have different effects on glycemic control through the vitamin K–related mechanisms,” coauthor Yu-Kang Tu, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the National Taiwan University in Taipei said in an interview. “It was therefore natural to further evaluate whether NOAC could help decrease various diabetes-related complications, compared with warfarin.”

Hazards with NOACS vs. warfarin

The researchers found that patients treated with NOACs had a 16% lower hazard of macrovascular complications – a composite of coronary artery disease, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91; P < .001) – and a 21% lower hazard of microvascular complications including dialysis and lower-extremity amputations (95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P < .001).

NOAC therapy was also associated a 22% lower hazard of death (95% CI, 0.75-0.82; P < .001) and a 9% lower hazard for glycemic emergency (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .043), which the authors defined as a composite of diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, and hypoglycemia.

In particular, patients treated with NOACs showed significantly lower hazards for coronary artery disease, stroke, dialysis, amputation of lower extremities, and death from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes, compared with warfarin users.

The study also found that patients on higher volumes of NOAC medication had greater reductions in mortality and diabetes complications.

“Although our main findings can be explained by the potential differences in underlying mechanisms of action between NOAC and warfarin, we were still surprised with the significantly lower risks of retinopathy, neuropathy, and hypoglycemia in patients taking NOAC with high medication possession ratio,” Dr. Tu said.

Study provides more diabetes-specific outcomes data

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Peter Rossing, head of complications research at the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen said there has long been discussion about whether the newer and more expensive NOACs offer greater benefits to patient with diabetes – beyond stroke prevention – compared with the older and cheaper warfarin. As such, this study was important in providing more diabetes-specific outcomes data and in a large population.

“The effect size they find is certainly meaningful and relevant and should support decision-making,” Dr. Rossing noted in an interview. The finding of reduced risk of amputation and mortality “fits in line with theory that maybe if you block vitamin K, you get calcification, you get vascular damage that leads to failure of the kidney and leads to limb amputations, and that is potentially prevented or not developed when you give the NOACs.”

Dr. John Camm, professor of clinical cardiology at St George’s University of London, said the findings of the benefits of NOACs in this patient group ,were confirmation of earlier, smaller studies, and were important not just for patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes, but also those prone to diabetes.

“We know from previous studies from the same database, and also from Korea, [for example], that patients who are treated with NOACs as opposed to warfarin develop less diabetes,” he explained.

Dr. Camm said many guidelines around the world now suggest NOACs, and, in some cases, even advise against using vitamin K antagonists as a first option, except in certain situations, such as when patients have rheumatic heart disease, mild to moderate mitral stenosis in rheumatic disease, or prosthetic heart valves.

The researchers applied two methods to account for covariates that may have influenced whether patients received one class of treatment or the other. These achieved ‘appropriate balance’ of baseline characteristics such as comorbidities and baseline medication use for diabetes and other conditions, Dr. Tu and colleagues wrote.

The benefits of NOACs were less evident in younger patients, and the reductions in mortality and diabetes complications associated with NOACs did not reach statistical significance in those aged under 65 years. Regarding this, Dr. Camm noted that there was a debate as to whether patients under 65 years with atrial fibrillation and diabetes should be put on an anticoagulant.

The study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital. No conflicts of interest were declared.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I agree with most advice given by the affable TV character Ted Lasso. “Every choice is a chance,” he said. Pandemic-era physicians must now consider whether a politically motivated choice to decline COVID-19 vaccination should negatively affect the chance to receive an organ donation.

And in confronting these choices, we have a chance to educate the public on the complexities of the organ allocation process.

A well-informed patient’s personal choice should be honored, even if clinicians disagree, if it does not affect the well-being of others. For example, I once had a patient in acute leukemic crisis who declined blood products because she was a Jehovah’s Witness. She died. Her choice affected her longevity only.

Compare that decision with awarding an organ to an individual who has declined readily available protection of that organ. Weigh that choice against the fact that said protection is against an infectious disease that has killed over 5.5 million worldwide.
 

Some institutions stand strong, others hedge their bets

Admirably, Loyola University Health System understands that difference. They published a firm stand on transplant candidacy and COVID-19 vaccination status in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplant. Daniel Dilling, MD, medical director of the lung transplantation program , and Mark Kuczewski, PhD, a professor of medical ethics at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., wrote that: “We believe that requiring vaccination against COVID-19 should not be controversial when we focus strictly on established frameworks and practices surrounding eligibility for wait-listing to receive a solid organ transplant.”

The Cleveland Clinic apparently agrees. In October 2021, they denied a liver transplant to Michelle Vitullo of Ohio, whose daughter had been deemed “a perfect match.” Her daughter, also unvaccinated, stated: “Being denied for a nonmedical reason for someone’s beliefs that are different to yours, I mean that’s not how that should be.”

But vaccination status is a medical reason, given well-established data regarding increased mortality  among the immunosuppressed. Ms. Vitullo then said: “We are trying to get to UPMC [University of Pittsburgh Medical Center] as they don’t require a vaccination.”

The public information page on transplant candidacy from UPMC reads (my italics): It is recommended that all transplant candidates, transplant recipients, and their household members receive COVID-19 vaccination when the vaccine is available to them. It is preferred that transplant candidates are vaccinated more than 2 weeks before transplantation.

I reached out to UPMC for clarification and was told by email that “we do not have a policy regarding COVID-19 vaccination requirement for current transplant candidates.” Houston Methodist shares the same agnostic stance.

Compare these opinions with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the requirements are resolute: “Like most other transplant programs across the country, the COVID-19 vaccine is one of several vaccines and lifestyle behaviors that are required for patients awaiting solid organ transplant.”

They add that “transplant candidates must also receive the seasonal influenza and hepatitis B vaccines, follow other healthy behaviors, and demonstrate they can commit to taking the required medications following transplant.”

In January 2022, Brigham and Women’s Hospital declared 31-year-old D.J. Ferguson ineligible for a heart transplant because he declined to be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the New York Post and ABC News, his physicians resorted to left ventricular assist device support. His mother, Tracy Ferguson, is quoted as saying: “He’s not an antivaxxer. He has all of his vaccines.” I’ll just leave that right there.

Unfortunately, Michelle Vitullo’s obituary was published in December 2021. Regardless of whether she received her liver transplant, the outcome is tragic, and whatever you think of this family’s battle playing out in the glare of the national spotlight, their loss is no less devastating.

The directed-donation aspect of this case poses an interesting question. A news anchor asked the mother and daughter: “If you both accept the risks, why doesn’t the hospital just let you try?” The answers are obvious to us clinicians. Performing a transplantation in an unvaccinated patient could lead to their early death if they became infected because of their immunocompromised state, would open the door for transplantation of any patient who is unvaccinated for anything, including influenza and hepatitis B, which could result in the preventable waste of organs, and puts other vulnerable hospitalized patients at risk during the initial transplant stay and follow-up.

That’s not to mention the potential legal suit. Never has a consent form dissuaded any party from lodging an accusation of wrongful death or medical malpractice. In the face of strong data on higher mortality in unvaccinated, immunocompromised patients, a good lawyer could charge that the institution and transplant surgeons should have known better, regardless of the donor and recipient’s willingness to accept the risks.

The Vitullo and Ferguson cases are among many similar dilemmas surrounding transplant candidacy across the United States.

University of Virginia Health in Charlottesville denied 42-year-old Shamgar Connors a kidney transplant because he is unvaccinated, despite a previous COVID-19 infection. In October 2021, Leilani Lutali of Colorado was denied a kidney by UCHealth because she declined vaccination. 

AppleTV

As Ted Lasso says: “There’s a bunch of crazy stuff on Twitter.”

Predictably, social media is full of public outcry. “Some cold-hearted people on here” tweeted one. “What if it was one of your loved ones who needed a transplant?” Another tweeted the Hippocratic oath with the comment that “They all swore under this noble ‘oat’, but I guess it’s been forgotten.” (This was followed with a photo of a box of Quaker Oats in a failed attempt at humor.) These discussions among the Twitterati highlight the depths of misunderstanding on organ transplantation.

To be fair, unless you have been personally involved in the decision-making process for transplant candidacy, there is little opportunity to be educated. I explain to my anxious patients and their families that a donor organ is like a fumbled football. There may be well over 100 patients at all levels of transplant status in many geographic locations diving for that same organ.

The transplant team is tasked with finding the best match, determining who is the sickest, assessing time for transport of that organ, and, above all, who will be the best steward of that organ.

Take heart transplantation, for instance. Approximately 3,500 patients in the United States are awaiting one each year. Instead of facing an almost certain death within 5 years, a transplant recipient has a chance at a median survival of 12-13 years. The cost of a heart transplant is approximately $1.38 million, according to Milliman, a consulting firm. This is “an incredibly resource intensive procedure,” including expenditures for transportation, antirejection medication, office visits, physician fees, ICU stays, rejection surveillance, and acute rejection therapies.
 

Transplant denial is nothing new

People get turned down for organ transplants all the time. My patient with end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy was denied a heart transplant when it was discovered that he had scores of outstanding parking tickets. This was seen as a surrogate for an inability to afford his antirejection medication.

Another patient swore that her positive cotinine levels were caused by endless hours at the bingo hall where second-hand smoke swirled. She was also denied. Many potential candidates who are in acute decline hold precariously to newfound sobriety. They are denied. A patient’s boyfriend told the transplant team that he couldn’t be relied upon to drive her to her appointments. She was denied.

Many people who engage in antisocial behaviors have no idea that these actions may result in the denial of an organ transplant should their future selves need one. These are hard lines, but everyone should agree that the odds of survival are heavily in favor of the consistently adherent.

We should take this opportunity to educate the public on how complicated obtaining an organ transplant can be. More than 6,000 people die each year waiting for an organ because of the supply-and-demand disparities in the transplantation arena. I’m willing to bet that many of the loudest protesters in favor of unvaccinated transplant recipients have not signed the organ donor box on the back of their driver’s license. This conversation is an opportunity to change that and remind people that organ donation may be their only opportunity to save a fellow human’s life.

Again, to quote Ted Lasso: “If you care about someone and you got a little love in your heart, there ain’t nothing you can’t get through together.” That philosophy should apply to the tasks of selecting the best organ donors as well as the best organ recipients.

And every organ should go to the one who will honor their donor and their donor’s family by taking the best care of that ultimate gift of life, including being vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology. She enjoys locums work in Montana and is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have developed a quick and easy scoring system to predict which hospitalized COVID-19 patients are more at risk for stroke.

“The system is simple. You can calculate the points in 5 seconds and then predict the chances the patient will have a stroke,” Alexander E. Merkler, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and lead author of a study of the system, told this news organization.

The new system will allow clinicians to stratify patients and lead to closer monitoring of those at highest risk for stroke, said Dr. Merkler.

The study was presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Some, but not all, studies suggest COVID-19 increases the risk of stroke and worsens stroke outcomes, and the association isn’t clear, investigators note.

Researchers used the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines COVID-19 cardiovascular disease registry for this analysis. They evaluated 21,420 adult patients (mean age 61 years, 54% men), who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 122 centers from March 2020 to March 2021.

Investigators tapped into the vast amounts of data in this registry on different variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and lab values.

The outcome was a cerebrovascular event, defined as any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or cerebral vein thrombosis. Of the total hospitalized COVID-19 population, 312 (1.5%) had a cerebrovascular event.

Researchers first used standard statistical models to determine which risk factors are most associated with the development of stroke. They identified six such factors:

• history of stroke
• no fever at the time of hospital admission
• no history of pulmonary disease
• high white blood cell count
• history of hypertension
• high systolic blood pressure at the time of hospital admission

That the list of risk factors included absence of fever and no history of pulmonary disease was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Merkler, but there may be possible explanations, he added.

A high fever is an inflammatory response, and perhaps patients who aren’t responding appropriately “could be sicker in general and have a poor immune system, and thereby be at increased risk for stroke,” said Dr. Merkler.

In the case of pulmonary disease, patients without a history who are admitted for COVID “may have an extremely high burden of COVID, or are extremely sick, and that’s why they’re at higher risk for stroke.”

The scoring system assigns points for each variable, with more points conferring a higher risk of stroke. For example, someone who has 0-1 points has 0.2% risk of having a stroke, and someone with 4-6 points has 2% to 3% risk, said Dr. Merkler.

“So, we’re talking about a 10- to 15-fold increased risk of having a stroke with 4 to 6 versus 0 to 1 variables.”

The accuracy of the risk stratification score (C-statistic of 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.72) is “fairly good or modestly good,” said Dr. Merkler.

A patient with a score of 5 or 6 may need more vigilant monitoring to make sure symptoms are caught early and therapies such as thrombolytics and thrombectomy are readily available, he added.

Researchers also used a sophisticated machine-learning approach where a computer takes all the variables and identifies the best algorithm to predict stroke.

“The machine-learning algorithm was basically just as good as our standard model; it was almost identical,” said Dr. Merkler.

Outside of COVID, other scoring systems are used to predict stroke. For example, the ABCD2 score uses various factors to predict risk of recurrent stroke.

Philip B. Gorelick, MD, adjunct professor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the results are promising, as they may lead to identifying modifiable factors to prevent stroke.

Dr. Gorelick noted that the authors identified risk factors to predict risk of stroke “after an extensive analysis of baseline factors that included an internal validation process.”

The finding that no fever and no history of pulmonary disease were included in those risk factors was “unexpected,” said Dr. Gorelick, who is also medical director of the Hauenstein Neuroscience Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “This may reflect the baseline timing of data collection.”

He added further validation of the results in other data sets “will be useful to determine the consistency of the predictive model and its potential value in general practice.”

Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said the association between stroke risk and COVID exposure “has been very unclear.”

“Some people find a very strong association between stroke and COVID, some do not,” said Dr. McCullough, who served as the chair of the ISC 2022 meeting.

This new study looking at a risk stratification model for COVID patients was “very nicely done,” she added.

“They used the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines COVID registry, which was an amazing feat that was done very quickly by the AHA to establish COVID reporting in the Get With The Guidelines data, allowing us to really look at other factors related to stroke that are in this unique database.”

The study received funding support from the American Stroke Association. Dr. Merkler has received funding from the American Heart Association and the Leon Levy Foundation. Dr. Gorelick was not involved in the study and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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