Cardiology

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score as a measure of plaque burden more reliably predicts future cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with suspected coronary disease (CAD) than whether or not the disease is obstructive, a large retrospective study suggests.

Indeed, CV risk went up in tandem with growing plaque burden regardless of whether there was obstructive disease in any coronary artery, defined as a 50% or greater stenosis by computed tomographic angiography (CTA).

The findings argue for plaque burden as measured by CAC score, rather than percent-stenosis severity, for guiding further treatment decisions in such patients, researchers say.

The research was based on more than 20,000 symptomatic patients referred to diagnostic CTA in the Western Denmark Heart Registry who were then followed for about 4 years for major CV events, including death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

“What we show is that CAC is important for prognosis, and that patients with no stenosis have similar high risk as patients with stenosis when CAC burden is similar,” Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The guidelines “distinguish between primary and secondary prevention patients” based on the presence or absence of obstructive CAD, he said, but “our results challenge this long-held approach. We show that patients with nonobstructive CAD carry similar risk as patients with obstructive CAD.”

In practice, risk tends to be greater in patients with obstructive compared with nonobstructive CAD. But the reason “is simply that they normally have higher atherosclerosis burden,” Dr. Mortensen said. “When you stratify based on atherosclerosis burden, then patients with obstructive and nonobstructive CAD have similar risk.”

The analysis was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Mortensen as lead author.

Until recently, it had long been believed that CV-event risk was driven by ischemia – but “ischemia is just a surrogate for the extent of atherosclerotic disease,” Armin Arbab Zadeh, MD, PhD, MPH, who is not connected with the current study, said in an interview.

The finding that CV risk climbs with growing coronary plaque burden “essentially confirms” other recent studies, but with “added value in showing how well the calcium scores, compared to obstructive disease, track with risk. So it’s definitely a nice extension of the evidence,” said Dr. Zadeh, director of cardiac CT at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This study clearly shows that there is no ischemia ‘threshold,’ that the risk starts from mild and goes up with the burden of atherosclerotic disease. We were essentially taught wrong for decades.”

Dr. Mortensen said that the new results “are in line with previous studies showing that atherosclerosis burden is very important for risk.” They also help explain why revascularization of patients with stable angina failed to cut the risk of MI or death in trials like COURAGE, FAME-2, and ISCHEMIA. It’s because “stenosis per se explains little of the risk compared to atherosclerosis burden.”

In the current analysis, for example, about 65% of events were in patients who did not show obstructive CAD at CTA. Its 23,759 patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD were referred for CTA from 2008 through 2017; 5,043 (21.2%) were found to have obstructive disease and 18,716 (78.8%) either had no CAD or nonobstructive disease.

About 4.4% of patients experienced a first major CV event over a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Only events occurring later than 90 days after CTA were counted in an effort to exclude any directly related to revascularization, Dr. Mortensen noted.

The risk of events went up proportionally with both CAC score and the number of coronaries with obstructive disease.

The number of major CV events per 1,000 person-years was 6.2 for patients with a CAC score of 0, of whom 87% had no CAD by CTA, 7% had nonobstructive CAD, and 6% had obstructive CAD.

The corresponding rate was 17.5 among patients with a CAC score >100-399 for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.1) vs. a CAC score of 0.

And it was 42.3 per 1,000 patient-years among patients with CAC score >1000, HR 3.4 (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) vs. a CAC score of 0. Among those with the highest-tier CAC score, none were without CAD by CTA, 17% had nonobstructive disease, and 83% had obstructive CAD.

The major CV event rate rose similarly by number of coronaries with obstructive disease. It was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years in patients with no CAD. But it was 12.3 in those with nonobstructive disease, HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), up to 34.7 in those with triple-vessel obstructive disease, HR 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.9), vs. no CAD.

However, in an analysis with stratification by CAC score tier (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-1,000, and >1,000), obstructive CAD was not associated with increased major CV-event risk in any stratum. The findings were similar in each subgroup with 1-vessel, 2-vessel, or 3-vessel CAD when stratified by CAC score.

Nor did major CV event risk track with obstructive CAD in analyses by age or after excluding all patients who underwent coronary revascularization within 90 days of CTA, the group reported.

“I believe these results support the use of CTA as a first-line test in patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD, as it provides valuable information for both diagnosis and prognosis in symptomatic patients,” Dr. Mortensen said. Those found to have a higher burden of atherosclerosis, he added, should receive aggressive preventive therapy regardless of whether or not they have obstructive disease.

The evidence from this study and others “supports a CTA-based approach” in such patients, Dr. Zadeh said. “And I would go further to say that a stress test is really inadequate,” in that it “detects the disease at such a late stage, you’re missing the opportunity to identify these patients who have atherosclerotic disease while you can do something about it.”

Its continued use as a first-line test, Dr. Zadeh said, “is essentially, in my mind, dismissing the evidence.”

An accompanying editorial Todd C. Villines, MD, and Patricia Rodriguez Lozano, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville agreed that “it is time that the traditional definitions of primary and secondary prevention evolve to incorporate CAC and CTA measures of patient risk based on coronary artery plaque burden.”

But they pointed out some limitations of the current study.

“The authors compared CAC with ≥50% stenosis, not CAC to comprehensive, contemporary coronary CTA,” and so “did not assess numerous other well-validated measures of coronary plaque burden that are routinely obtained from coronary CTA that typically improve the prognostic accuracy of coronary CTA beyond stenosis alone.” Also not performed was “plaque quantification on coronary CTA, an emerging field of study.”

The editorialists noted that noncontrast CT as used in the study for CAC scoring “is generally not recommended as a standalone test in symptomatic patients. Most studies have shown that coronary CTA, a test that accurately detects stenosis and identifies all types of coronary atherosclerosis (calcified and noncalcified), has significantly higher diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than CAC when performed in symptomatic patients without known coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Mortensen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Villines and Dr. Rodriguez Lozano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Zadeh disclosed receiving grant support from Canon Medical Systems.

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

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score as a measure of plaque burden more reliably predicts future cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with suspected coronary disease (CAD) than whether or not the disease is obstructive, a large retrospective study suggests.

Indeed, CV risk went up in tandem with growing plaque burden regardless of whether there was obstructive disease in any coronary artery, defined as a 50% or greater stenosis by computed tomographic angiography (CTA).

The findings argue for plaque burden as measured by CAC score, rather than percent-stenosis severity, for guiding further treatment decisions in such patients, researchers say.

The research was based on more than 20,000 symptomatic patients referred to diagnostic CTA in the Western Denmark Heart Registry who were then followed for about 4 years for major CV events, including death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

“What we show is that CAC is important for prognosis, and that patients with no stenosis have similar high risk as patients with stenosis when CAC burden is similar,” Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The guidelines “distinguish between primary and secondary prevention patients” based on the presence or absence of obstructive CAD, he said, but “our results challenge this long-held approach. We show that patients with nonobstructive CAD carry similar risk as patients with obstructive CAD.”

In practice, risk tends to be greater in patients with obstructive compared with nonobstructive CAD. But the reason “is simply that they normally have higher atherosclerosis burden,” Dr. Mortensen said. “When you stratify based on atherosclerosis burden, then patients with obstructive and nonobstructive CAD have similar risk.”

The analysis was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Mortensen as lead author.

Until recently, it had long been believed that CV-event risk was driven by ischemia – but “ischemia is just a surrogate for the extent of atherosclerotic disease,” Armin Arbab Zadeh, MD, PhD, MPH, who is not connected with the current study, said in an interview.

The finding that CV risk climbs with growing coronary plaque burden “essentially confirms” other recent studies, but with “added value in showing how well the calcium scores, compared to obstructive disease, track with risk. So it’s definitely a nice extension of the evidence,” said Dr. Zadeh, director of cardiac CT at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This study clearly shows that there is no ischemia ‘threshold,’ that the risk starts from mild and goes up with the burden of atherosclerotic disease. We were essentially taught wrong for decades.”

Dr. Mortensen said that the new results “are in line with previous studies showing that atherosclerosis burden is very important for risk.” They also help explain why revascularization of patients with stable angina failed to cut the risk of MI or death in trials like COURAGE, FAME-2, and ISCHEMIA. It’s because “stenosis per se explains little of the risk compared to atherosclerosis burden.”

In the current analysis, for example, about 65% of events were in patients who did not show obstructive CAD at CTA. Its 23,759 patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD were referred for CTA from 2008 through 2017; 5,043 (21.2%) were found to have obstructive disease and 18,716 (78.8%) either had no CAD or nonobstructive disease.

About 4.4% of patients experienced a first major CV event over a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Only events occurring later than 90 days after CTA were counted in an effort to exclude any directly related to revascularization, Dr. Mortensen noted.

The risk of events went up proportionally with both CAC score and the number of coronaries with obstructive disease.

The number of major CV events per 1,000 person-years was 6.2 for patients with a CAC score of 0, of whom 87% had no CAD by CTA, 7% had nonobstructive CAD, and 6% had obstructive CAD.

The corresponding rate was 17.5 among patients with a CAC score >100-399 for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.1) vs. a CAC score of 0.

And it was 42.3 per 1,000 patient-years among patients with CAC score >1000, HR 3.4 (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) vs. a CAC score of 0. Among those with the highest-tier CAC score, none were without CAD by CTA, 17% had nonobstructive disease, and 83% had obstructive CAD.

The major CV event rate rose similarly by number of coronaries with obstructive disease. It was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years in patients with no CAD. But it was 12.3 in those with nonobstructive disease, HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), up to 34.7 in those with triple-vessel obstructive disease, HR 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.9), vs. no CAD.

However, in an analysis with stratification by CAC score tier (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-1,000, and >1,000), obstructive CAD was not associated with increased major CV-event risk in any stratum. The findings were similar in each subgroup with 1-vessel, 2-vessel, or 3-vessel CAD when stratified by CAC score.

Nor did major CV event risk track with obstructive CAD in analyses by age or after excluding all patients who underwent coronary revascularization within 90 days of CTA, the group reported.

“I believe these results support the use of CTA as a first-line test in patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD, as it provides valuable information for both diagnosis and prognosis in symptomatic patients,” Dr. Mortensen said. Those found to have a higher burden of atherosclerosis, he added, should receive aggressive preventive therapy regardless of whether or not they have obstructive disease.

The evidence from this study and others “supports a CTA-based approach” in such patients, Dr. Zadeh said. “And I would go further to say that a stress test is really inadequate,” in that it “detects the disease at such a late stage, you’re missing the opportunity to identify these patients who have atherosclerotic disease while you can do something about it.”

Its continued use as a first-line test, Dr. Zadeh said, “is essentially, in my mind, dismissing the evidence.”

An accompanying editorial Todd C. Villines, MD, and Patricia Rodriguez Lozano, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville agreed that “it is time that the traditional definitions of primary and secondary prevention evolve to incorporate CAC and CTA measures of patient risk based on coronary artery plaque burden.”

But they pointed out some limitations of the current study.

“The authors compared CAC with ≥50% stenosis, not CAC to comprehensive, contemporary coronary CTA,” and so “did not assess numerous other well-validated measures of coronary plaque burden that are routinely obtained from coronary CTA that typically improve the prognostic accuracy of coronary CTA beyond stenosis alone.” Also not performed was “plaque quantification on coronary CTA, an emerging field of study.”

The editorialists noted that noncontrast CT as used in the study for CAC scoring “is generally not recommended as a standalone test in symptomatic patients. Most studies have shown that coronary CTA, a test that accurately detects stenosis and identifies all types of coronary atherosclerosis (calcified and noncalcified), has significantly higher diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than CAC when performed in symptomatic patients without known coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Mortensen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Villines and Dr. Rodriguez Lozano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Zadeh disclosed receiving grant support from Canon Medical Systems.

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

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score as a measure of plaque burden more reliably predicts future cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with suspected coronary disease (CAD) than whether or not the disease is obstructive, a large retrospective study suggests.

Indeed, CV risk went up in tandem with growing plaque burden regardless of whether there was obstructive disease in any coronary artery, defined as a 50% or greater stenosis by computed tomographic angiography (CTA).

The findings argue for plaque burden as measured by CAC score, rather than percent-stenosis severity, for guiding further treatment decisions in such patients, researchers say.

The research was based on more than 20,000 symptomatic patients referred to diagnostic CTA in the Western Denmark Heart Registry who were then followed for about 4 years for major CV events, including death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

“What we show is that CAC is important for prognosis, and that patients with no stenosis have similar high risk as patients with stenosis when CAC burden is similar,” Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The guidelines “distinguish between primary and secondary prevention patients” based on the presence or absence of obstructive CAD, he said, but “our results challenge this long-held approach. We show that patients with nonobstructive CAD carry similar risk as patients with obstructive CAD.”

In practice, risk tends to be greater in patients with obstructive compared with nonobstructive CAD. But the reason “is simply that they normally have higher atherosclerosis burden,” Dr. Mortensen said. “When you stratify based on atherosclerosis burden, then patients with obstructive and nonobstructive CAD have similar risk.”

The analysis was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Mortensen as lead author.

Until recently, it had long been believed that CV-event risk was driven by ischemia – but “ischemia is just a surrogate for the extent of atherosclerotic disease,” Armin Arbab Zadeh, MD, PhD, MPH, who is not connected with the current study, said in an interview.

The finding that CV risk climbs with growing coronary plaque burden “essentially confirms” other recent studies, but with “added value in showing how well the calcium scores, compared to obstructive disease, track with risk. So it’s definitely a nice extension of the evidence,” said Dr. Zadeh, director of cardiac CT at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This study clearly shows that there is no ischemia ‘threshold,’ that the risk starts from mild and goes up with the burden of atherosclerotic disease. We were essentially taught wrong for decades.”

Dr. Mortensen said that the new results “are in line with previous studies showing that atherosclerosis burden is very important for risk.” They also help explain why revascularization of patients with stable angina failed to cut the risk of MI or death in trials like COURAGE, FAME-2, and ISCHEMIA. It’s because “stenosis per se explains little of the risk compared to atherosclerosis burden.”

In the current analysis, for example, about 65% of events were in patients who did not show obstructive CAD at CTA. Its 23,759 patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD were referred for CTA from 2008 through 2017; 5,043 (21.2%) were found to have obstructive disease and 18,716 (78.8%) either had no CAD or nonobstructive disease.

About 4.4% of patients experienced a first major CV event over a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Only events occurring later than 90 days after CTA were counted in an effort to exclude any directly related to revascularization, Dr. Mortensen noted.

The risk of events went up proportionally with both CAC score and the number of coronaries with obstructive disease.

The number of major CV events per 1,000 person-years was 6.2 for patients with a CAC score of 0, of whom 87% had no CAD by CTA, 7% had nonobstructive CAD, and 6% had obstructive CAD.

The corresponding rate was 17.5 among patients with a CAC score >100-399 for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.1) vs. a CAC score of 0.

And it was 42.3 per 1,000 patient-years among patients with CAC score >1000, HR 3.4 (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) vs. a CAC score of 0. Among those with the highest-tier CAC score, none were without CAD by CTA, 17% had nonobstructive disease, and 83% had obstructive CAD.

The major CV event rate rose similarly by number of coronaries with obstructive disease. It was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years in patients with no CAD. But it was 12.3 in those with nonobstructive disease, HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), up to 34.7 in those with triple-vessel obstructive disease, HR 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.9), vs. no CAD.

However, in an analysis with stratification by CAC score tier (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-1,000, and >1,000), obstructive CAD was not associated with increased major CV-event risk in any stratum. The findings were similar in each subgroup with 1-vessel, 2-vessel, or 3-vessel CAD when stratified by CAC score.

Nor did major CV event risk track with obstructive CAD in analyses by age or after excluding all patients who underwent coronary revascularization within 90 days of CTA, the group reported.

“I believe these results support the use of CTA as a first-line test in patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD, as it provides valuable information for both diagnosis and prognosis in symptomatic patients,” Dr. Mortensen said. Those found to have a higher burden of atherosclerosis, he added, should receive aggressive preventive therapy regardless of whether or not they have obstructive disease.

The evidence from this study and others “supports a CTA-based approach” in such patients, Dr. Zadeh said. “And I would go further to say that a stress test is really inadequate,” in that it “detects the disease at such a late stage, you’re missing the opportunity to identify these patients who have atherosclerotic disease while you can do something about it.”

Its continued use as a first-line test, Dr. Zadeh said, “is essentially, in my mind, dismissing the evidence.”

An accompanying editorial Todd C. Villines, MD, and Patricia Rodriguez Lozano, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville agreed that “it is time that the traditional definitions of primary and secondary prevention evolve to incorporate CAC and CTA measures of patient risk based on coronary artery plaque burden.”

But they pointed out some limitations of the current study.

“The authors compared CAC with ≥50% stenosis, not CAC to comprehensive, contemporary coronary CTA,” and so “did not assess numerous other well-validated measures of coronary plaque burden that are routinely obtained from coronary CTA that typically improve the prognostic accuracy of coronary CTA beyond stenosis alone.” Also not performed was “plaque quantification on coronary CTA, an emerging field of study.”

The editorialists noted that noncontrast CT as used in the study for CAC scoring “is generally not recommended as a standalone test in symptomatic patients. Most studies have shown that coronary CTA, a test that accurately detects stenosis and identifies all types of coronary atherosclerosis (calcified and noncalcified), has significantly higher diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than CAC when performed in symptomatic patients without known coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Mortensen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Villines and Dr. Rodriguez Lozano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Zadeh disclosed receiving grant support from Canon Medical Systems.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

Reports of signs of heart failure in adults with COVID-19 have been rare – just four such cases have been published since the outbreak started in China – and now a team of pediatric cardiologists in New York have reported a case of acute but reversible myocardial injury in an infant with COVID-19.

Madhu S. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031

SOURCE: Sharma M et al. JACC Case Rep. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.09.031.

While cardiovascular mortality rates have declined, heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in the US, and the number of people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is rising.¹ CVD is more prevalent among military veterans than it is among nonveterans aged ≥ 25 years, and veteran status is associated with higher risk of incident heart disease after controlling for socioeconomic status, other medical diseases, depression, and lifestyle.^2-4 Combat exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and Purple Heart commendation are associated with higher rates of CVD, including adverse cardiovascular events.^5-7 Many patients seeking care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), including those who undergo cardiac catheterization, meet the criteria for multimorbidity (defined as having ≥ 2 chronic diseases⁸), which is common among veterans.^9,10 Multimorbidity presents a challenge for lifestyle intervention, as different diets may be prescribed to treat different conditions, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, and low-glycemic diet for diabetes mellitus (DM). Veterans with CVD are often clinically complex and may require more multifaceted secondary prevention programs.

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, effective secondary prevention intervention is needed more than ever. Older age, CVD, and common comorbidities, including hypertension, DM, and obesity, place patients at the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection.¹¹ COVID-19 social distancing encourages vulnerable populations to stay home, which can make engaging in any levels of physical activity more challenging. The International Food Council found that 85% of adults have made a change to their food consumption pattern, including eating more, during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹² Thus, secondary CVD prevention programs for veterans need to provide treatment that addresses these specific challenges and can be delivered via telehealth for continuity of care after disruption of traditional services.

Nutrition may be the most powerful Ornish ICR component. The initial RCT conducted by Ornish and colleagues included only stress management training and a whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. The trial found 91% of participants experienced reduced angina after only 24 days.¹⁵ The only single-component intervention study resulting in partial reversal of atherosclerosis was a WFPB diet-only study, which documented regression of atherosclerotic plaques after 5 years, using coronary angiography in 73% of participants, with arrested progression in the other 27%.²² Participants reported no cardiovascular AEs after 12 years.²³ Furthermore, a number of other recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of WFPB diet-only interventions for type 2 DM (T2DM), hypertension, and obesity.^24-27 The Heart Disease Reversal Program (HDRP) was developed to create an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention that emphasized nutrition for a broad population of veterans with atherosclerotic CVD, of varying levels of functional ability, to promote comprehensive CVD risk reduction and bring heart disease reversal intervention into routine clinical practice.

Program Description 

The Mental Health, Cardiology, and Nutrition and Food services all approved the launch of HDRP. We contacted veterans by mail, and 11% expressed interest (Figure). Among patients who received the initial mailed letter (prior to our accepting staff referrals), only 5% of patients who enrolled in HDRP reported previously being told about or prescribed a WFPB diet by any health care provider (HCP). Currently, patients are primarily referred to HDRP by Cardiology, Primary Care, and Mental Health services.

Design

HDRP is an adaptation of interdisciplinary lifestyle interventions that have resulted in regression of atherosclerotic blockages confirmed with invasive coronary angiography.^15-17,22,28 HDRP currently is offered in a Behavioral Medicine Clinic at the Sacramento US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC) in California. Program staff include a clinical health psychologist who organizes, coordinates, and act as the lead facilitator of the program; registered dietitians; clinical pharmacists; and a consulting physician. Patients engage in the 4-month core HDRP program in small cohorts (ie, 6-10 patients), and spouses/partners are highly encouraged to attend all sessions.

Components

Telephone screening. Patients are screened for the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Patients engaging in a traditional CR program are included in the screening. Patients are informed that the program consists of lifestyle intervention, including emphasis on following a WFPB diet.

A psychologist delivers the physical activity component. Patients are encouraged to meet the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommendations for aerobic exercise (at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week) through a walking program.³⁵ Patients with medical contraindications (eg, severe pain, mobility restrictions) are encouraged to follow the exercise/activity recommendations they had been given by their primary care provider (PCP), physical therapist, or other HCP.

A psychologist provides evidence-based cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) training, adapted from models developed for patients with stable ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer.^36-38 CBSM is a psychotherapy grounded in stress/coping theory and cognitive behavioral theory of psychopathology that integrates cognitive restructuring, coping skills training, communication/assertiveness training, anger management, and mindfulness/acceptance-based approaches. Additional emphasis is placed on assisting patients’ adjustment to the lifestyle challenges for following a plant-based diet, dealing with food cravings and emotional eating, and connecting lifestyle change to patients’ deepest values and goals.

A clinical pharmacist conducts a medication reconciliation for each patient at baseline. The pharmacist consults with each patient’s PCP, cardiologist, and HDRP consulting physician, as needed, to ensure safe adjustments to medications. Pharmacists also provide education on medications at group sessions.

After completion of the 12-week core program, graduates are encouraged to attend the monthly graduates’ group indefinitely, and as often as they desire to promote maintenance of the disease reversal lifestyle. Patients are encouraged to complete our recommended fasting laboratory work every 3 to 6 months to facilitate maintenance of treatment gains.

Program Evaluation

Patients frequently reported that the group format was vital to their success. Patients requested a cooking class, yet we lacked a full teaching kitchen. Integrating plant-based meal samples at every session and cooking videos helped. Patients reported that 100% adherence to the WFPB diet led to significant changes in their food preferences, including a loss of interest in meat.³⁹ Patients encouraged us to keep the “disease reversal” language and focus. One veteran stated: “Disease reversal, that is the reason I called you when I got your letter.” Showing before and after images of coronary angiograms and cardiac positron emission tomography scans depicting regression of atherosclerotic plaque and restored myocardial perfusion were described as highly motivating and generated willingness to commit to a more aggressive lifestyle change.³¹

Patients routinely stated that they lacked understanding of their laboratory test results, which HDRP remedied. Some patients reported their adult children followed a plant-based diet, and our program resulted in a new commonality and source of bonding that was highly valued. Some patients reported that HDRP was helpful for controlling their COVID-19 anxiety and feeling in control of their health. Satisfaction surveys were completed by participants at the end of the core program, which demonstrated very high satisfaction with and acceptability of HDRP (Table 3).

COVID-19 Response

Face-to-face group appointments were converted to videoconferencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While HDRP always promoted the use of technology and mHealth tools, the pandemic led us to develop novel technology-based interventions.⁴⁰ One cohort transitioned from in-person to videoconferencing sessions, and 2 cohorts recently started this format and are ongoing. We have successfully used videoconferencing with Cisco Webex, the VA-approved backup platform, as we encountered technical barriers when using VA Video Connect. Program materials were shared electronically, and participants sent blood pressure/sugar logs by secure messaging. Guidance for online grocery shopping with home delivery was provided, and research on the benefits of the HDRP lifestyle on immune function was incorporated.

The stress management component incorporated coping with COVID-19, including normalizing common emotional difficulties with sheltering-in-place and quarantine, acknowledging and processing fear and anxiety related to being at very high risk for severe COVID-19. We presented heart disease reversal as an urgent and feasible goal during the pandemic both reducing risk of premature death and major adverse cardiovascular events in the long-term and also reducing personal risk of severe COVID complications. The new VA COVID Coach app was also presented as a resource. Reputable sources of COVID-19 and public health information were shared. Walking continued to be the primary recommended form of exercise, while indoor home exercise options were promoted during the periods of very poor air quality due to the widespread California fires and smoke.

Considering the research suggesting benefits of our intervention for treating T2DM,promoting sustained weight loss, and promoting comprehensive cardiometabolic risk reduction, we have begun accepting referrals for patients with any type of atherosclerotic CVD (eg, peripheral artery disease, carotid artery disease), patients with T2DM (without CVD), and patients with only a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.^24-27 Vascular surgery has become a new referral source, primarily for patients with peripheral and carotid artery diseases. Finally, we are leveraging videoconferencing and accepting referrals across the VA Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS)catchment (from the California-Oregon state border to the San Francisco Bay Area). This also helps address a long-standing problem with reaching the many rural veterans who live far from a VA clinic. We successfully implemented a consult/referral process within the EHR that is available to providers across VANCHCS.

Discussion

The efficacy and effectiveness of reversal programs are well established in intensive programs (eg, ICR), yet such programs have yet to be streamlined and disseminated broadly into routine clinical care. HDRP has endeavored to address this by emphasizing nutrition relative to other program components. We have learned that the words “disease reversal” are very often the reason patients initially reach out or accept referral to our program.

Consistent with past research on plant-based nutrition interventions, the group format was indispensable.⁴¹ Individual sessions with a clinical health psychologist enabled tailored feedback and education on how behavior changes could impact laboratory results and how certain psychosocial factors could support success. Participants reported that seeing significantly favorable laboratory results was highly motivating and confirmed the power of their lifestyle changes. Furthermore, a psychosocial health assessment with individual sessions promoted a tailored treatment plan with targeted clinical interventions, such as behavioral health education, motivational interviewing, and advanced methods, including cognitive behavioral therapy and techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.

Veterans with multimorbidity face the difficult task of learning and maintaining a complex disease self-management program and implementing a lifestyle approach that is feasible, effective, promotes weight loss, and treats multiple conditions. HDRP is a model approach for this population, as demonstrated by a recent case report of a 65-year-old male veteran with atherosclerotic CVD, T2DM, hypertension, and myasthenia gravis who had 2 heart attacks within 2 months.⁴² His neurologic disease precluded significant physical activity. Although he achieved some initial weight loss through lifestyle changes, he continued to have daily angina despite optimal and aggressive cardiology management. After enrolling in HDRP and adopting the WFPB diet, the patient reported almost complete resolution of angina within 1 month, similar to that found in other studies.¹⁵

The literature suggests that concern over the acceptability of plant-based diets and patients’ ability to adhere to them long-term may be misplaced. A review paper on dietary interventions lasting > 1 year found that 51 to 61% of vegetarian and vegan study participants had maintained dietary adherence, while 20 to 55% of omnivorous diet intervention participants adhered to their study diets.⁴³ Remarkably, there were no statistically significant differences in the acceptability of the vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diets in the studies reviewed.⁴³ Recent dietary research also suggests that providing patients with higher goals (eg, adopting a vegan diet instead of only moderate dietary changes) results in greater weight loss and maintenance.²⁶ HDRP provides training on consumption of whole plant foods, which may offer patients a unique advantage for maximizing results and higher adherence over time.

Limitations

Hands-on cooking instruction was not provided at our VAMC. The total time of the intervention was significantly less in HDRP (25 hours) than it was for the Ornish ICR program (72 hours), which may hinder long-term adherence. Without an exercise facility, we were not able to provide more detailed exercise instruction and supervised exercise.

Program Improvements Planned

There are a number of improvements that are planned for HDRP. First, the program anticipates requesting medical clearance at the telephone screening stage for self-referred patients. Second, HDRP will provide regular presentations on the program to VAMC clinics and community-based outpatient clinics, including reminders about inclusion/exclusion criteria and the referral process, and to solicit feedback on processes. Third, we hope to routinely provide education and address common questions and concerns of HCPs, including expected results. Fourth, we would like to lengthen the patient commitment to HDRP (eg, 1- to 2-year commitment to the graduate group), consistent with other HDRPs.²⁸ Fifth, we hope to further integrate technology-based components to promote behavior change/maintenance, such as automated text messaging.

Conclusions

Although our patient population was self-selected for participation, early program evaluation demonstrates high acceptability. Very few patients had ever been told about a heart disease reversing lifestyle, and we found direct-to-patient clinical outreach an effective method for launching a disease reversal program (optimally timed with HCP presentations). Furthermore, the program is adaptable to current restrictions on in-person appointments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and much more convenient for rural veterans who live far from any VA clinic. Being able to offer sustainable health care for individuals during unexpected public health crises is critically important. Additionally, treating veterans who are most vulnerable to pandemic illness due to existing medical conditions, such as CVD, should be a high priority. Last, HDRP also may represent a novel integrated treatment for COVID-19 anxiety and secondary CVD prevention, as lifestyle habits are optimized to improve chronic diseases that elevate risk for severe COVID-19 infection and mortality, as well as including coping strategies consistent with evidence-based psychotherapies for anxiety disorders.⁴⁴

We believe that beyond the clinical benefits to patients, there is significant value and benefit added to the health care system by offering an intervention within the “disease reversal” paradigm. Efforts of the health care team to reverse a disease can be considered the highest aim of medicine and health care.⁴⁵

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We give special thanks to David M. Gellerman, MD, PhD, and David W. Schafer, PsyD, for providing Mental Health Service support for initiating the Heart Disease Reversal Program, and to Joseph Giorgio, PsyD (Program Manager, Integrated Care Program) for sustaining it. We thank Amogh Bhat, MD, Chief of Cardiology, for his continued support and partnership with the Cardiology Department. We express thanks to Stephanie Mohney, RDN (Chief, Nutrition and Food Service), Amy Klotz, RDN (Supervisory Dietician), Sian M. Carr-Lopez, PharmD (Associate Chief of Pharmacy, Primary Care), and Michelle Rand, PharmD, CACP (Anticoagulation Clinical Pharmacist-Supervisor) for their staff support of this interdisciplinary program. We thank the patients and their families for their participation in the program and commitment to the lifestyle changes. We also thank the following individuals for their contributions to this program: Lisa Wagaman, RDN, Karen Soong, PharmD, Sara S. Ali, PharmD, Suzan Hua, PharmD, and Stephen Cooperman.

While cardiovascular mortality rates have declined, heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in the US, and the number of people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is rising.¹ CVD is more prevalent among military veterans than it is among nonveterans aged ≥ 25 years, and veteran status is associated with higher risk of incident heart disease after controlling for socioeconomic status, other medical diseases, depression, and lifestyle.^2-4 Combat exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and Purple Heart commendation are associated with higher rates of CVD, including adverse cardiovascular events.^5-7 Many patients seeking care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), including those who undergo cardiac catheterization, meet the criteria for multimorbidity (defined as having ≥ 2 chronic diseases⁸), which is common among veterans.^9,10 Multimorbidity presents a challenge for lifestyle intervention, as different diets may be prescribed to treat different conditions, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, and low-glycemic diet for diabetes mellitus (DM). Veterans with CVD are often clinically complex and may require more multifaceted secondary prevention programs.

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, effective secondary prevention intervention is needed more than ever. Older age, CVD, and common comorbidities, including hypertension, DM, and obesity, place patients at the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection.¹¹ COVID-19 social distancing encourages vulnerable populations to stay home, which can make engaging in any levels of physical activity more challenging. The International Food Council found that 85% of adults have made a change to their food consumption pattern, including eating more, during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹² Thus, secondary CVD prevention programs for veterans need to provide treatment that addresses these specific challenges and can be delivered via telehealth for continuity of care after disruption of traditional services.

Nutrition may be the most powerful Ornish ICR component. The initial RCT conducted by Ornish and colleagues included only stress management training and a whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. The trial found 91% of participants experienced reduced angina after only 24 days.¹⁵ The only single-component intervention study resulting in partial reversal of atherosclerosis was a WFPB diet-only study, which documented regression of atherosclerotic plaques after 5 years, using coronary angiography in 73% of participants, with arrested progression in the other 27%.²² Participants reported no cardiovascular AEs after 12 years.²³ Furthermore, a number of other recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of WFPB diet-only interventions for type 2 DM (T2DM), hypertension, and obesity.^24-27 The Heart Disease Reversal Program (HDRP) was developed to create an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention that emphasized nutrition for a broad population of veterans with atherosclerotic CVD, of varying levels of functional ability, to promote comprehensive CVD risk reduction and bring heart disease reversal intervention into routine clinical practice.

Program Description 

The Mental Health, Cardiology, and Nutrition and Food services all approved the launch of HDRP. We contacted veterans by mail, and 11% expressed interest (Figure). Among patients who received the initial mailed letter (prior to our accepting staff referrals), only 5% of patients who enrolled in HDRP reported previously being told about or prescribed a WFPB diet by any health care provider (HCP). Currently, patients are primarily referred to HDRP by Cardiology, Primary Care, and Mental Health services.

Design

HDRP is an adaptation of interdisciplinary lifestyle interventions that have resulted in regression of atherosclerotic blockages confirmed with invasive coronary angiography.^15-17,22,28 HDRP currently is offered in a Behavioral Medicine Clinic at the Sacramento US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC) in California. Program staff include a clinical health psychologist who organizes, coordinates, and act as the lead facilitator of the program; registered dietitians; clinical pharmacists; and a consulting physician. Patients engage in the 4-month core HDRP program in small cohorts (ie, 6-10 patients), and spouses/partners are highly encouraged to attend all sessions.

Components

Telephone screening. Patients are screened for the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Patients engaging in a traditional CR program are included in the screening. Patients are informed that the program consists of lifestyle intervention, including emphasis on following a WFPB diet.

A psychologist delivers the physical activity component. Patients are encouraged to meet the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommendations for aerobic exercise (at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week) through a walking program.³⁵ Patients with medical contraindications (eg, severe pain, mobility restrictions) are encouraged to follow the exercise/activity recommendations they had been given by their primary care provider (PCP), physical therapist, or other HCP.

A psychologist provides evidence-based cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) training, adapted from models developed for patients with stable ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer.^36-38 CBSM is a psychotherapy grounded in stress/coping theory and cognitive behavioral theory of psychopathology that integrates cognitive restructuring, coping skills training, communication/assertiveness training, anger management, and mindfulness/acceptance-based approaches. Additional emphasis is placed on assisting patients’ adjustment to the lifestyle challenges for following a plant-based diet, dealing with food cravings and emotional eating, and connecting lifestyle change to patients’ deepest values and goals.

A clinical pharmacist conducts a medication reconciliation for each patient at baseline. The pharmacist consults with each patient’s PCP, cardiologist, and HDRP consulting physician, as needed, to ensure safe adjustments to medications. Pharmacists also provide education on medications at group sessions.

After completion of the 12-week core program, graduates are encouraged to attend the monthly graduates’ group indefinitely, and as often as they desire to promote maintenance of the disease reversal lifestyle. Patients are encouraged to complete our recommended fasting laboratory work every 3 to 6 months to facilitate maintenance of treatment gains.

Program Evaluation

Patients frequently reported that the group format was vital to their success. Patients requested a cooking class, yet we lacked a full teaching kitchen. Integrating plant-based meal samples at every session and cooking videos helped. Patients reported that 100% adherence to the WFPB diet led to significant changes in their food preferences, including a loss of interest in meat.³⁹ Patients encouraged us to keep the “disease reversal” language and focus. One veteran stated: “Disease reversal, that is the reason I called you when I got your letter.” Showing before and after images of coronary angiograms and cardiac positron emission tomography scans depicting regression of atherosclerotic plaque and restored myocardial perfusion were described as highly motivating and generated willingness to commit to a more aggressive lifestyle change.³¹

Patients routinely stated that they lacked understanding of their laboratory test results, which HDRP remedied. Some patients reported their adult children followed a plant-based diet, and our program resulted in a new commonality and source of bonding that was highly valued. Some patients reported that HDRP was helpful for controlling their COVID-19 anxiety and feeling in control of their health. Satisfaction surveys were completed by participants at the end of the core program, which demonstrated very high satisfaction with and acceptability of HDRP (Table 3).

COVID-19 Response

Face-to-face group appointments were converted to videoconferencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While HDRP always promoted the use of technology and mHealth tools, the pandemic led us to develop novel technology-based interventions.⁴⁰ One cohort transitioned from in-person to videoconferencing sessions, and 2 cohorts recently started this format and are ongoing. We have successfully used videoconferencing with Cisco Webex, the VA-approved backup platform, as we encountered technical barriers when using VA Video Connect. Program materials were shared electronically, and participants sent blood pressure/sugar logs by secure messaging. Guidance for online grocery shopping with home delivery was provided, and research on the benefits of the HDRP lifestyle on immune function was incorporated.

The stress management component incorporated coping with COVID-19, including normalizing common emotional difficulties with sheltering-in-place and quarantine, acknowledging and processing fear and anxiety related to being at very high risk for severe COVID-19. We presented heart disease reversal as an urgent and feasible goal during the pandemic both reducing risk of premature death and major adverse cardiovascular events in the long-term and also reducing personal risk of severe COVID complications. The new VA COVID Coach app was also presented as a resource. Reputable sources of COVID-19 and public health information were shared. Walking continued to be the primary recommended form of exercise, while indoor home exercise options were promoted during the periods of very poor air quality due to the widespread California fires and smoke.

Considering the research suggesting benefits of our intervention for treating T2DM,promoting sustained weight loss, and promoting comprehensive cardiometabolic risk reduction, we have begun accepting referrals for patients with any type of atherosclerotic CVD (eg, peripheral artery disease, carotid artery disease), patients with T2DM (without CVD), and patients with only a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.^24-27 Vascular surgery has become a new referral source, primarily for patients with peripheral and carotid artery diseases. Finally, we are leveraging videoconferencing and accepting referrals across the VA Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS)catchment (from the California-Oregon state border to the San Francisco Bay Area). This also helps address a long-standing problem with reaching the many rural veterans who live far from a VA clinic. We successfully implemented a consult/referral process within the EHR that is available to providers across VANCHCS.

Discussion

The efficacy and effectiveness of reversal programs are well established in intensive programs (eg, ICR), yet such programs have yet to be streamlined and disseminated broadly into routine clinical care. HDRP has endeavored to address this by emphasizing nutrition relative to other program components. We have learned that the words “disease reversal” are very often the reason patients initially reach out or accept referral to our program.

Consistent with past research on plant-based nutrition interventions, the group format was indispensable.⁴¹ Individual sessions with a clinical health psychologist enabled tailored feedback and education on how behavior changes could impact laboratory results and how certain psychosocial factors could support success. Participants reported that seeing significantly favorable laboratory results was highly motivating and confirmed the power of their lifestyle changes. Furthermore, a psychosocial health assessment with individual sessions promoted a tailored treatment plan with targeted clinical interventions, such as behavioral health education, motivational interviewing, and advanced methods, including cognitive behavioral therapy and techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.

Veterans with multimorbidity face the difficult task of learning and maintaining a complex disease self-management program and implementing a lifestyle approach that is feasible, effective, promotes weight loss, and treats multiple conditions. HDRP is a model approach for this population, as demonstrated by a recent case report of a 65-year-old male veteran with atherosclerotic CVD, T2DM, hypertension, and myasthenia gravis who had 2 heart attacks within 2 months.⁴² His neurologic disease precluded significant physical activity. Although he achieved some initial weight loss through lifestyle changes, he continued to have daily angina despite optimal and aggressive cardiology management. After enrolling in HDRP and adopting the WFPB diet, the patient reported almost complete resolution of angina within 1 month, similar to that found in other studies.¹⁵

The literature suggests that concern over the acceptability of plant-based diets and patients’ ability to adhere to them long-term may be misplaced. A review paper on dietary interventions lasting > 1 year found that 51 to 61% of vegetarian and vegan study participants had maintained dietary adherence, while 20 to 55% of omnivorous diet intervention participants adhered to their study diets.⁴³ Remarkably, there were no statistically significant differences in the acceptability of the vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diets in the studies reviewed.⁴³ Recent dietary research also suggests that providing patients with higher goals (eg, adopting a vegan diet instead of only moderate dietary changes) results in greater weight loss and maintenance.²⁶ HDRP provides training on consumption of whole plant foods, which may offer patients a unique advantage for maximizing results and higher adherence over time.

Limitations

Hands-on cooking instruction was not provided at our VAMC. The total time of the intervention was significantly less in HDRP (25 hours) than it was for the Ornish ICR program (72 hours), which may hinder long-term adherence. Without an exercise facility, we were not able to provide more detailed exercise instruction and supervised exercise.

Program Improvements Planned

There are a number of improvements that are planned for HDRP. First, the program anticipates requesting medical clearance at the telephone screening stage for self-referred patients. Second, HDRP will provide regular presentations on the program to VAMC clinics and community-based outpatient clinics, including reminders about inclusion/exclusion criteria and the referral process, and to solicit feedback on processes. Third, we hope to routinely provide education and address common questions and concerns of HCPs, including expected results. Fourth, we would like to lengthen the patient commitment to HDRP (eg, 1- to 2-year commitment to the graduate group), consistent with other HDRPs.²⁸ Fifth, we hope to further integrate technology-based components to promote behavior change/maintenance, such as automated text messaging.

Conclusions

Although our patient population was self-selected for participation, early program evaluation demonstrates high acceptability. Very few patients had ever been told about a heart disease reversing lifestyle, and we found direct-to-patient clinical outreach an effective method for launching a disease reversal program (optimally timed with HCP presentations). Furthermore, the program is adaptable to current restrictions on in-person appointments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and much more convenient for rural veterans who live far from any VA clinic. Being able to offer sustainable health care for individuals during unexpected public health crises is critically important. Additionally, treating veterans who are most vulnerable to pandemic illness due to existing medical conditions, such as CVD, should be a high priority. Last, HDRP also may represent a novel integrated treatment for COVID-19 anxiety and secondary CVD prevention, as lifestyle habits are optimized to improve chronic diseases that elevate risk for severe COVID-19 infection and mortality, as well as including coping strategies consistent with evidence-based psychotherapies for anxiety disorders.⁴⁴

We believe that beyond the clinical benefits to patients, there is significant value and benefit added to the health care system by offering an intervention within the “disease reversal” paradigm. Efforts of the health care team to reverse a disease can be considered the highest aim of medicine and health care.⁴⁵

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We give special thanks to David M. Gellerman, MD, PhD, and David W. Schafer, PsyD, for providing Mental Health Service support for initiating the Heart Disease Reversal Program, and to Joseph Giorgio, PsyD (Program Manager, Integrated Care Program) for sustaining it. We thank Amogh Bhat, MD, Chief of Cardiology, for his continued support and partnership with the Cardiology Department. We express thanks to Stephanie Mohney, RDN (Chief, Nutrition and Food Service), Amy Klotz, RDN (Supervisory Dietician), Sian M. Carr-Lopez, PharmD (Associate Chief of Pharmacy, Primary Care), and Michelle Rand, PharmD, CACP (Anticoagulation Clinical Pharmacist-Supervisor) for their staff support of this interdisciplinary program. We thank the patients and their families for their participation in the program and commitment to the lifestyle changes. We also thank the following individuals for their contributions to this program: Lisa Wagaman, RDN, Karen Soong, PharmD, Sara S. Ali, PharmD, Suzan Hua, PharmD, and Stephen Cooperman.

While cardiovascular mortality rates have declined, heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in the US, and the number of people with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is rising.¹ CVD is more prevalent among military veterans than it is among nonveterans aged ≥ 25 years, and veteran status is associated with higher risk of incident heart disease after controlling for socioeconomic status, other medical diseases, depression, and lifestyle.^2-4 Combat exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and Purple Heart commendation are associated with higher rates of CVD, including adverse cardiovascular events.^5-7 Many patients seeking care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), including those who undergo cardiac catheterization, meet the criteria for multimorbidity (defined as having ≥ 2 chronic diseases⁸), which is common among veterans.^9,10 Multimorbidity presents a challenge for lifestyle intervention, as different diets may be prescribed to treat different conditions, such as Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, and low-glycemic diet for diabetes mellitus (DM). Veterans with CVD are often clinically complex and may require more multifaceted secondary prevention programs.

During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, effective secondary prevention intervention is needed more than ever. Older age, CVD, and common comorbidities, including hypertension, DM, and obesity, place patients at the highest risk for severe COVID-19 infection.¹¹ COVID-19 social distancing encourages vulnerable populations to stay home, which can make engaging in any levels of physical activity more challenging. The International Food Council found that 85% of adults have made a change to their food consumption pattern, including eating more, during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹² Thus, secondary CVD prevention programs for veterans need to provide treatment that addresses these specific challenges and can be delivered via telehealth for continuity of care after disruption of traditional services.

Nutrition may be the most powerful Ornish ICR component. The initial RCT conducted by Ornish and colleagues included only stress management training and a whole-food, plant-based (WFPB) diet, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. The trial found 91% of participants experienced reduced angina after only 24 days.¹⁵ The only single-component intervention study resulting in partial reversal of atherosclerosis was a WFPB diet-only study, which documented regression of atherosclerotic plaques after 5 years, using coronary angiography in 73% of participants, with arrested progression in the other 27%.²² Participants reported no cardiovascular AEs after 12 years.²³ Furthermore, a number of other recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of WFPB diet-only interventions for type 2 DM (T2DM), hypertension, and obesity.^24-27 The Heart Disease Reversal Program (HDRP) was developed to create an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention that emphasized nutrition for a broad population of veterans with atherosclerotic CVD, of varying levels of functional ability, to promote comprehensive CVD risk reduction and bring heart disease reversal intervention into routine clinical practice.

Program Description 

The Mental Health, Cardiology, and Nutrition and Food services all approved the launch of HDRP. We contacted veterans by mail, and 11% expressed interest (Figure). Among patients who received the initial mailed letter (prior to our accepting staff referrals), only 5% of patients who enrolled in HDRP reported previously being told about or prescribed a WFPB diet by any health care provider (HCP). Currently, patients are primarily referred to HDRP by Cardiology, Primary Care, and Mental Health services.

Design

HDRP is an adaptation of interdisciplinary lifestyle interventions that have resulted in regression of atherosclerotic blockages confirmed with invasive coronary angiography.^15-17,22,28 HDRP currently is offered in a Behavioral Medicine Clinic at the Sacramento US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC) in California. Program staff include a clinical health psychologist who organizes, coordinates, and act as the lead facilitator of the program; registered dietitians; clinical pharmacists; and a consulting physician. Patients engage in the 4-month core HDRP program in small cohorts (ie, 6-10 patients), and spouses/partners are highly encouraged to attend all sessions.

Components

Telephone screening. Patients are screened for the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Patients engaging in a traditional CR program are included in the screening. Patients are informed that the program consists of lifestyle intervention, including emphasis on following a WFPB diet.

A psychologist delivers the physical activity component. Patients are encouraged to meet the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommendations for aerobic exercise (at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week) through a walking program.³⁵ Patients with medical contraindications (eg, severe pain, mobility restrictions) are encouraged to follow the exercise/activity recommendations they had been given by their primary care provider (PCP), physical therapist, or other HCP.

A psychologist provides evidence-based cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM) training, adapted from models developed for patients with stable ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer.^36-38 CBSM is a psychotherapy grounded in stress/coping theory and cognitive behavioral theory of psychopathology that integrates cognitive restructuring, coping skills training, communication/assertiveness training, anger management, and mindfulness/acceptance-based approaches. Additional emphasis is placed on assisting patients’ adjustment to the lifestyle challenges for following a plant-based diet, dealing with food cravings and emotional eating, and connecting lifestyle change to patients’ deepest values and goals.

A clinical pharmacist conducts a medication reconciliation for each patient at baseline. The pharmacist consults with each patient’s PCP, cardiologist, and HDRP consulting physician, as needed, to ensure safe adjustments to medications. Pharmacists also provide education on medications at group sessions.

After completion of the 12-week core program, graduates are encouraged to attend the monthly graduates’ group indefinitely, and as often as they desire to promote maintenance of the disease reversal lifestyle. Patients are encouraged to complete our recommended fasting laboratory work every 3 to 6 months to facilitate maintenance of treatment gains.

Program Evaluation

Patients frequently reported that the group format was vital to their success. Patients requested a cooking class, yet we lacked a full teaching kitchen. Integrating plant-based meal samples at every session and cooking videos helped. Patients reported that 100% adherence to the WFPB diet led to significant changes in their food preferences, including a loss of interest in meat.³⁹ Patients encouraged us to keep the “disease reversal” language and focus. One veteran stated: “Disease reversal, that is the reason I called you when I got your letter.” Showing before and after images of coronary angiograms and cardiac positron emission tomography scans depicting regression of atherosclerotic plaque and restored myocardial perfusion were described as highly motivating and generated willingness to commit to a more aggressive lifestyle change.³¹

Patients routinely stated that they lacked understanding of their laboratory test results, which HDRP remedied. Some patients reported their adult children followed a plant-based diet, and our program resulted in a new commonality and source of bonding that was highly valued. Some patients reported that HDRP was helpful for controlling their COVID-19 anxiety and feeling in control of their health. Satisfaction surveys were completed by participants at the end of the core program, which demonstrated very high satisfaction with and acceptability of HDRP (Table 3).

COVID-19 Response

Face-to-face group appointments were converted to videoconferencing as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While HDRP always promoted the use of technology and mHealth tools, the pandemic led us to develop novel technology-based interventions.⁴⁰ One cohort transitioned from in-person to videoconferencing sessions, and 2 cohorts recently started this format and are ongoing. We have successfully used videoconferencing with Cisco Webex, the VA-approved backup platform, as we encountered technical barriers when using VA Video Connect. Program materials were shared electronically, and participants sent blood pressure/sugar logs by secure messaging. Guidance for online grocery shopping with home delivery was provided, and research on the benefits of the HDRP lifestyle on immune function was incorporated.

The stress management component incorporated coping with COVID-19, including normalizing common emotional difficulties with sheltering-in-place and quarantine, acknowledging and processing fear and anxiety related to being at very high risk for severe COVID-19. We presented heart disease reversal as an urgent and feasible goal during the pandemic both reducing risk of premature death and major adverse cardiovascular events in the long-term and also reducing personal risk of severe COVID complications. The new VA COVID Coach app was also presented as a resource. Reputable sources of COVID-19 and public health information were shared. Walking continued to be the primary recommended form of exercise, while indoor home exercise options were promoted during the periods of very poor air quality due to the widespread California fires and smoke.

Considering the research suggesting benefits of our intervention for treating T2DM,promoting sustained weight loss, and promoting comprehensive cardiometabolic risk reduction, we have begun accepting referrals for patients with any type of atherosclerotic CVD (eg, peripheral artery disease, carotid artery disease), patients with T2DM (without CVD), and patients with only a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.^24-27 Vascular surgery has become a new referral source, primarily for patients with peripheral and carotid artery diseases. Finally, we are leveraging videoconferencing and accepting referrals across the VA Northern California Health Care System (VANCHCS)catchment (from the California-Oregon state border to the San Francisco Bay Area). This also helps address a long-standing problem with reaching the many rural veterans who live far from a VA clinic. We successfully implemented a consult/referral process within the EHR that is available to providers across VANCHCS.

Discussion

The efficacy and effectiveness of reversal programs are well established in intensive programs (eg, ICR), yet such programs have yet to be streamlined and disseminated broadly into routine clinical care. HDRP has endeavored to address this by emphasizing nutrition relative to other program components. We have learned that the words “disease reversal” are very often the reason patients initially reach out or accept referral to our program.

Consistent with past research on plant-based nutrition interventions, the group format was indispensable.⁴¹ Individual sessions with a clinical health psychologist enabled tailored feedback and education on how behavior changes could impact laboratory results and how certain psychosocial factors could support success. Participants reported that seeing significantly favorable laboratory results was highly motivating and confirmed the power of their lifestyle changes. Furthermore, a psychosocial health assessment with individual sessions promoted a tailored treatment plan with targeted clinical interventions, such as behavioral health education, motivational interviewing, and advanced methods, including cognitive behavioral therapy and techniques drawn from dialectical behavior therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy.

Veterans with multimorbidity face the difficult task of learning and maintaining a complex disease self-management program and implementing a lifestyle approach that is feasible, effective, promotes weight loss, and treats multiple conditions. HDRP is a model approach for this population, as demonstrated by a recent case report of a 65-year-old male veteran with atherosclerotic CVD, T2DM, hypertension, and myasthenia gravis who had 2 heart attacks within 2 months.⁴² His neurologic disease precluded significant physical activity. Although he achieved some initial weight loss through lifestyle changes, he continued to have daily angina despite optimal and aggressive cardiology management. After enrolling in HDRP and adopting the WFPB diet, the patient reported almost complete resolution of angina within 1 month, similar to that found in other studies.¹⁵

The literature suggests that concern over the acceptability of plant-based diets and patients’ ability to adhere to them long-term may be misplaced. A review paper on dietary interventions lasting > 1 year found that 51 to 61% of vegetarian and vegan study participants had maintained dietary adherence, while 20 to 55% of omnivorous diet intervention participants adhered to their study diets.⁴³ Remarkably, there were no statistically significant differences in the acceptability of the vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diets in the studies reviewed.⁴³ Recent dietary research also suggests that providing patients with higher goals (eg, adopting a vegan diet instead of only moderate dietary changes) results in greater weight loss and maintenance.²⁶ HDRP provides training on consumption of whole plant foods, which may offer patients a unique advantage for maximizing results and higher adherence over time.

Limitations

Hands-on cooking instruction was not provided at our VAMC. The total time of the intervention was significantly less in HDRP (25 hours) than it was for the Ornish ICR program (72 hours), which may hinder long-term adherence. Without an exercise facility, we were not able to provide more detailed exercise instruction and supervised exercise.

Program Improvements Planned

There are a number of improvements that are planned for HDRP. First, the program anticipates requesting medical clearance at the telephone screening stage for self-referred patients. Second, HDRP will provide regular presentations on the program to VAMC clinics and community-based outpatient clinics, including reminders about inclusion/exclusion criteria and the referral process, and to solicit feedback on processes. Third, we hope to routinely provide education and address common questions and concerns of HCPs, including expected results. Fourth, we would like to lengthen the patient commitment to HDRP (eg, 1- to 2-year commitment to the graduate group), consistent with other HDRPs.²⁸ Fifth, we hope to further integrate technology-based components to promote behavior change/maintenance, such as automated text messaging.

Conclusions

Although our patient population was self-selected for participation, early program evaluation demonstrates high acceptability. Very few patients had ever been told about a heart disease reversing lifestyle, and we found direct-to-patient clinical outreach an effective method for launching a disease reversal program (optimally timed with HCP presentations). Furthermore, the program is adaptable to current restrictions on in-person appointments due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and much more convenient for rural veterans who live far from any VA clinic. Being able to offer sustainable health care for individuals during unexpected public health crises is critically important. Additionally, treating veterans who are most vulnerable to pandemic illness due to existing medical conditions, such as CVD, should be a high priority. Last, HDRP also may represent a novel integrated treatment for COVID-19 anxiety and secondary CVD prevention, as lifestyle habits are optimized to improve chronic diseases that elevate risk for severe COVID-19 infection and mortality, as well as including coping strategies consistent with evidence-based psychotherapies for anxiety disorders.⁴⁴

We believe that beyond the clinical benefits to patients, there is significant value and benefit added to the health care system by offering an intervention within the “disease reversal” paradigm. Efforts of the health care team to reverse a disease can be considered the highest aim of medicine and health care.⁴⁵

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. We give special thanks to David M. Gellerman, MD, PhD, and David W. Schafer, PsyD, for providing Mental Health Service support for initiating the Heart Disease Reversal Program, and to Joseph Giorgio, PsyD (Program Manager, Integrated Care Program) for sustaining it. We thank Amogh Bhat, MD, Chief of Cardiology, for his continued support and partnership with the Cardiology Department. We express thanks to Stephanie Mohney, RDN (Chief, Nutrition and Food Service), Amy Klotz, RDN (Supervisory Dietician), Sian M. Carr-Lopez, PharmD (Associate Chief of Pharmacy, Primary Care), and Michelle Rand, PharmD, CACP (Anticoagulation Clinical Pharmacist-Supervisor) for their staff support of this interdisciplinary program. We thank the patients and their families for their participation in the program and commitment to the lifestyle changes. We also thank the following individuals for their contributions to this program: Lisa Wagaman, RDN, Karen Soong, PharmD, Sara S. Ali, PharmD, Suzan Hua, PharmD, and Stephen Cooperman.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Public spending on colchicine has grown exponentially over the past decade despite generics suggesting an uphill slog for patients seeking access to long-term therapy for gout or cardiac conditions.

Medicaid spending on single-ingredient colchicine jumped 2,833%, from $1.1 million in 2008 to $32.2 million in 2017, new findings show. Medicaid expansion likely played a role in the increase, but 58% was due to price hikes alone.

The centuries-old drug sold for pennies in the United States before increasing 50-fold to about $5 per pill in 2009 after the first FDA-approved colchicine product, Colcrys, was granted 3 years’ market exclusivity for the treatment of acute gout based on a 1-week trial.

If prices had remained at pre-Colcrys levels, Medicaid spending in 2017 would have totaled just $2.1 million rather than $32.2 million according to the analysis, published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5017).

The study was motivated by difficulties gout patients have in accessing colchicine, but also last year’s COLCOT trial, which reported fewer ischemic cardiovascular events in patients receiving colchicine after MI, observed Natalie McCormick, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“They were suggesting it could be a cost-effective way for secondary prevention and it is fairly inexpensive in most countries, but not the U.S.,” she said in an interview. “So there’s really a potential to increase public spending if more and more patients are then taking colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events and the prices don’t change.”

The current pandemic could potentially further increase demand. Results initially slated for September are expected this month from the COLCORONA trial, which is testing whether the anti-inflammatory agent can prevent hospitalizations, lung complications, and death when given early in the course of COVID-19.

University of Oxford (England) researchers also announced last week that colchicine is being added to the massive RECOVERY trial, which is studying treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Notably, the Canadian-based COLCOT trial did not use Colcrys, but rather a colchicine product that costs just $0.26 a pill in Canada, roughly the price of most generics available worldwide.

Authorized generics typically drive down drug prices when competing with independent generics, but this competition is missing in the United States, where Colcrys holds patents until 2029, Dr. McCormick and colleagues noted. More than a half-dozen independent generics have FDA approval to date, but only authorized generics with price points set by the brand-name companies are available to treat acute gout, pericarditis, and potentially millions with MI.

“One of the key takeaways is this difference between the brand names and the authorized generics and the independents,” she said. “The authorized [generics] have really not saved money. The list prices were just slightly lower and patients can also have more difficulty in getting those covered.”

For this analysis, the investigators used Medicaid and Medicare data to examine prices for all available forms of colchicine from 2008 to 2017, including unregulated/unapproved colchicine (2008-2010), generic combination probenecid-colchicine (2008-2017), Colcrys (2009-2017), brand-name single-ingredient colchicine Mitigare (approved in late 2014 but not marketed until 2015), and their authorized generics (2015-2017). Medicare trends from 2012 to 2017 were analyzed separately because pre-Colcrys Medicare data were not available.

Based on the results, combined spending on Medicare and Medicaid claims for single-ingredient colchicine exceeded $340 million in 2017.

Inflation- and rebate-adjusted Medicaid unit prices rose from $0.24 a pill in 2008, when unapproved formulations were still available, to $4.20 a pill in 2011 (Colcrys only), and peaked at $4.66 a pill in 2015 (Colcrys plus authorized generics).

Prescribing of lower-priced probenecid-colchicine ($0.66/pill in 2017) remained stable throughout. Medicaid rebate-adjusted prices in 2017 were $3.99/pill for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $5.13/pill for Colcrys, $4.49/pill for Mitigare, and $3.88/pill for authorized generics.

Medicare rebate-adjusted 2017 per-pill prices were $5.81 for all single-ingredient colchicine products, $6.78 for Colcrys, $5.68 for Mitigare, $5.16 for authorized generics, and $0.70 for probenecid-colchicine.

“Authorized generics have still driven high spending,” Dr. McCormick said. “We really need to encourage more competition in order to improve access.”

In an accompanying commentary, B. Joseph Guglielmo, PharmD, University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that the estimated median research and development cost to bring a drug to market is between $985 million and $1,335 million, which inevitably translates into a high selling price for the drug. Such investment and its resultant cost, however, should be associated with potential worth to society.

“Only a fraction of an investment was required for Colcrys, a product that has provided no increased value and an unnecessary, long-term cost burden to the health care system,” he wrote. “The current study findings illustrate that we can never allow such an egregious case to take place again.”

Dr. McCormick reported grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the conduct of the study. Dr. Guglielmo reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Changes in hormones, body composition, lipids, and vascular health during the menopause transition can increase a woman’s chance of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) after menopause, the American Heart Association said in a scientific statement.

“This statement aims to raise awareness of both healthcare providers and women about the menopause transition as a time of increasing heart disease risk,” Samar R. El Khoudary, PhD, MPH, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“As such, it emphasizes the importance of monitoring women’s health during midlife and targeting this stage as a critical window for applying early intervention strategies that aim to maintain a healthy heart and reduce the risk of heart disease,” said Dr. El Khoudary, of the University of Pittsburgh.

The statement was published online Nov. 30 in Circulation.
 

Evolution in knowledge

During the past 20 years, knowledge of how menopause might contribute to CVD has evolved “dramatically,” Dr. El Khoudary noted. The accumulated data consistently point to the menopause transition as a time of change in heart health.

“Importantly,” she said, the latest AHA guidelines for CVD prevention in women, published in 2011, do not include data now available on the menopause transition as a time of increased CVD risk.

“As such, there is a compelling need to discuss the implications of the accumulating body of literature on this topic,” said Dr. El Khoudary.

The statement provides a contemporary synthesis of the existing data on menopause and how it relates to CVD, the leading cause of death of U.S. women.

Earlier age at natural menopause has generally been found to be a marker of greater CVD risk. Iatrogenically induced menopause (bilateral oophorectomy) during the premenopausal period is also associated with higher CVD risk, the data suggest.

Vasomotor symptoms are associated with worse levels of CVD risk factors and measures of subclinical atherosclerosis. Sleep disturbance has also been linked to greater risk for subclinical CVD and worse CV health indexes in women during midlife.

Increases in central/visceral fat and decreases in lean muscle mass are more pronounced during the menopause transition. This increased central adiposity is associated with increased risk for mortality, even among those with normal body mass index, the writing group found.

Increases in lipid levels (LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B), metabolic syndrome risk, and vascular remodeling at midlife are driven by the menopause transition more than aging, whereas increases in blood pressure, insulin level, and glucose level are likely more influenced by chronological aging, they reported.
 

Lifestyle interventions

The writing group noted that, because of the increase in overall life expectancy in the United States, a significant proportion of women will spend up to 40% of their lives after menopause.

Yet data suggest that only 7.2% of women transitioning to menopause are meeting physical activity guidelines and that fewer than 20% of those women are consistently maintaining a healthy diet.

Limited data from randomized, controlled trials suggest that a multidimensional lifestyle intervention during the menopause transition can prevent weight gain and reduce blood pressure and levels of triglycerides, blood glucose, and insulin and reduce the incidence of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, they pointed out.

“Novel data” indicate a reversal in the associations of HDL cholesterol with CVD risk over the menopause transition, suggesting that higher HDL cholesterol levels may not consistently reflect good cardiovascular health in middle-aged women, the group noted.

There are also data suggesting that starting menopause hormone therapy when younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause is associated with reduced CVD risk.

The group said further research is needed into the cardiometabolic effects of menopause hormone therapy, including effects associated with form, route, and duration of administration, in women traversing menopause.

They also noted that data for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and improved survival with lipid-lowering interventions “remain elusive” for women and that further study is needed to develop evidence-based recommendations tailored specifically to women.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. El Khoudary has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

As an increasing number of health systems implement “hospital-at-home” (HaH) programs to increase their traditional hospital capacity, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has given the movement a boost by changing its regulations to allow acute care to be provided in a patient’s home under certain conditions.

The CMS announced Nov. 25 that it was launching its Acute Hospital Care at Home program “to increase the capacity of the American health care system” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, the agency announced it was giving more flexibility to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide hospital-level care.

The CMS said its new HaH program is an expansion of the Hospitals Without Walls initiative that was unveiled last March. Hospitals Without Walls is a set of “temporary new rules” that provide flexibility for hospitals to provide acute care outside of inpatient settings. Under those rules, hospitals are able to transfer patients to outside facilities, such as ASCs, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, hotels, and dormitories, while still receiving Medicare hospital payments.

Under CMS’ new Acute Hospital Care at Home, which is not described as temporary, patients can be transferred from emergency departments or inpatient wards to hospital-level care at home. The CMS said the HaH program is designed for people with conditions such as the acute phases of asthma, heart failure, pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Altogether, the agency said, more than 60 acute conditions can be treated safely at home.

However, the agency didn’t say that facilities can’t admit COVID-19 patients to the hospital at home. Rami Karjian, MBA, cofounder and CEO of Medically Home, a firm that supplies health systems with technical services and software for HaH programs, said in an interview that several Medically Home clients plan to treat both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at home when they begin to participate in the CMS program in the near future.

The CMS said it consulted extensively with academic and private industry leaders in building its HaH program. Before rolling out the initiative, the agency noted, it conducted successful pilot programs in leading hospitals and health systems. The results of some of these pilots have been reported in academic journals.

Participating hospitals will be required to have specified screening protocols in place before beginning acute care at home, the CMS announced. An in-person physician evaluation will be required before starting care at home. A nurse will evaluate each patient once daily in person or remotely, and either nurses or paramedics will visit the patient in person twice a day.

In contrast, Medicare regulations require nursing staff to be available around the clock in traditional hospitals. So the CMS has to grant waivers to hospitals for HaH programs.

While not going into detail on the telemonitoring capabilities that will be required in the acute hospital care at home, the release said, “Today’s announcement builds upon the critical work by CMS to expand telehealth coverage to keep beneficiaries safe and prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
 

More flexibility for ASCs

The agency is also giving ASCs the flexibility to provide 24-hour nursing services only when one or more patients are receiving care on site. This flexibility will be available to any of the 5,700 ASCs that wish to participate, and will be immediately effective for the 85 ASCs currently participating in the Hospital Without Walls initiative, the CMS said.

The new ASC regulations, the CMS said, are aimed at allowing communities “to maintain surgical capacity and other life-saving non-COVID-19 [care], like cancer surgeries.” Patients who need such procedures will be able to receive them in ASCs without being exposed to known COVID-19 cases.

Similarly, the CMS said patients and families not diagnosed with COVID-19 may prefer to receive acute care at home if local hospitals are full of COVID-19 patients. In addition, the CMS said it anticipates patients may value the ability to be treated at home without the visitation restrictions of hospitals.
 

Early HaH participants

Six health systems with extensive experience in providing acute hospital care at home have been approved for the new HaH waivers from Medicare rules. They include Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Massachusetts); Huntsman Cancer Institute (Utah); Massachusetts General Hospital (Massachusetts); Mount Sinai Health System (New York City); Presbyterian Healthcare Services (New Mexico); and UnityPoint Health (Iowa).

The CMS said that it’s in discussions with other health care systems and expects new applications to be submitted soon.

To support these efforts, the CMS has launched an online portal to streamline the waiver request process. The agency said it will closely monitor the program to safeguard beneficiaries and will require participating hospitals to report quality and safety data on a regular basis.
 

Support from hospitals

The first health systems participating in the CMS HaH appear to be supportive of the program, with some hospital leaders submitting comments to the CMS about their view of the initiative.

“The CMS has taken an extraordinary step today, facilitating the rapid expansion of Hospitalization at Home, an innovative care model with proven results,” said Kenneth L. Davis, MD, president and CEO of the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. “This important and timely move will enable hospitals across the country to use effective tools to safely care for patients during this pandemic.”

David Levine, MD, assistant professor of medicine and medical director of strategy and innovation for Brigham Health Home Hospital in Boston, was similarly laudatory: “Our research at Brigham Health Home has shown that we can deliver hospital-level care in our patients’ homes with lower readmission rates, more physical mobility, and a positive patient experience,” he said. “During these challenging times, a focus on the home is critical. We are so encouraged that CMS is taking this important step, which will allow hospitals across the country to increase their capacity while delivering the care all patients deserve.”
 

Scaling up quickly

If other hospitals and health systems recognize the value of HaH, how long might it take them to develop and implement these programs in the midst of a pandemic?

Atrium Health, a large health system in the Southeast, ramped up a hospital-at-home initiative last spring for its 10 hospitals in the Charlotte, N.C., area, in just 2 weeks. However, it had been working on the project for some time before the pandemic struck. Focusing mostly on COVID-19 patients, the initiative reduced the COVID-19 patient load by 20%-25% in Atrium’s hospitals.

Medically Home, the HaH infrastructure company, said in a news release that it “enables health systems to establish new hospital-at-home services in as little as 30 days.” Medically Home has partnered in this venture with Huron Consulting Group, which has about 200 HaH-trained consultants, and Cardinal Health, a large global medical supplies distributor.

Mr. Karjian said in an interview that he expects private insurers to follow CMS’ example, as they often do. “We think this decision will cause not only CMS but private insurers to cover hospital at home after the pandemic, if it becomes the standard of care, because patients have better outcomes when treated at home,” he said.

Asked for his view on why the CMS specified that patients could be admitted to an HaH only from emergency departments or inpatient settings, Mr. Karjian said that the CMS wants to make sure that patients have access to brick-and-mortar hospital care if that’s what they need. Also, he noted, this model is new to most hospitals, so the CMS wants to make sure it starts “with all the safety guardrails” in place.

Overall, Mr. Karjian said, “This is an exciting development for patients across the country. What CMS has done is terrific in terms of letting patients get the care they want, where they want it, and get the benefit of better outcomes while the nation is going through this capacity crunch for hospital beds.”

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

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Heart failure is a known risk factor for postoperative mortality and complications. Many of the studies used to establish this association, however, have focused on major high-risk surgeries and not on outpatient surgeries. Improved medical care has increased the survival rate of patients with heart failure and an increasing number of these patients are undergoing elective surgical procedures. This has led to an increasing need to better understand the degree to which heart failure affects preoperative risk in the outpatient setting.

Study design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Multiple Veteran’s Affairs Hospitals using data from the VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) and the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.

Synopsis: A total of 355,121 patients who underwent outpatient surgeries were analyzed. 19,353 patients had heart failure and 334,768 did not. Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.95 (95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.44), and this risk progressively increased as the ejection fraction decreased. The risk of 30-day complication also increased in patients with heart failure with an adjusted OR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.19).

Limitations of this study include the patient population, which were all veterans and mostly male. The nature of the inclusion criteria was limiting as well, in that all the patients in this study were deemed fit for surgery. There were no data available for patients who had been considered but ultimately did not undergo surgery or for patients who were considered for ambulatory surgery but ultimately underwent inpatient surgery. These limitations may have resulted in a selection bias, which limited the generalizability of the study’s findings when assessing patients for ambulatory surgery.

Bottom line: Patients with heart failure had a higher risk of 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative complication in ambulatory noncardiac surgery. The risk of postoperative mortality increased as systolic function decreased.

Citation: Lerman BJ et al. Association between heart failure and postoperative mortality among patients undergoing ambulatory noncardiac surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.2110.

Dr. Cheatham is a hospitalist and clinical educator at St. Louis University School of Medicine.