User login
Diastolic dysfunction is a common risk factor for cognitive decline
a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.
“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.
“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.
This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.
“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.
“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.
Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.
Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).
An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.
Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).
Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).
The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.
The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.
Earlier interventions
Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”
Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”
Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.
Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.
“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.
With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.
About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.
Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.
“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.
“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.
This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.
“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.
“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.
Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.
Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).
An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.
Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).
Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).
The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.
The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.
Earlier interventions
Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”
Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”
Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.
Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.
“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.
With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.
About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.
Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.
“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.
“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.
This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.
“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.
“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.
Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.
Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).
An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.
Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).
Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).
The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.
The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.
Earlier interventions
Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”
Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”
Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.
Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.
“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.
With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.
About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.
Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adding mechanical to pharma prophylaxis does not cut DVT incidence
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Background: Critically ill patients have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their hospitalizations, and it is standard of care to prophylax against this complication by either pharmacological or mechanical means.
Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial (Pneumatic Compression for Preventing Venous Thromboembolism [PREVENT]).
Setting: Multicenter study involving 20 ICUs in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India.
Synopsis: The study monitored 2,003 medical and surgical ICU patients on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) after receiving either adjunctive pneumatic compression or pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. The primary outcome was incident (newly diagnosed) proximal lower-limb DVT detected by twice-weekly venous ultrasonography until ICU discharge, death, attainment of full mobility, or trial day 28, whichever occurred first. Key secondary outcomes included the occurrence of any lower-limb DVTs and pulmonary embolism. Intermittent pneumatic compression was used a median of 22 hours daily. The incidence of proximal lower limb DVT did not differ in the two groups and was relatively low (4%) in the control group. There were also no differences in the groups in the composite VTE, death at 28 days, or any other secondary outcomes studied.
The main limitation of the study was the low incidence of primary outcomes in the control group, which reduced the power of the study.
Bottom line: Based on the PREVENT trial, adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression provided no additional benefit to pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of incident proximal lower-limb DVT.
Citation: Arabi Y et al. Adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboprophylaxis. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.
Dr. Sekaran is a hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
FOURIER: Evolocumab follow-up shows no cognitive adverse effects
Treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor, as well as achieving dramatically lowered cholesterol levels, did not mess with patients’ minds. Results from a cognition self-assessment completed by more than 22,000 patients when they finished participation in the FOURIER pivotal outcomes trial for evolocumab showed no signal of mental harm from either treatment with this PCSK9 inhibitor or from reaching a serum level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of less than 20 mg/dL.
“We observed that patients treated with evolocumab, as well as those who achieved progressively very low LDL-C at 4 weeks in the FOURIER trial, had similar self-reported cognition in comparison with those receiving placebo and those with higher achieved LDL-C levels,” wrote a team of researchers from the trial in an article published online on May 4 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]: 2283-93). “These data confirm the neurocognitive safety of intensive LDL-C reduction with evolocumab while reducing recurrent CV [cardiovascular] events in high-risk patients, and suggest that very low achieved LDL-C levels may be safely targeted for high-risk patients.”
The findings added to prior results documenting the cognitive safety of evolocumab (Repatha) from a much smaller FOURIER substudy that involved more intensive testing, the EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects) study with 1,204 patients drawn from the broader study and tested after a median 19 months on treatment (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[17]: 633-43), as well as reports of neurocognitive safety for the other U.S. approved PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitor, alirocumab (Praluent) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 16;372[16]:1489-99), various statins (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30[3]: 348-58), and a third type of LDL-C–lowering agent, ezetimibe (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 May;2[5]:547-55).
Despite this evidence from across several drug classes that all cut LDL-C a long-standing but unsubstantiated belief persists among some that lipid lowering, especially by statins, blunts mental function, misinformation that’s easy to find on the Internet. “I estimate that about 20% of patients prescribed a statin won’t take it because of something they’ve heard” including that statins make you stupid. “It’s hard to undo that,” said Robert P. Giugliano, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and senior author for the new FOURIER study as well as for EBBINGHAUS. The same stigma has not gained nearly as much traction for PCSK9 inhibitors, however, and Dr. Giugliano said he has also recently sensed what may be a downtrend in statin apprehension.
“The information added by this study is very important,” commented Massimo R. Mannarino, MD, an atherosclerotic disease researcher at the University of Perugia (Italy). “The prejudice and misinformation regarding possible side effects of statins among patients and also some physicians unfortunately remains very strong today,” he said in an interview. “My impression is that PCSK9 inhibitors are less affected by this negative bias and are seen as a safer alternative to statins.” Concerns about PCSK9 inhibitors have especially focused on “the possible risks from very low cholesterol levels on the brain.” The evidence from both studies and clinical experience “allows for a very positive opinion about the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, although the long-term effects still require a few more years of observation,” said Dr. Mannarino, who led a review of the evidence that clears this class from links to neurocognitive loss (J Clin Lipid. 2018 Sep 1;12[5]:1123-32).
FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) randomized 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and elevated LDL cholesterol despite maximally tolerated standard treatment. Treatment with evolocumab for a median of 2.2 years resulted in a statistically significant 15% reduction in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4;376[18]:1713-22), and led to the drug receiving an indication for lowering rates of MI, stroke, and symptom-driven coronary revascularization.
The prespecified substudy reported by Dr. Giugliano and his associates focused on a 23-question, validated, self-assessment survey of cognitive function completed by 22,655 of the FOURIER patients (82%). The more than 4,900 other patients in the study who did not complete the survey had modestly higher prevalence rates of various comorbidities at baseline, and also higher rates of adverse outcomes during follow-up, and in many cases these adverse outcome may have contributed to these patients not being able to complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment. For example, almost a quarter of the patients who did not complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment failed to do so because they had already died.
Overall, the prevalence of patients indicating a cognitive decline was virtually identical among 11,363 patients who had been maintained on evolocumab, with a 3.7% rate, and the 11,292 patients in the placebo group, with a 3.6% rate. When analyzed by achieved level of LDL-C after 4 weeks on treatment, the 2,338 patients with a level below 20 mg/dL had a 3.8% rate of self-reported cognitive loss, compared with a 4.5% rate among 3,613 patients who had an LDL-C level of at least 100 mg/dL when measured 4 weeks into the study.
One of the strengths of the new cognitive analysis is that, although it did not use the more sophisticated assessment tests employed on fewer patients in the EBBINGHAUS substudy, it used the Everyday Cognition scale (Neuropsychiatry. 2008 Jul;22[4]: 531-44). “We asked patients what they have experienced, and in the end that is what’s important, so this adds to the neurocognitive testing,” run in EBBINGHAUS, Dr. Giugliano said in an interview.
“The neurocognitive results in the present study were self-reported, and that might be a limitation, as it is less specific and objective, but it is also a strength, as it could be more sensitive” especially for a “nocebo effect common to all lipid-lowering drugs linked to the bad reputation historically attributed to statins,” Dr. Mannarino said.
Should the new FOURIER data “be interpreted as definitive evidence that intensive LDL-C lowering with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies has no major harmful cognitive effects, at least over a period of 3 years? The answer appears to be a qualified yes, but with three important caveats,” Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health in Iowa City, said in an editorial that accompanied the new report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2294-6). Her three caveats are the missing 18% of patients who never took the end-of-study assessment, the relative paucity of patients at very advanced age in FOURIER, in which patients averaged 62.5 years old, and the exclusion from FOURIER of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke. Dr. Robinson also cited the 2.2 year median follow-up as leaving unsettled the potential cognitive impact of longer treatment.
In response, Dr. Giugliano noted that the very large size of FOURIER and the 22,655 patients who completed their survey provided substantial numbers of patients to address some of these concerns in robust subgroup analyses. For example, the new report showed no signal of excess cognitive complaints with evolocumab treatment among 1,999 patients who were at least 75 years old when entering the study, or in more than 5,000 patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease at baseline, or in 1,990 patients with a history of a nonstroke neurologic disease. In addition, while he conceded that the 18% of patients not accounted for in the new study placed some limits on generalizability of the findings, he also maintained that this unavoidable failure to collect data from a modest percentage of patients doesn’t scuttle the overarching signal of cognitive safety for most patients. And regarding the duration of treatment monitored, he noted that 5-year follow-up cognitive assessments are planned.
FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Giugliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies. Dr. Mannarino had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has been a consultant to The Medicines Company, Novartis, and Pfizer, and she has received research funding to her institution from Amgen and several other companies.
SOURCE: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Correction: Dr. Giugliano's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this article.
Treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor, as well as achieving dramatically lowered cholesterol levels, did not mess with patients’ minds. Results from a cognition self-assessment completed by more than 22,000 patients when they finished participation in the FOURIER pivotal outcomes trial for evolocumab showed no signal of mental harm from either treatment with this PCSK9 inhibitor or from reaching a serum level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of less than 20 mg/dL.
“We observed that patients treated with evolocumab, as well as those who achieved progressively very low LDL-C at 4 weeks in the FOURIER trial, had similar self-reported cognition in comparison with those receiving placebo and those with higher achieved LDL-C levels,” wrote a team of researchers from the trial in an article published online on May 4 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]: 2283-93). “These data confirm the neurocognitive safety of intensive LDL-C reduction with evolocumab while reducing recurrent CV [cardiovascular] events in high-risk patients, and suggest that very low achieved LDL-C levels may be safely targeted for high-risk patients.”
The findings added to prior results documenting the cognitive safety of evolocumab (Repatha) from a much smaller FOURIER substudy that involved more intensive testing, the EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects) study with 1,204 patients drawn from the broader study and tested after a median 19 months on treatment (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[17]: 633-43), as well as reports of neurocognitive safety for the other U.S. approved PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitor, alirocumab (Praluent) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 16;372[16]:1489-99), various statins (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30[3]: 348-58), and a third type of LDL-C–lowering agent, ezetimibe (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 May;2[5]:547-55).
Despite this evidence from across several drug classes that all cut LDL-C a long-standing but unsubstantiated belief persists among some that lipid lowering, especially by statins, blunts mental function, misinformation that’s easy to find on the Internet. “I estimate that about 20% of patients prescribed a statin won’t take it because of something they’ve heard” including that statins make you stupid. “It’s hard to undo that,” said Robert P. Giugliano, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and senior author for the new FOURIER study as well as for EBBINGHAUS. The same stigma has not gained nearly as much traction for PCSK9 inhibitors, however, and Dr. Giugliano said he has also recently sensed what may be a downtrend in statin apprehension.
“The information added by this study is very important,” commented Massimo R. Mannarino, MD, an atherosclerotic disease researcher at the University of Perugia (Italy). “The prejudice and misinformation regarding possible side effects of statins among patients and also some physicians unfortunately remains very strong today,” he said in an interview. “My impression is that PCSK9 inhibitors are less affected by this negative bias and are seen as a safer alternative to statins.” Concerns about PCSK9 inhibitors have especially focused on “the possible risks from very low cholesterol levels on the brain.” The evidence from both studies and clinical experience “allows for a very positive opinion about the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, although the long-term effects still require a few more years of observation,” said Dr. Mannarino, who led a review of the evidence that clears this class from links to neurocognitive loss (J Clin Lipid. 2018 Sep 1;12[5]:1123-32).
FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) randomized 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and elevated LDL cholesterol despite maximally tolerated standard treatment. Treatment with evolocumab for a median of 2.2 years resulted in a statistically significant 15% reduction in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4;376[18]:1713-22), and led to the drug receiving an indication for lowering rates of MI, stroke, and symptom-driven coronary revascularization.
The prespecified substudy reported by Dr. Giugliano and his associates focused on a 23-question, validated, self-assessment survey of cognitive function completed by 22,655 of the FOURIER patients (82%). The more than 4,900 other patients in the study who did not complete the survey had modestly higher prevalence rates of various comorbidities at baseline, and also higher rates of adverse outcomes during follow-up, and in many cases these adverse outcome may have contributed to these patients not being able to complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment. For example, almost a quarter of the patients who did not complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment failed to do so because they had already died.
Overall, the prevalence of patients indicating a cognitive decline was virtually identical among 11,363 patients who had been maintained on evolocumab, with a 3.7% rate, and the 11,292 patients in the placebo group, with a 3.6% rate. When analyzed by achieved level of LDL-C after 4 weeks on treatment, the 2,338 patients with a level below 20 mg/dL had a 3.8% rate of self-reported cognitive loss, compared with a 4.5% rate among 3,613 patients who had an LDL-C level of at least 100 mg/dL when measured 4 weeks into the study.
One of the strengths of the new cognitive analysis is that, although it did not use the more sophisticated assessment tests employed on fewer patients in the EBBINGHAUS substudy, it used the Everyday Cognition scale (Neuropsychiatry. 2008 Jul;22[4]: 531-44). “We asked patients what they have experienced, and in the end that is what’s important, so this adds to the neurocognitive testing,” run in EBBINGHAUS, Dr. Giugliano said in an interview.
“The neurocognitive results in the present study were self-reported, and that might be a limitation, as it is less specific and objective, but it is also a strength, as it could be more sensitive” especially for a “nocebo effect common to all lipid-lowering drugs linked to the bad reputation historically attributed to statins,” Dr. Mannarino said.
Should the new FOURIER data “be interpreted as definitive evidence that intensive LDL-C lowering with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies has no major harmful cognitive effects, at least over a period of 3 years? The answer appears to be a qualified yes, but with three important caveats,” Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health in Iowa City, said in an editorial that accompanied the new report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2294-6). Her three caveats are the missing 18% of patients who never took the end-of-study assessment, the relative paucity of patients at very advanced age in FOURIER, in which patients averaged 62.5 years old, and the exclusion from FOURIER of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke. Dr. Robinson also cited the 2.2 year median follow-up as leaving unsettled the potential cognitive impact of longer treatment.
In response, Dr. Giugliano noted that the very large size of FOURIER and the 22,655 patients who completed their survey provided substantial numbers of patients to address some of these concerns in robust subgroup analyses. For example, the new report showed no signal of excess cognitive complaints with evolocumab treatment among 1,999 patients who were at least 75 years old when entering the study, or in more than 5,000 patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease at baseline, or in 1,990 patients with a history of a nonstroke neurologic disease. In addition, while he conceded that the 18% of patients not accounted for in the new study placed some limits on generalizability of the findings, he also maintained that this unavoidable failure to collect data from a modest percentage of patients doesn’t scuttle the overarching signal of cognitive safety for most patients. And regarding the duration of treatment monitored, he noted that 5-year follow-up cognitive assessments are planned.
FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Giugliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies. Dr. Mannarino had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has been a consultant to The Medicines Company, Novartis, and Pfizer, and she has received research funding to her institution from Amgen and several other companies.
SOURCE: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Correction: Dr. Giugliano's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this article.
Treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor, as well as achieving dramatically lowered cholesterol levels, did not mess with patients’ minds. Results from a cognition self-assessment completed by more than 22,000 patients when they finished participation in the FOURIER pivotal outcomes trial for evolocumab showed no signal of mental harm from either treatment with this PCSK9 inhibitor or from reaching a serum level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of less than 20 mg/dL.
“We observed that patients treated with evolocumab, as well as those who achieved progressively very low LDL-C at 4 weeks in the FOURIER trial, had similar self-reported cognition in comparison with those receiving placebo and those with higher achieved LDL-C levels,” wrote a team of researchers from the trial in an article published online on May 4 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]: 2283-93). “These data confirm the neurocognitive safety of intensive LDL-C reduction with evolocumab while reducing recurrent CV [cardiovascular] events in high-risk patients, and suggest that very low achieved LDL-C levels may be safely targeted for high-risk patients.”
The findings added to prior results documenting the cognitive safety of evolocumab (Repatha) from a much smaller FOURIER substudy that involved more intensive testing, the EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects) study with 1,204 patients drawn from the broader study and tested after a median 19 months on treatment (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[17]: 633-43), as well as reports of neurocognitive safety for the other U.S. approved PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9) inhibitor, alirocumab (Praluent) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 16;372[16]:1489-99), various statins (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30[3]: 348-58), and a third type of LDL-C–lowering agent, ezetimibe (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 May;2[5]:547-55).
Despite this evidence from across several drug classes that all cut LDL-C a long-standing but unsubstantiated belief persists among some that lipid lowering, especially by statins, blunts mental function, misinformation that’s easy to find on the Internet. “I estimate that about 20% of patients prescribed a statin won’t take it because of something they’ve heard” including that statins make you stupid. “It’s hard to undo that,” said Robert P. Giugliano, MD, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and senior author for the new FOURIER study as well as for EBBINGHAUS. The same stigma has not gained nearly as much traction for PCSK9 inhibitors, however, and Dr. Giugliano said he has also recently sensed what may be a downtrend in statin apprehension.
“The information added by this study is very important,” commented Massimo R. Mannarino, MD, an atherosclerotic disease researcher at the University of Perugia (Italy). “The prejudice and misinformation regarding possible side effects of statins among patients and also some physicians unfortunately remains very strong today,” he said in an interview. “My impression is that PCSK9 inhibitors are less affected by this negative bias and are seen as a safer alternative to statins.” Concerns about PCSK9 inhibitors have especially focused on “the possible risks from very low cholesterol levels on the brain.” The evidence from both studies and clinical experience “allows for a very positive opinion about the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, although the long-term effects still require a few more years of observation,” said Dr. Mannarino, who led a review of the evidence that clears this class from links to neurocognitive loss (J Clin Lipid. 2018 Sep 1;12[5]:1123-32).
FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) randomized 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and elevated LDL cholesterol despite maximally tolerated standard treatment. Treatment with evolocumab for a median of 2.2 years resulted in a statistically significant 15% reduction in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4;376[18]:1713-22), and led to the drug receiving an indication for lowering rates of MI, stroke, and symptom-driven coronary revascularization.
The prespecified substudy reported by Dr. Giugliano and his associates focused on a 23-question, validated, self-assessment survey of cognitive function completed by 22,655 of the FOURIER patients (82%). The more than 4,900 other patients in the study who did not complete the survey had modestly higher prevalence rates of various comorbidities at baseline, and also higher rates of adverse outcomes during follow-up, and in many cases these adverse outcome may have contributed to these patients not being able to complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment. For example, almost a quarter of the patients who did not complete their end-of-study cognitive assessment failed to do so because they had already died.
Overall, the prevalence of patients indicating a cognitive decline was virtually identical among 11,363 patients who had been maintained on evolocumab, with a 3.7% rate, and the 11,292 patients in the placebo group, with a 3.6% rate. When analyzed by achieved level of LDL-C after 4 weeks on treatment, the 2,338 patients with a level below 20 mg/dL had a 3.8% rate of self-reported cognitive loss, compared with a 4.5% rate among 3,613 patients who had an LDL-C level of at least 100 mg/dL when measured 4 weeks into the study.
One of the strengths of the new cognitive analysis is that, although it did not use the more sophisticated assessment tests employed on fewer patients in the EBBINGHAUS substudy, it used the Everyday Cognition scale (Neuropsychiatry. 2008 Jul;22[4]: 531-44). “We asked patients what they have experienced, and in the end that is what’s important, so this adds to the neurocognitive testing,” run in EBBINGHAUS, Dr. Giugliano said in an interview.
“The neurocognitive results in the present study were self-reported, and that might be a limitation, as it is less specific and objective, but it is also a strength, as it could be more sensitive” especially for a “nocebo effect common to all lipid-lowering drugs linked to the bad reputation historically attributed to statins,” Dr. Mannarino said.
Should the new FOURIER data “be interpreted as definitive evidence that intensive LDL-C lowering with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies has no major harmful cognitive effects, at least over a period of 3 years? The answer appears to be a qualified yes, but with three important caveats,” Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Iowa College of Public Health in Iowa City, said in an editorial that accompanied the new report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2294-6). Her three caveats are the missing 18% of patients who never took the end-of-study assessment, the relative paucity of patients at very advanced age in FOURIER, in which patients averaged 62.5 years old, and the exclusion from FOURIER of patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke. Dr. Robinson also cited the 2.2 year median follow-up as leaving unsettled the potential cognitive impact of longer treatment.
In response, Dr. Giugliano noted that the very large size of FOURIER and the 22,655 patients who completed their survey provided substantial numbers of patients to address some of these concerns in robust subgroup analyses. For example, the new report showed no signal of excess cognitive complaints with evolocumab treatment among 1,999 patients who were at least 75 years old when entering the study, or in more than 5,000 patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease at baseline, or in 1,990 patients with a history of a nonstroke neurologic disease. In addition, while he conceded that the 18% of patients not accounted for in the new study placed some limits on generalizability of the findings, he also maintained that this unavoidable failure to collect data from a modest percentage of patients doesn’t scuttle the overarching signal of cognitive safety for most patients. And regarding the duration of treatment monitored, he noted that 5-year follow-up cognitive assessments are planned.
FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Giugliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies. Dr. Mannarino had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has been a consultant to The Medicines Company, Novartis, and Pfizer, and she has received research funding to her institution from Amgen and several other companies.
SOURCE: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Correction: Dr. Giugliano's name was misspelled in an earlier version of this article.
FROM JACC
Key clinical point: A cognition survey of a large number of trial participants showed no signal of adverse effects from evolocumab treatment.
Major finding: Survey results showed cognitive compromise in 3.7% of patients on evolocumab and in 3.6% control patients on placebo.
Study details:
Disclosures: FOURIER was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Guigliano has received personal fees and research support from Amgen and from several other companies.
Source: Gencer B et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 May 12;75[18]:2283-93.
Hydroxychloroquine-triggered QTc-interval prolongations mount in COVID-19 patients
The potential for serious arrhythmias from hydroxychloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients received further documentation from a pair of studies released on May 1, casting further doubt on whether the uncertain benefit from this or related drugs to infected patients is worth the clear risks the agents pose.
A report from 90 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at one Boston hospital during March-April 2020 identified a significantly prolonged, corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec in 18 patients (20%), which included 10 patients whose QTc rose by at least 60 msec above baseline, and a total of 21 patients (23%) having a notable prolongation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1834). This series included one patient who developed torsades de pointes following treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, “which to our knowledge has yet to be reported elsewhere in the literature,” the report said.
The second report, from a single center in Lyon, France, included 40 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine during 2 weeks in late March, and found that 37 (93%) had some increase in the QTc interval, including 14 patients (36%) with an increase of at least 60 msec, and 7 patients (18%) whose QTc rose to at least 500 msec (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1787). However, none of the 40 patients in this series developed an identified ventricular arrhythmia. All patients in both studies received hydroxychloroquine for at least 1 day, and roughly half the patients in each series also received concurrent azithromycin, another drug that can prolong the QTc interval and that has been frequently used in combination with hydroxychloroquine as an unproven COVID-19 treatment cocktail.
These two reports, as well as prior report from Brazil on COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine diphosphate (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[4]:e208857), “underscore the potential risk associated with widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in ambulatory patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Understanding whether this risk is worth taking in the absence of evidence of therapeutic efficacy creates a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” wrote Robert O. Bonow, MD, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, and coauthors in an editorial that accompanied the two reports (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4;doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1782). The editorial cited two recently-begun prospective trials, ORCHID and RECOVERY, that are more systematically assessing the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients.
The findings lend further support to a Safety Communication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 24 that reminded clinicians that the Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 patients that the FDA issued on March 28 applied to only certain hospitalized patients or those enrolled in clinical trials. The Safety Communication also said that agency was aware of reports of adverse arrhythmia events when COVID-19 patients received these drugs outside a hospital setting as well as uninfected people who had received one of these drugs for preventing infection.
In addition, leaders of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society on April 10 issued a summary of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, and noted that a way to minimized the risk from these drugs is to withhold them from patients with a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater at baseline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). The summary also highlighted the need for regular ECG monitoring of COVID-19 patients who receive drugs that can prolong the QTc interval, and recommended withdrawing treatment from patients when their QTc exceeds the 500 msec threshold.
None of the authors of the two reports and editorial had relevant commercial disclosures.
The potential for serious arrhythmias from hydroxychloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients received further documentation from a pair of studies released on May 1, casting further doubt on whether the uncertain benefit from this or related drugs to infected patients is worth the clear risks the agents pose.
A report from 90 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at one Boston hospital during March-April 2020 identified a significantly prolonged, corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec in 18 patients (20%), which included 10 patients whose QTc rose by at least 60 msec above baseline, and a total of 21 patients (23%) having a notable prolongation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1834). This series included one patient who developed torsades de pointes following treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, “which to our knowledge has yet to be reported elsewhere in the literature,” the report said.
The second report, from a single center in Lyon, France, included 40 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine during 2 weeks in late March, and found that 37 (93%) had some increase in the QTc interval, including 14 patients (36%) with an increase of at least 60 msec, and 7 patients (18%) whose QTc rose to at least 500 msec (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1787). However, none of the 40 patients in this series developed an identified ventricular arrhythmia. All patients in both studies received hydroxychloroquine for at least 1 day, and roughly half the patients in each series also received concurrent azithromycin, another drug that can prolong the QTc interval and that has been frequently used in combination with hydroxychloroquine as an unproven COVID-19 treatment cocktail.
These two reports, as well as prior report from Brazil on COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine diphosphate (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[4]:e208857), “underscore the potential risk associated with widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in ambulatory patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Understanding whether this risk is worth taking in the absence of evidence of therapeutic efficacy creates a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” wrote Robert O. Bonow, MD, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, and coauthors in an editorial that accompanied the two reports (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4;doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1782). The editorial cited two recently-begun prospective trials, ORCHID and RECOVERY, that are more systematically assessing the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients.
The findings lend further support to a Safety Communication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 24 that reminded clinicians that the Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 patients that the FDA issued on March 28 applied to only certain hospitalized patients or those enrolled in clinical trials. The Safety Communication also said that agency was aware of reports of adverse arrhythmia events when COVID-19 patients received these drugs outside a hospital setting as well as uninfected people who had received one of these drugs for preventing infection.
In addition, leaders of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society on April 10 issued a summary of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, and noted that a way to minimized the risk from these drugs is to withhold them from patients with a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater at baseline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). The summary also highlighted the need for regular ECG monitoring of COVID-19 patients who receive drugs that can prolong the QTc interval, and recommended withdrawing treatment from patients when their QTc exceeds the 500 msec threshold.
None of the authors of the two reports and editorial had relevant commercial disclosures.
The potential for serious arrhythmias from hydroxychloroquine treatment of COVID-19 patients received further documentation from a pair of studies released on May 1, casting further doubt on whether the uncertain benefit from this or related drugs to infected patients is worth the clear risks the agents pose.
A report from 90 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine at one Boston hospital during March-April 2020 identified a significantly prolonged, corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec in 18 patients (20%), which included 10 patients whose QTc rose by at least 60 msec above baseline, and a total of 21 patients (23%) having a notable prolongation (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1834). This series included one patient who developed torsades de pointes following treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, “which to our knowledge has yet to be reported elsewhere in the literature,” the report said.
The second report, from a single center in Lyon, France, included 40 confirmed COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine during 2 weeks in late March, and found that 37 (93%) had some increase in the QTc interval, including 14 patients (36%) with an increase of at least 60 msec, and 7 patients (18%) whose QTc rose to at least 500 msec (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1787). However, none of the 40 patients in this series developed an identified ventricular arrhythmia. All patients in both studies received hydroxychloroquine for at least 1 day, and roughly half the patients in each series also received concurrent azithromycin, another drug that can prolong the QTc interval and that has been frequently used in combination with hydroxychloroquine as an unproven COVID-19 treatment cocktail.
These two reports, as well as prior report from Brazil on COVID-19 patients treated with chloroquine diphosphate (JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3[4]:e208857), “underscore the potential risk associated with widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in ambulatory patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Understanding whether this risk is worth taking in the absence of evidence of therapeutic efficacy creates a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” wrote Robert O. Bonow, MD, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, and coauthors in an editorial that accompanied the two reports (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 4;doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1782). The editorial cited two recently-begun prospective trials, ORCHID and RECOVERY, that are more systematically assessing the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients.
The findings lend further support to a Safety Communication from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 24 that reminded clinicians that the Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 patients that the FDA issued on March 28 applied to only certain hospitalized patients or those enrolled in clinical trials. The Safety Communication also said that agency was aware of reports of adverse arrhythmia events when COVID-19 patients received these drugs outside a hospital setting as well as uninfected people who had received one of these drugs for preventing infection.
In addition, leaders of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society on April 10 issued a summary of considerations when using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to treat COVID-19 patients, and noted that a way to minimized the risk from these drugs is to withhold them from patients with a QTc interval of 500 msec or greater at baseline (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.016). The summary also highlighted the need for regular ECG monitoring of COVID-19 patients who receive drugs that can prolong the QTc interval, and recommended withdrawing treatment from patients when their QTc exceeds the 500 msec threshold.
None of the authors of the two reports and editorial had relevant commercial disclosures.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
Cardiovascular Effects of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma at the VA San Diego Healthcare System (FULL)
Patients who have or are at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease and who are taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma should receive routine cardiovascular event monitoring during the first 4 months of therapy.
Targeted therapies have transformed the treatment of many malignant diseases by inhibiting molecular pathways involved in tumor growth and oncogenesis. Although these therapies can prevent disease progression, toxicities often result. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of many cancers that responds well to these therapies.
RCC accounts for 2% to 3% of all malignancies in adults worldwide. About 30% of patients with RCC present with metastatic or advanced disease.1 Cytokine therapy was the standard of care until multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were developed. Over the past 12 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 6 TKIs for the treatment of RCC: axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) is one of many tyrosine kinase receptors targeted by these medications. This mechanism prevents angiogenesis and consequently increases the risk for hypertension, bleeding, and clot formation.
Given these risks, many patients were excluded from the initial clinical trials of these medications if they had a history of uncontrolled hypertension, advanced heart failure (HF), or a significant cardiovascular (CV) event within 6 months prior to study enrollment. Many of these studies did not report the incidence of CV events (other than hypertension) that occurred during the early trials.2 The recommended monitoring for TKI therapies is focused mainly on blood pressure. For patients on pazopanib and sunitinib therapy, baseline and periodic electrocardiograms (ECGs) are recommended; echocardiograms are recommended only for patients with a history of cardiac disease.3,4 In patients on sorafenib therapy, ECG is recommended for those at risk for corrected QT (QTc) intervalprolongation.5
According to a meta-analysis of the literature published between 1966 and 2013,many studies reported a CV toxicity risk associated with the TKIs used in RCC treatment.6 However, some studies have found modest, not clinically significant changes in cardiac function in patients with advanced disease. In 2013, Hall and colleagues found 73% of patients they studied experienced some type of CV toxicity, whereas only 33% of patients had CV toxicity when hypertension was excluded.7 Interestingly, Rini and colleagues found that RCC patients receiving sunitinib had better response rates and progression-free survival when they developed hypertension compared with those who did not develop hypertension.8
A review of several studies revealed similar numbers in patients on TKI therapy presenting with symptomatic HF, but Hall and colleagues found that 27% of patients developed asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction.7,9,10 These results suggest routine monitoring may allow for appropriate preventive interventions. In patients receiving TKI therapy, CV events, including QTc prolongation, left ventricular HF, myocardial infarction (MI), hypertension, pulmonary hypertension, and stroke, were commonly reported by investigators.7,9,10 Currently, there are no studies of the incidence of CV events for the 5 TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib) in this patient population.
TKI therapy may require cardiac monitoring of all patients, as studies have associated TKIs with CV toxicity in varying degrees. Therefore, the authors set out to determine the incidence of CV events as well as time to first CV event in patients with and without a history of CV disease (CVD) who received a TKI for advanced RCC. More frequent monitoring for CV toxicity may present opportunities for clinical interventions for all patients on TKI therapy—especially for those with HF or other diseases in which the goal of therapy is to prevent disease progression. As TKIs have emerged as the standard treatment option for advanced RCC, many patients will continue therapy until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Identifying and using appropriate monitoring parameters can lead to preventive interventions that allow patients to benefit from TKI therapy longer. At the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS), patients undergo routine cardiac monitoring at the discretion of the provider.
In this retrospective study, the authors wanted to determine the incidence of CV events in patients with and without a history of CVD who were receiving TKIs for advanced RCC. The authors also wanted to evaluate time to CV event from start of therapy in order to determine how often monitoring may be needed. The outcomes of this study may lead to a change in practice and development of monitoring parameters to ensure appropriate and adequate management of TKI therapy in RCC.
Methods
Each year, the VASDHS oncology team diagnose 5 to 10 patients with RCC who begin TKI therapy. When sorafenib was approved by the FDA in 2005, VASDHS estimated that about 100 of its patients had an RCC diagnosis and would be treated with a TKI between December 2005 and July 2017.
The authors identified VASDHS patients with a diagnosis of advanced RCC who received axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, or sunitinib between December 1, 2005 and July 31, 2017. Patients were included if they had been on therapy for at least 30 days. The VASDHS pharmacy informatics team assisted in extracting a list of patients with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis of RCC and using prescription fills for any of the 5 TKIs previously noted. Medical records were reviewed for frequency of prescription fills, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, TKI treatment duration, previous history of CVD, ethnicity, and smoking status. If documented, the incidence of CV events was reviewed for each patient at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients who received medications (Appendix) for their CVD were assessed for adherence based on history of prescription refills from their medical records. Adherence was evaluated for the duration that patients were concurrently taking an oral TKI. The institutional review board at VASDHS approved the study design.
All patients included in this study started TKI therapy since the December 2005 FDA approval of sorafenib, the first oral TKI for treatment of RCC. Each new start was recorded as a separate event, regardless of previous oral TKI therapy. Albiges and colleagues found that the approximate median time from starting TKI therapy to complete response was 12.6 months, and the median duration of TKI therapy after complete response was 10.3 months.11 Based on these results, the follow-up period for patients in this study was 2 years after the start of each TKI therapy. For data analysis, patients were stratified by CVD history (yes or no). In addition, composite outcomes were evaluated to identify a potential cumulative increased risk for CV events for patients who had been on multiple TKI therapies.
For this study, CV toxicities were characterized using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03; severity of adverse events (AEs) was graded 1 to 5. CTCAE commonly has been used to assess AEs in oncology clinical trials. The CV AEs selected for this study included QTc prolongation, hypertension, left ventricular dysfunction, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Primary outcomes included incidence of CV events and time to first CV event after initiation of TKI therapy. Secondary outcomes included changes in ECG or echocardiogram results at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes at scheduled time points were not readily available for every patient, but any available time points were gathered to aid in identifying an optimal period for cardiac monitoring. In addition, patients with a history of CVD were evaluated for adherence to common first-line therapies for each disease.
A Fischer exact test was used to compare the incidence of CV events in patients with and without a history of CVD (significance level, α = 0.05). A subgroup analysis was used to compare the incidence of CV events in patients who experienced a CV event (significance level, α = 0.05). A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to determine time to first CV event. A log-rank test with significance level set at α = 0.05 also was used.
Results
An initial database search identified 134 patients who received TKI therapy at VASDHS between December 1, 2005 and July 31, 2017. According to retrospective chart review, 54 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study (Table 1). 
Patients without a history of CVD (17%) did not experience any CV events while on TKI therapy. Of the patients with a history of CVD, 9 (20%) experienced ≥ 1 CV event. Fifty-five percent of the events experienced were hypertension. One patient experienced QTc prolongation, and 2 patients experienced MI. As already noted, each new start of TKI was recorded as a separate event, regardless of previous TKI therapy. Among patients with a history of CVD, 2 experienced 2 CV events. Overall, 11 CV events occurred among patients who received ≥ 1 TKI, corresponding to an overall incidence of 24% (Table 2). 
Of the 13 patients who were exposed to ≥ 2 TKI therapies, 2 experienced a CV event. Both patients were started on sunitinib and were switched to sorafenib. One of these used sunitinib for 7 months, experienced a partial response and was switched to sorafenib (with a 3-month break between therapies). The second patient was on sunitinib for 24 months, with multiple doses held because of low blood counts and diarrhea. While on sunitinib, this patient experienced a HF exacerbation, determined to be caused by the underlying disease. This event occurred 17 months after sunitinib was started, and therapy was continued for another 7 months. The patient was switched to sorafenib because of poor tolerability and disease progression. While on sorafenib, this patient experienced grade 1 QTc prolongation.
Discussion
Of the available oral TKI therapies for RCC, sunitinib and sorafenib have the most data associated with nonhypertensive CV toxicity.2,7-10,12 Instudies, the percentage of patients who experienced CV toxicity while on sunitinib or sorafenib has ranged widely, from 2.7% to 33.8%; the variance may be attributable to differences in how institutions report CV toxicities.7-9
According to the prescribing information for TKIs, hypertension is frequently reported as an AE for all 5 TKIs, and BP monitoring is recommended.3,4 However, the development of hypertension with these TKIs has been associated with response to therapy.7 With pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib, there is a higher incidence of other AEs: edema, HF, MI, and QTc prolongation. Baseline ECG is recommended for all patients started on pazopanib and sunitinib and for patients with a history of CVD who are started on sorafenib. An ECG is recommended for patients with a history of CVD who are started on pazopanib and sunitinib.
Even with the medication prescribing information recommendations, it is unclear how frequently patients should be monitored. At VASDHS, CV monitoring for any patient started on a TKI remains at the discretion of the oncologist. There are concerns that ordering cardiac monitoring tests, which might be unnecessary, will change or guide therapy. In this study, data evaluation revealed 1 patient who experienced a CV event had a CVD history that was not documented in the patient’s medical history. It is important that providers obtain a detailed clinical assessment of patients CV history during each visit to determine whether CV monitoring should be considered. Patients also may benefit from additional counseling to emphasize the importance of adherence to CV medication therapy to reduce the incidence of these events.
Data from this study indicate that routine CV monitoring should be considered in patients with CVD, in keeping with current medication prescribing information recommendations. Of the patients who had a CV event, 54% experienced hypertension, 18% MI, and 28% stroke, QTc prolongation, or congestive HF. 
Limitations
This retrospective study had several limitations. Many patients did not have a baseline cardiac monitoring test or any monitoring during therapy. Often, a cardiac test was performed only when the patient was symptomatic or experiencing a CV event. In addition, because of intolerance or nonadherence to therapy, many patients discontinued treatment early, before completing 30 days. That axitinib and cabozantinib are newer therapies and not first-line at VASDHS during the data collection period accounts for the small number of patients on these therapies. Therapy was shorter for patients started on pazopanib, axitinib, and cabozantinib than it was for patients on sunitinib and sorafenib. Duration of therapy may affect treatment-related events, but the majority of patients in this study experienced an event within 4 months of therapy. About half of the patients who experienced an event were nonadherent to their CV medication regimen. Another potential limitation is that this study was conducted at VASDHS, where most patients are male (RCC incidence is 2:1 male:female).
Conclusion
In this study, CV events occurred in 24% of patients with a history of CVD; 11% of these events were nonhypertensive. Baseline cardiac monitoring was not performed for most patients started on TKI therapy, but tests were performed once patients became symptomatic. The study results suggest that high-risk patients should undergo routine cardiac monitoring during the first 4 months of TKI therapy, in keeping with medication package insert monitoring recommendations. Cardiac monitoring of high-risk patients will allow for earlier identification of cardiac decline and offer opportunities for interventions, such as pharmacist-driven protocols to start CV medications. Implementation of this study’s recommendations should be evaluated to determine whether outcomes improve with routine cardiac monitoring in these high-risk patients.
Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, FrontlineMedical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects— before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.
1. Rini, BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1931-1939.
2. Tolcher AW, Appleman LJ, Shapiro GI, et al. A phase I open-label study evaluating the cardiovascular safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;67(4):751-764.
3. Votrient [package insert]. Research Triangle Park, NC: GlaxoSmithKline; 2017.
4. Sutent [package insert]. New York, NY: Pfizer Labs; 2018.
5. Nexavar [package insert]. Wayne, NJ; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2018.
6. Ghatalia P, Morgan CJ, Je Y, et al. Congestive heart failure with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015;94:228–237.
7. Hall PS, Harshman LC, Srinivas S, Witteles RM. The frequency and severity of cardiovascular toxicity from targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(1):72-78.
8. Rini BI, Cohen DP, Lu DR, et al. Hypertension as a biomarker of efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(9):763-773.
9. Richards CJ, Je Y, Schutz FA, et al. Incidence and risk of congestive heart failure in patients with renal and nonrenal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3450-3456.
10. Schmidinger M, Zielinski CC, Vogl UM, et al. Cardiac toxicity of sunitinib and sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5204-5212.
11. Albiges L, Oudard S, Negrier S, et al. Complete remission with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(5):482-487.
12. Jang S, Zheng C, Tsai HT, et al. Cardiovascular toxicity after antiangiogenic therapy in persons older than 65 years with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2016;122(1):124-130
13. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311(5):507-520.
14. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. JACC. 2017;70(6):776-803.
15. Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2160-2236.
16. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. JACC. 2013;61(4):e78-e140.
17. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(24):e139-e228.
18. Galiè N, Humbert M, Vachiery JL, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: the Joint Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS): endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Eur Heart J. 2016;37(1):67-119.
Patients who have or are at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease and who are taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma should receive routine cardiovascular event monitoring during the first 4 months of therapy.
Patients who have or are at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease and who are taking tyrosine kinase inhibitors for renal cell carcinoma should receive routine cardiovascular event monitoring during the first 4 months of therapy.
Targeted therapies have transformed the treatment of many malignant diseases by inhibiting molecular pathways involved in tumor growth and oncogenesis. Although these therapies can prevent disease progression, toxicities often result. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of many cancers that responds well to these therapies.
RCC accounts for 2% to 3% of all malignancies in adults worldwide. About 30% of patients with RCC present with metastatic or advanced disease.1 Cytokine therapy was the standard of care until multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were developed. Over the past 12 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 6 TKIs for the treatment of RCC: axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) is one of many tyrosine kinase receptors targeted by these medications. This mechanism prevents angiogenesis and consequently increases the risk for hypertension, bleeding, and clot formation.
Given these risks, many patients were excluded from the initial clinical trials of these medications if they had a history of uncontrolled hypertension, advanced heart failure (HF), or a significant cardiovascular (CV) event within 6 months prior to study enrollment. Many of these studies did not report the incidence of CV events (other than hypertension) that occurred during the early trials.2 The recommended monitoring for TKI therapies is focused mainly on blood pressure. For patients on pazopanib and sunitinib therapy, baseline and periodic electrocardiograms (ECGs) are recommended; echocardiograms are recommended only for patients with a history of cardiac disease.3,4 In patients on sorafenib therapy, ECG is recommended for those at risk for corrected QT (QTc) intervalprolongation.5
According to a meta-analysis of the literature published between 1966 and 2013,many studies reported a CV toxicity risk associated with the TKIs used in RCC treatment.6 However, some studies have found modest, not clinically significant changes in cardiac function in patients with advanced disease. In 2013, Hall and colleagues found 73% of patients they studied experienced some type of CV toxicity, whereas only 33% of patients had CV toxicity when hypertension was excluded.7 Interestingly, Rini and colleagues found that RCC patients receiving sunitinib had better response rates and progression-free survival when they developed hypertension compared with those who did not develop hypertension.8
A review of several studies revealed similar numbers in patients on TKI therapy presenting with symptomatic HF, but Hall and colleagues found that 27% of patients developed asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction.7,9,10 These results suggest routine monitoring may allow for appropriate preventive interventions. In patients receiving TKI therapy, CV events, including QTc prolongation, left ventricular HF, myocardial infarction (MI), hypertension, pulmonary hypertension, and stroke, were commonly reported by investigators.7,9,10 Currently, there are no studies of the incidence of CV events for the 5 TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib) in this patient population.
TKI therapy may require cardiac monitoring of all patients, as studies have associated TKIs with CV toxicity in varying degrees. Therefore, the authors set out to determine the incidence of CV events as well as time to first CV event in patients with and without a history of CV disease (CVD) who received a TKI for advanced RCC. More frequent monitoring for CV toxicity may present opportunities for clinical interventions for all patients on TKI therapy—especially for those with HF or other diseases in which the goal of therapy is to prevent disease progression. As TKIs have emerged as the standard treatment option for advanced RCC, many patients will continue therapy until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Identifying and using appropriate monitoring parameters can lead to preventive interventions that allow patients to benefit from TKI therapy longer. At the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS), patients undergo routine cardiac monitoring at the discretion of the provider.
In this retrospective study, the authors wanted to determine the incidence of CV events in patients with and without a history of CVD who were receiving TKIs for advanced RCC. The authors also wanted to evaluate time to CV event from start of therapy in order to determine how often monitoring may be needed. The outcomes of this study may lead to a change in practice and development of monitoring parameters to ensure appropriate and adequate management of TKI therapy in RCC.
Methods
Each year, the VASDHS oncology team diagnose 5 to 10 patients with RCC who begin TKI therapy. When sorafenib was approved by the FDA in 2005, VASDHS estimated that about 100 of its patients had an RCC diagnosis and would be treated with a TKI between December 2005 and July 2017.
The authors identified VASDHS patients with a diagnosis of advanced RCC who received axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, or sunitinib between December 1, 2005 and July 31, 2017. Patients were included if they had been on therapy for at least 30 days. The VASDHS pharmacy informatics team assisted in extracting a list of patients with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis of RCC and using prescription fills for any of the 5 TKIs previously noted. Medical records were reviewed for frequency of prescription fills, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, TKI treatment duration, previous history of CVD, ethnicity, and smoking status. If documented, the incidence of CV events was reviewed for each patient at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients who received medications (Appendix) for their CVD were assessed for adherence based on history of prescription refills from their medical records. Adherence was evaluated for the duration that patients were concurrently taking an oral TKI. The institutional review board at VASDHS approved the study design.
All patients included in this study started TKI therapy since the December 2005 FDA approval of sorafenib, the first oral TKI for treatment of RCC. Each new start was recorded as a separate event, regardless of previous oral TKI therapy. Albiges and colleagues found that the approximate median time from starting TKI therapy to complete response was 12.6 months, and the median duration of TKI therapy after complete response was 10.3 months.11 Based on these results, the follow-up period for patients in this study was 2 years after the start of each TKI therapy. For data analysis, patients were stratified by CVD history (yes or no). In addition, composite outcomes were evaluated to identify a potential cumulative increased risk for CV events for patients who had been on multiple TKI therapies.
For this study, CV toxicities were characterized using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03; severity of adverse events (AEs) was graded 1 to 5. CTCAE commonly has been used to assess AEs in oncology clinical trials. The CV AEs selected for this study included QTc prolongation, hypertension, left ventricular dysfunction, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Primary outcomes included incidence of CV events and time to first CV event after initiation of TKI therapy. Secondary outcomes included changes in ECG or echocardiogram results at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes at scheduled time points were not readily available for every patient, but any available time points were gathered to aid in identifying an optimal period for cardiac monitoring. In addition, patients with a history of CVD were evaluated for adherence to common first-line therapies for each disease.
A Fischer exact test was used to compare the incidence of CV events in patients with and without a history of CVD (significance level, α = 0.05). A subgroup analysis was used to compare the incidence of CV events in patients who experienced a CV event (significance level, α = 0.05). A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to determine time to first CV event. A log-rank test with significance level set at α = 0.05 also was used.
Results
An initial database search identified 134 patients who received TKI therapy at VASDHS between December 1, 2005 and July 31, 2017. According to retrospective chart review, 54 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study (Table 1).
Patients without a history of CVD (17%) did not experience any CV events while on TKI therapy. Of the patients with a history of CVD, 9 (20%) experienced ≥ 1 CV event. Fifty-five percent of the events experienced were hypertension. One patient experienced QTc prolongation, and 2 patients experienced MI. As already noted, each new start of TKI was recorded as a separate event, regardless of previous TKI therapy. Among patients with a history of CVD, 2 experienced 2 CV events. Overall, 11 CV events occurred among patients who received ≥ 1 TKI, corresponding to an overall incidence of 24% (Table 2).
Of the 13 patients who were exposed to ≥ 2 TKI therapies, 2 experienced a CV event. Both patients were started on sunitinib and were switched to sorafenib. One of these used sunitinib for 7 months, experienced a partial response and was switched to sorafenib (with a 3-month break between therapies). The second patient was on sunitinib for 24 months, with multiple doses held because of low blood counts and diarrhea. While on sunitinib, this patient experienced a HF exacerbation, determined to be caused by the underlying disease. This event occurred 17 months after sunitinib was started, and therapy was continued for another 7 months. The patient was switched to sorafenib because of poor tolerability and disease progression. While on sorafenib, this patient experienced grade 1 QTc prolongation.
Discussion
Of the available oral TKI therapies for RCC, sunitinib and sorafenib have the most data associated with nonhypertensive CV toxicity.2,7-10,12 Instudies, the percentage of patients who experienced CV toxicity while on sunitinib or sorafenib has ranged widely, from 2.7% to 33.8%; the variance may be attributable to differences in how institutions report CV toxicities.7-9
According to the prescribing information for TKIs, hypertension is frequently reported as an AE for all 5 TKIs, and BP monitoring is recommended.3,4 However, the development of hypertension with these TKIs has been associated with response to therapy.7 With pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib, there is a higher incidence of other AEs: edema, HF, MI, and QTc prolongation. Baseline ECG is recommended for all patients started on pazopanib and sunitinib and for patients with a history of CVD who are started on sorafenib. An ECG is recommended for patients with a history of CVD who are started on pazopanib and sunitinib.
Even with the medication prescribing information recommendations, it is unclear how frequently patients should be monitored. At VASDHS, CV monitoring for any patient started on a TKI remains at the discretion of the oncologist. There are concerns that ordering cardiac monitoring tests, which might be unnecessary, will change or guide therapy. In this study, data evaluation revealed 1 patient who experienced a CV event had a CVD history that was not documented in the patient’s medical history. It is important that providers obtain a detailed clinical assessment of patients CV history during each visit to determine whether CV monitoring should be considered. Patients also may benefit from additional counseling to emphasize the importance of adherence to CV medication therapy to reduce the incidence of these events.
Data from this study indicate that routine CV monitoring should be considered in patients with CVD, in keeping with current medication prescribing information recommendations. Of the patients who had a CV event, 54% experienced hypertension, 18% MI, and 28% stroke, QTc prolongation, or congestive HF.
Limitations
This retrospective study had several limitations. Many patients did not have a baseline cardiac monitoring test or any monitoring during therapy. Often, a cardiac test was performed only when the patient was symptomatic or experiencing a CV event. In addition, because of intolerance or nonadherence to therapy, many patients discontinued treatment early, before completing 30 days. That axitinib and cabozantinib are newer therapies and not first-line at VASDHS during the data collection period accounts for the small number of patients on these therapies. Therapy was shorter for patients started on pazopanib, axitinib, and cabozantinib than it was for patients on sunitinib and sorafenib. Duration of therapy may affect treatment-related events, but the majority of patients in this study experienced an event within 4 months of therapy. About half of the patients who experienced an event were nonadherent to their CV medication regimen. Another potential limitation is that this study was conducted at VASDHS, where most patients are male (RCC incidence is 2:1 male:female).
Conclusion
In this study, CV events occurred in 24% of patients with a history of CVD; 11% of these events were nonhypertensive. Baseline cardiac monitoring was not performed for most patients started on TKI therapy, but tests were performed once patients became symptomatic. The study results suggest that high-risk patients should undergo routine cardiac monitoring during the first 4 months of TKI therapy, in keeping with medication package insert monitoring recommendations. Cardiac monitoring of high-risk patients will allow for earlier identification of cardiac decline and offer opportunities for interventions, such as pharmacist-driven protocols to start CV medications. Implementation of this study’s recommendations should be evaluated to determine whether outcomes improve with routine cardiac monitoring in these high-risk patients.
Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, FrontlineMedical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects— before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.
Targeted therapies have transformed the treatment of many malignant diseases by inhibiting molecular pathways involved in tumor growth and oncogenesis. Although these therapies can prevent disease progression, toxicities often result. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of many cancers that responds well to these therapies.
RCC accounts for 2% to 3% of all malignancies in adults worldwide. About 30% of patients with RCC present with metastatic or advanced disease.1 Cytokine therapy was the standard of care until multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were developed. Over the past 12 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 6 TKIs for the treatment of RCC: axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) is one of many tyrosine kinase receptors targeted by these medications. This mechanism prevents angiogenesis and consequently increases the risk for hypertension, bleeding, and clot formation.
Given these risks, many patients were excluded from the initial clinical trials of these medications if they had a history of uncontrolled hypertension, advanced heart failure (HF), or a significant cardiovascular (CV) event within 6 months prior to study enrollment. Many of these studies did not report the incidence of CV events (other than hypertension) that occurred during the early trials.2 The recommended monitoring for TKI therapies is focused mainly on blood pressure. For patients on pazopanib and sunitinib therapy, baseline and periodic electrocardiograms (ECGs) are recommended; echocardiograms are recommended only for patients with a history of cardiac disease.3,4 In patients on sorafenib therapy, ECG is recommended for those at risk for corrected QT (QTc) intervalprolongation.5
According to a meta-analysis of the literature published between 1966 and 2013,many studies reported a CV toxicity risk associated with the TKIs used in RCC treatment.6 However, some studies have found modest, not clinically significant changes in cardiac function in patients with advanced disease. In 2013, Hall and colleagues found 73% of patients they studied experienced some type of CV toxicity, whereas only 33% of patients had CV toxicity when hypertension was excluded.7 Interestingly, Rini and colleagues found that RCC patients receiving sunitinib had better response rates and progression-free survival when they developed hypertension compared with those who did not develop hypertension.8
A review of several studies revealed similar numbers in patients on TKI therapy presenting with symptomatic HF, but Hall and colleagues found that 27% of patients developed asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction.7,9,10 These results suggest routine monitoring may allow for appropriate preventive interventions. In patients receiving TKI therapy, CV events, including QTc prolongation, left ventricular HF, myocardial infarction (MI), hypertension, pulmonary hypertension, and stroke, were commonly reported by investigators.7,9,10 Currently, there are no studies of the incidence of CV events for the 5 TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib) in this patient population.
TKI therapy may require cardiac monitoring of all patients, as studies have associated TKIs with CV toxicity in varying degrees. Therefore, the authors set out to determine the incidence of CV events as well as time to first CV event in patients with and without a history of CV disease (CVD) who received a TKI for advanced RCC. More frequent monitoring for CV toxicity may present opportunities for clinical interventions for all patients on TKI therapy—especially for those with HF or other diseases in which the goal of therapy is to prevent disease progression. As TKIs have emerged as the standard treatment option for advanced RCC, many patients will continue therapy until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Identifying and using appropriate monitoring parameters can lead to preventive interventions that allow patients to benefit from TKI therapy longer. At the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego Healthcare System (VASDHS), patients undergo routine cardiac monitoring at the discretion of the provider.
In this retrospective study, the authors wanted to determine the incidence of CV events in patients with and without a history of CVD who were receiving TKIs for advanced RCC. The authors also wanted to evaluate time to CV event from start of therapy in order to determine how often monitoring may be needed. The outcomes of this study may lead to a change in practice and development of monitoring parameters to ensure appropriate and adequate management of TKI therapy in RCC.
Methods
Each year, the VASDHS oncology team diagnose 5 to 10 patients with RCC who begin TKI therapy. When sorafenib was approved by the FDA in 2005, VASDHS estimated that about 100 of its patients had an RCC diagnosis and would be treated with a TKI between December 2005 and July 2017.
The authors identified VASDHS patients with a diagnosis of advanced RCC who received axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, or sunitinib between December 1, 2005 and July 31, 2017. Patients were included if they had been on therapy for at least 30 days. The VASDHS pharmacy informatics team assisted in extracting a list of patients with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis of RCC and using prescription fills for any of the 5 TKIs previously noted. Medical records were reviewed for frequency of prescription fills, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, TKI treatment duration, previous history of CVD, ethnicity, and smoking status. If documented, the incidence of CV events was reviewed for each patient at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients who received medications (Appendix) for their CVD were assessed for adherence based on history of prescription refills from their medical records. Adherence was evaluated for the duration that patients were concurrently taking an oral TKI. The institutional review board at VASDHS approved the study design.
All patients included in this study started TKI therapy since the December 2005 FDA approval of sorafenib, the first oral TKI for treatment of RCC. Each new start was recorded as a separate event, regardless of previous oral TKI therapy. Albiges and colleagues found that the approximate median time from starting TKI therapy to complete response was 12.6 months, and the median duration of TKI therapy after complete response was 10.3 months.11 Based on these results, the follow-up period for patients in this study was 2 years after the start of each TKI therapy. For data analysis, patients were stratified by CVD history (yes or no). In addition, composite outcomes were evaluated to identify a potential cumulative increased risk for CV events for patients who had been on multiple TKI therapies.
For this study, CV toxicities were characterized using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.03; severity of adverse events (AEs) was graded 1 to 5. CTCAE commonly has been used to assess AEs in oncology clinical trials. The CV AEs selected for this study included QTc prolongation, hypertension, left ventricular dysfunction, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Primary outcomes included incidence of CV events and time to first CV event after initiation of TKI therapy. Secondary outcomes included changes in ECG or echocardiogram results at 0, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes at scheduled time points were not readily available for every patient, but any available time points were gathered to aid in identifying an optimal period for cardiac monitoring. In addition, patients with a history of CVD were evaluated for adherence to common first-line therapies for each disease.
A Fischer exact test was used to compare the incidence of CV events in patients with and without a history of CVD (significance level, α = 0.05). A subgroup analysis was used to compare the incidence of CV events in patients who experienced a CV event (significance level, α = 0.05). A Kaplan-Meier survival curve was used to determine time to first CV event. A log-rank test with significance level set at α = 0.05 also was used.
Results
An initial database search identified 134 patients who received TKI therapy at VASDHS between December 1, 2005 and July 31, 2017. According to retrospective chart review, 54 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study (Table 1).
Patients without a history of CVD (17%) did not experience any CV events while on TKI therapy. Of the patients with a history of CVD, 9 (20%) experienced ≥ 1 CV event. Fifty-five percent of the events experienced were hypertension. One patient experienced QTc prolongation, and 2 patients experienced MI. As already noted, each new start of TKI was recorded as a separate event, regardless of previous TKI therapy. Among patients with a history of CVD, 2 experienced 2 CV events. Overall, 11 CV events occurred among patients who received ≥ 1 TKI, corresponding to an overall incidence of 24% (Table 2).
Of the 13 patients who were exposed to ≥ 2 TKI therapies, 2 experienced a CV event. Both patients were started on sunitinib and were switched to sorafenib. One of these used sunitinib for 7 months, experienced a partial response and was switched to sorafenib (with a 3-month break between therapies). The second patient was on sunitinib for 24 months, with multiple doses held because of low blood counts and diarrhea. While on sunitinib, this patient experienced a HF exacerbation, determined to be caused by the underlying disease. This event occurred 17 months after sunitinib was started, and therapy was continued for another 7 months. The patient was switched to sorafenib because of poor tolerability and disease progression. While on sorafenib, this patient experienced grade 1 QTc prolongation.
Discussion
Of the available oral TKI therapies for RCC, sunitinib and sorafenib have the most data associated with nonhypertensive CV toxicity.2,7-10,12 Instudies, the percentage of patients who experienced CV toxicity while on sunitinib or sorafenib has ranged widely, from 2.7% to 33.8%; the variance may be attributable to differences in how institutions report CV toxicities.7-9
According to the prescribing information for TKIs, hypertension is frequently reported as an AE for all 5 TKIs, and BP monitoring is recommended.3,4 However, the development of hypertension with these TKIs has been associated with response to therapy.7 With pazopanib, sorafenib, and sunitinib, there is a higher incidence of other AEs: edema, HF, MI, and QTc prolongation. Baseline ECG is recommended for all patients started on pazopanib and sunitinib and for patients with a history of CVD who are started on sorafenib. An ECG is recommended for patients with a history of CVD who are started on pazopanib and sunitinib.
Even with the medication prescribing information recommendations, it is unclear how frequently patients should be monitored. At VASDHS, CV monitoring for any patient started on a TKI remains at the discretion of the oncologist. There are concerns that ordering cardiac monitoring tests, which might be unnecessary, will change or guide therapy. In this study, data evaluation revealed 1 patient who experienced a CV event had a CVD history that was not documented in the patient’s medical history. It is important that providers obtain a detailed clinical assessment of patients CV history during each visit to determine whether CV monitoring should be considered. Patients also may benefit from additional counseling to emphasize the importance of adherence to CV medication therapy to reduce the incidence of these events.
Data from this study indicate that routine CV monitoring should be considered in patients with CVD, in keeping with current medication prescribing information recommendations. Of the patients who had a CV event, 54% experienced hypertension, 18% MI, and 28% stroke, QTc prolongation, or congestive HF.
Limitations
This retrospective study had several limitations. Many patients did not have a baseline cardiac monitoring test or any monitoring during therapy. Often, a cardiac test was performed only when the patient was symptomatic or experiencing a CV event. In addition, because of intolerance or nonadherence to therapy, many patients discontinued treatment early, before completing 30 days. That axitinib and cabozantinib are newer therapies and not first-line at VASDHS during the data collection period accounts for the small number of patients on these therapies. Therapy was shorter for patients started on pazopanib, axitinib, and cabozantinib than it was for patients on sunitinib and sorafenib. Duration of therapy may affect treatment-related events, but the majority of patients in this study experienced an event within 4 months of therapy. About half of the patients who experienced an event were nonadherent to their CV medication regimen. Another potential limitation is that this study was conducted at VASDHS, where most patients are male (RCC incidence is 2:1 male:female).
Conclusion
In this study, CV events occurred in 24% of patients with a history of CVD; 11% of these events were nonhypertensive. Baseline cardiac monitoring was not performed for most patients started on TKI therapy, but tests were performed once patients became symptomatic. The study results suggest that high-risk patients should undergo routine cardiac monitoring during the first 4 months of TKI therapy, in keeping with medication package insert monitoring recommendations. Cardiac monitoring of high-risk patients will allow for earlier identification of cardiac decline and offer opportunities for interventions, such as pharmacist-driven protocols to start CV medications. Implementation of this study’s recommendations should be evaluated to determine whether outcomes improve with routine cardiac monitoring in these high-risk patients.
Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, FrontlineMedical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects— before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.
1. Rini, BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1931-1939.
2. Tolcher AW, Appleman LJ, Shapiro GI, et al. A phase I open-label study evaluating the cardiovascular safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;67(4):751-764.
3. Votrient [package insert]. Research Triangle Park, NC: GlaxoSmithKline; 2017.
4. Sutent [package insert]. New York, NY: Pfizer Labs; 2018.
5. Nexavar [package insert]. Wayne, NJ; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2018.
6. Ghatalia P, Morgan CJ, Je Y, et al. Congestive heart failure with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015;94:228–237.
7. Hall PS, Harshman LC, Srinivas S, Witteles RM. The frequency and severity of cardiovascular toxicity from targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(1):72-78.
8. Rini BI, Cohen DP, Lu DR, et al. Hypertension as a biomarker of efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(9):763-773.
9. Richards CJ, Je Y, Schutz FA, et al. Incidence and risk of congestive heart failure in patients with renal and nonrenal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3450-3456.
10. Schmidinger M, Zielinski CC, Vogl UM, et al. Cardiac toxicity of sunitinib and sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5204-5212.
11. Albiges L, Oudard S, Negrier S, et al. Complete remission with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(5):482-487.
12. Jang S, Zheng C, Tsai HT, et al. Cardiovascular toxicity after antiangiogenic therapy in persons older than 65 years with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2016;122(1):124-130
13. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311(5):507-520.
14. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. JACC. 2017;70(6):776-803.
15. Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2160-2236.
16. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. JACC. 2013;61(4):e78-e140.
17. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(24):e139-e228.
18. Galiè N, Humbert M, Vachiery JL, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: the Joint Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS): endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Eur Heart J. 2016;37(1):67-119.
1. Rini, BI, Escudier B, Tomczak P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9807):1931-1939.
2. Tolcher AW, Appleman LJ, Shapiro GI, et al. A phase I open-label study evaluating the cardiovascular safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;67(4):751-764.
3. Votrient [package insert]. Research Triangle Park, NC: GlaxoSmithKline; 2017.
4. Sutent [package insert]. New York, NY: Pfizer Labs; 2018.
5. Nexavar [package insert]. Wayne, NJ; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2018.
6. Ghatalia P, Morgan CJ, Je Y, et al. Congestive heart failure with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2015;94:228–237.
7. Hall PS, Harshman LC, Srinivas S, Witteles RM. The frequency and severity of cardiovascular toxicity from targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma patients. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(1):72-78.
8. Rini BI, Cohen DP, Lu DR, et al. Hypertension as a biomarker of efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(9):763-773.
9. Richards CJ, Je Y, Schutz FA, et al. Incidence and risk of congestive heart failure in patients with renal and nonrenal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3450-3456.
10. Schmidinger M, Zielinski CC, Vogl UM, et al. Cardiac toxicity of sunitinib and sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5204-5212.
11. Albiges L, Oudard S, Negrier S, et al. Complete remission with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(5):482-487.
12. Jang S, Zheng C, Tsai HT, et al. Cardiovascular toxicity after antiangiogenic therapy in persons older than 65 years with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 2016;122(1):124-130
13. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311(5):507-520.
14. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. JACC. 2017;70(6):776-803.
15. Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2160-2236.
16. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. JACC. 2013;61(4):e78-e140.
17. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(24):e139-e228.
18. Galiè N, Humbert M, Vachiery JL, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension: the Joint Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS): endorsed by: Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). Eur Heart J. 2016;37(1):67-119.
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests soar during COVID-19 in Italy
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.
During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.
The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.
Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).
Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.
The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.
A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.
As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.
Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.
At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.
The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.
During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.
The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.
Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).
Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.
The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.
A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.
As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.
Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.
At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.
The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.
During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.
The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.
Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).
Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.
The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.
A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.
As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.
Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.
Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.
At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.
The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New study of diabetes drug for COVID-19 raises eyebrows
A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.
The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).
“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.
“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.
However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.
These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.
Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”
Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”
It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.
Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.
“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.
“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.
“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.
Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.
“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.
Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”
DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined
The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.
Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.
Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.
Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.
Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.
Rationale for the study
Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.
Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”
“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.
“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.
And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.
“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.
The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.
Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.
The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).
“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.
“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.
However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.
These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.
Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”
Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”
It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.
Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.
“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.
“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.
“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.
Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.
“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.
Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”
DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined
The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.
Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.
Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.
Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.
Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.
Rationale for the study
Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.
Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”
“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.
“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.
And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.
“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.
The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.
Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).
The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.
The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).
“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.
And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.
“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.
However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.
These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.
Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”
Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”
It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.
Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.
“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.
“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.
“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.
Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.
“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.
Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”
DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined
The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.
Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.
Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.
Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.
Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.
Rationale for the study
Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.
Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”
“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.
“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.
And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.
“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.
The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.
Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Yale’s COVID-19 inpatient protocol: Hydroxychloroquine plus/minus tocilizumab
Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.
Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.
Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.
In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.
Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.
ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.
The haze of battle
Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.
Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.
Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.
Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.
Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”
His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
A moving target
Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.
The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.
Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).
Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.
Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.
On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.
To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.
Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.
aotto@mdedge.com
This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.
Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.
Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.
Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.
In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.
Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.
ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.
The haze of battle
Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.
Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.
Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.
Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.
Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”
His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
A moving target
Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.
The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.
Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).
Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.
Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.
On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.
To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.
Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.
aotto@mdedge.com
This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.
Hydroxychloroquine is currently first-line, and tocilizumab second-line, for people hospitalized with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven (Conn.) Health System, which operates hospitals across Connecticut, many of them hard hit by the pandemic.
Patients enter the treatment algorithm if they have an oxygen saturation at or below 93% on room air or chronic supplementation, or by being acutely ill with fever, respiratory signs, or opacities on chest x-ray, plus risk factors for severe illness such as age over 60 years, chronic heart or lung disease, immunosuppression, diabetes, hypertension, or obesity, which makes it harder to ventilate.
Physicians at Yale have seen both presentations – oxygen desaturation and frank illness – and “wanted to make sure we weren’t missing anyone,” said Nihar Desai, MD, a Yale cardiologist who is helping to coordinate the health system’s response to COVID-19.
In either case, the initial treatment is the same at Yale hospitals: hydroxychloroquine for 5 days, with tocilizumab (Actemra) considered when not contraindicated and oxygen requirements reach or pass 3 L, or 2 L with C-reactive protein levels above 70 mg/L.
Patients are put on prophylactic enoxaparin to thin the blood unless contraindicated; inflammatory, cardiac, kidney, and other markers are checked every 12 or 24 hours; and ECGs are taken daily if telemetry isn’t used. Chest x-rays are repeated if clinical signs worsen, and transthoracic echocardiograms are ordered for suspected heart problems.
ICUs are notified early if the clinical situation worsens because patients “can deteriorate very quickly; at the first sign of trouble, people are really aggressive,” said Dr. Desai, also the associate chief of clinical operations in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Yale University, New Haven.
The haze of battle
Yale has updated its algorithm several times since the virus first hit Connecticut weeks ago. A team including pulmonologists, critical care physicians, pharmacologists, infectious disease experts, and cardiologists, including Dr. Desai, are constantly monitoring the situation and making changes as new information comes in.
Much of what’s being done at Yale and elsewhere is empiric because there are simply not much data to go on. “We are trying to do the best we can” in “the haze of battle. People really came together quickly to develop this. One hopes we never have to go through anything like this again,” he said.
Hydroxychloroquine is first-line at Yale because in-vitro data show potent inhibition of the virus and possible clinical benefit, which is about as good as evidence gets at the moment. Also, “it’s cheap, it’s been used for decades, and people are relatively comfortable with it,” Dr. Desai said.
Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist, is second-line because it might counter the cytokine storm thought to be at least partly responsible for severe complications, and retrospective data suggest possible benefit. The antiviral remdesivir and IL-6 blocker sarulimab (Kevzara) are also potential candidates, available through clinical trials.
Dr. Desai wanted to share the algorithm with other providers because, he noted, “there are a lot of places that may not have all the resources we have.”
His home institution, Yale New Haven Hospital, is almost half full with COVID-19 patients, at more than 400.
A moving target
Yale’s approach is similar in confirmed COVID-19 cases already in respiratory failure, including those on mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: hydroxychloroquine and possibly tocilizumab, but also methylprednisolone if clinical status worsens or inflammatory markers go up. The steroid is for additional help battling the cytokine storm, Dr. Desai said.
The degree of anticoagulation in the ICU is based on d-dimer levels or suspicion or confirmation of venous thromboembolism. Telemetry is monitored closely for QTc prolongation, and point of care ultrasound is considered to check left ventricular function in the setting of markedly increased cardiac troponin levels, ECG abnormalities, or hemodynamic instability.
Previous versions of Yale’s algorithm included HIV protease inhibitors, but they were pulled after a recent trial found no benefit. Frequency of monitoring was also reduced from every 8 hours because it didn’t improve decision making and put staff collecting specimens at risk (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001282).
Anticoagulation was added to newer versions after it became clear that COVID-19 is prothrombotic. “We are still seeing thrombotic events that might warrant further intensification,” Dr. Desai said.
Newer algorithms also have Yale watching QTc intervals more closely. It’s unclear if the prolongation risk is caused by the infection or hydroxychloroquine.
On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration reiterated it’s concern about the arrhythmia risk with hydroxychloroquine and emphasized that it should only be used for COVID-19 patients when they are hospitalized and it is not feasible for them to participate in a clinical trial.
To help keep patients safe, ECGs from confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases are now first in line to be reviewed by cardiologists across Yale hospitals to pick up prolongations and notify providers as soon as possible. Hydroxychloroquine is held if there are no other explanations.
Cardiologists are on the fontline at Yale and elsewhere, Dr. Desai said, because heart complications like myocarditis and arrhythmias emerged early as common problems in hospitalized patients.
aotto@mdedge.com
This article was updated with the latest treatment algorithm on 5/6/2020.
Substantial very late MACE risk after PCI for SIHD
Patients with stable ischemic heart disease remain at substantial risk for major adverse cardiovascular events 1-5 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contemporary second-generation drug-eluting stents, according to a pooled analysis of long-term follow-up data on 10,987 patients in 19 prospective, randomized, head-to-head metallic stent trials.
The analysis showed that, although most major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred during the first year after stenting, no plateau in MACE was reached between years 1 and 5, Mahesh V. Madhavan, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms of late events and whether improvements in stent technology, revascularization technique, and adjunctive therapies may improve outcomes in patients with SIHD [stable ischemic heart disease],” said Dr. Madhavan, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital.
This post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient-level data from 19 randomized trials included 10,987 metallic stent recipients with SIHD. Sixty-one percent got second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), 25% received first-generation DES, and 15% got bare metal stents (BMS). The largest prospective head-to-head RCT was SPIRIT IV, with 2,130 patients. All five TAXUS trials were also included.
The 5-year rate of the primary composite MACE endpoint composed of cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was 24.1% in patients with BMS stents, 17.9% with first-gen DES, and 13.4% with second-gen DES, reflecting the advances in stent technology over time. Most of these MACE events occurred during the first year after PCI, with rates of 18%, 8.6%, and 5.3%, respectively, in the three groups. However, the MACE rate beyond the first year out through year 5 remained substantial: 10.2% with first-gen DES, 8.5% with second-gen DES, and 7.4% in the BMS group.
The cardiac death rate from PCI through year 5 was 3.8% with second-gen DES, 3.6% with first-gen DES, and 3.3% with BMS. The MI rate was 7.7% with first-gen DES, 6.1% with BMS, and 5% with second-gen DES.
Stent thrombosis occurred during the first year in 0.9% of first-gen DES and BMS recipients and in 0.7% of patients with second-gen DES. During years 1-5, the rates were 1.6% with first-gen DES, 0.9% with second-gen devices, and 0.2% with BMS.
Second-gen DES provided a big advantage in terms of lessened need for ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization through the first 5 years, with a rate of 7.3%, compared to 18.7% in patients with first-gen DES and 10.5% with BMS.
In a multivariate regression analysis, independent predictors of MACE in the first 5 years post PCI included indicators of greater lesion and/or procedural complexity, such as left main or left anterior descending disease, greater lesion length, and more than one treated lesion, as well as standard cardiovascular risk factors, including recent smoking, hypertension, and diabetes.
In contrast, hyperlipidemia was associated with a significant 15% reduction in MACE risk, which in an interview Dr. Madhavan said may have been due to aggressive lipid-lowering therapy, although he added that this is conjecture because he and his coinvestigators didn’t have access to data on the use of guideline-directed medical therapy or antiplatelet regimens.
Asked about future prospects for reducing the substantial very late risk of MACE highlighted in his study, Dr. Madhavan cited the use of adjunctive imaging during PCI as promising.
“The currently enrolling ILUMEN IV trial, among other studies, will help determine whether imaging-guided intervention can help improve intermediate and long-term rates of MACE,” he observed.
Promising medical therapies that could potentially confer benefit in terms of reducing long-term MACE in patients who’ve undergone PCI for SIHD include novel lipid-lowering drugs, tailored antithrombotic strategies, new anti-inflammatory agents, and the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Madhavan continued.
In terms of advances in stent design, he cited recent evidence that ultrathin-strut stents featuring bioresorbable polymer, such as the Orsiro stent, may reduce late stent-related MACE through 3 years.
“We’ll have to see if these benefits extend to longer-term follow-up up to 5 years,” he said.
He deemed his study results “fairly consistent” with those of the ISCHEMIA trial, where ischemic events in the patients with SIHD assigned to an initial invasive strategy continued to occur in the latter years of follow-up without any clear plateau effect (N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 9;382[15]:1395-407).
Dr. Madhavan reported no financial conflicts regarding his study, funded by an institutional research grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Shortly following Dr. Madhavan’s presentation at ACC 2020, the study results were published online (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr;13[4[:e008565. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008565).
SOURCE: Madhavan MV. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-10.
Patients with stable ischemic heart disease remain at substantial risk for major adverse cardiovascular events 1-5 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contemporary second-generation drug-eluting stents, according to a pooled analysis of long-term follow-up data on 10,987 patients in 19 prospective, randomized, head-to-head metallic stent trials.
The analysis showed that, although most major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred during the first year after stenting, no plateau in MACE was reached between years 1 and 5, Mahesh V. Madhavan, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms of late events and whether improvements in stent technology, revascularization technique, and adjunctive therapies may improve outcomes in patients with SIHD [stable ischemic heart disease],” said Dr. Madhavan, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital.
This post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient-level data from 19 randomized trials included 10,987 metallic stent recipients with SIHD. Sixty-one percent got second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), 25% received first-generation DES, and 15% got bare metal stents (BMS). The largest prospective head-to-head RCT was SPIRIT IV, with 2,130 patients. All five TAXUS trials were also included.
The 5-year rate of the primary composite MACE endpoint composed of cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was 24.1% in patients with BMS stents, 17.9% with first-gen DES, and 13.4% with second-gen DES, reflecting the advances in stent technology over time. Most of these MACE events occurred during the first year after PCI, with rates of 18%, 8.6%, and 5.3%, respectively, in the three groups. However, the MACE rate beyond the first year out through year 5 remained substantial: 10.2% with first-gen DES, 8.5% with second-gen DES, and 7.4% in the BMS group.
The cardiac death rate from PCI through year 5 was 3.8% with second-gen DES, 3.6% with first-gen DES, and 3.3% with BMS. The MI rate was 7.7% with first-gen DES, 6.1% with BMS, and 5% with second-gen DES.
Stent thrombosis occurred during the first year in 0.9% of first-gen DES and BMS recipients and in 0.7% of patients with second-gen DES. During years 1-5, the rates were 1.6% with first-gen DES, 0.9% with second-gen devices, and 0.2% with BMS.
Second-gen DES provided a big advantage in terms of lessened need for ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization through the first 5 years, with a rate of 7.3%, compared to 18.7% in patients with first-gen DES and 10.5% with BMS.
In a multivariate regression analysis, independent predictors of MACE in the first 5 years post PCI included indicators of greater lesion and/or procedural complexity, such as left main or left anterior descending disease, greater lesion length, and more than one treated lesion, as well as standard cardiovascular risk factors, including recent smoking, hypertension, and diabetes.
In contrast, hyperlipidemia was associated with a significant 15% reduction in MACE risk, which in an interview Dr. Madhavan said may have been due to aggressive lipid-lowering therapy, although he added that this is conjecture because he and his coinvestigators didn’t have access to data on the use of guideline-directed medical therapy or antiplatelet regimens.
Asked about future prospects for reducing the substantial very late risk of MACE highlighted in his study, Dr. Madhavan cited the use of adjunctive imaging during PCI as promising.
“The currently enrolling ILUMEN IV trial, among other studies, will help determine whether imaging-guided intervention can help improve intermediate and long-term rates of MACE,” he observed.
Promising medical therapies that could potentially confer benefit in terms of reducing long-term MACE in patients who’ve undergone PCI for SIHD include novel lipid-lowering drugs, tailored antithrombotic strategies, new anti-inflammatory agents, and the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Madhavan continued.
In terms of advances in stent design, he cited recent evidence that ultrathin-strut stents featuring bioresorbable polymer, such as the Orsiro stent, may reduce late stent-related MACE through 3 years.
“We’ll have to see if these benefits extend to longer-term follow-up up to 5 years,” he said.
He deemed his study results “fairly consistent” with those of the ISCHEMIA trial, where ischemic events in the patients with SIHD assigned to an initial invasive strategy continued to occur in the latter years of follow-up without any clear plateau effect (N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 9;382[15]:1395-407).
Dr. Madhavan reported no financial conflicts regarding his study, funded by an institutional research grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Shortly following Dr. Madhavan’s presentation at ACC 2020, the study results were published online (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr;13[4[:e008565. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008565).
SOURCE: Madhavan MV. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-10.
Patients with stable ischemic heart disease remain at substantial risk for major adverse cardiovascular events 1-5 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contemporary second-generation drug-eluting stents, according to a pooled analysis of long-term follow-up data on 10,987 patients in 19 prospective, randomized, head-to-head metallic stent trials.
The analysis showed that, although most major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred during the first year after stenting, no plateau in MACE was reached between years 1 and 5, Mahesh V. Madhavan, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms of late events and whether improvements in stent technology, revascularization technique, and adjunctive therapies may improve outcomes in patients with SIHD [stable ischemic heart disease],” said Dr. Madhavan, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital.
This post hoc analysis of pooled individual patient-level data from 19 randomized trials included 10,987 metallic stent recipients with SIHD. Sixty-one percent got second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), 25% received first-generation DES, and 15% got bare metal stents (BMS). The largest prospective head-to-head RCT was SPIRIT IV, with 2,130 patients. All five TAXUS trials were also included.
The 5-year rate of the primary composite MACE endpoint composed of cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was 24.1% in patients with BMS stents, 17.9% with first-gen DES, and 13.4% with second-gen DES, reflecting the advances in stent technology over time. Most of these MACE events occurred during the first year after PCI, with rates of 18%, 8.6%, and 5.3%, respectively, in the three groups. However, the MACE rate beyond the first year out through year 5 remained substantial: 10.2% with first-gen DES, 8.5% with second-gen DES, and 7.4% in the BMS group.
The cardiac death rate from PCI through year 5 was 3.8% with second-gen DES, 3.6% with first-gen DES, and 3.3% with BMS. The MI rate was 7.7% with first-gen DES, 6.1% with BMS, and 5% with second-gen DES.
Stent thrombosis occurred during the first year in 0.9% of first-gen DES and BMS recipients and in 0.7% of patients with second-gen DES. During years 1-5, the rates were 1.6% with first-gen DES, 0.9% with second-gen devices, and 0.2% with BMS.
Second-gen DES provided a big advantage in terms of lessened need for ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization through the first 5 years, with a rate of 7.3%, compared to 18.7% in patients with first-gen DES and 10.5% with BMS.
In a multivariate regression analysis, independent predictors of MACE in the first 5 years post PCI included indicators of greater lesion and/or procedural complexity, such as left main or left anterior descending disease, greater lesion length, and more than one treated lesion, as well as standard cardiovascular risk factors, including recent smoking, hypertension, and diabetes.
In contrast, hyperlipidemia was associated with a significant 15% reduction in MACE risk, which in an interview Dr. Madhavan said may have been due to aggressive lipid-lowering therapy, although he added that this is conjecture because he and his coinvestigators didn’t have access to data on the use of guideline-directed medical therapy or antiplatelet regimens.
Asked about future prospects for reducing the substantial very late risk of MACE highlighted in his study, Dr. Madhavan cited the use of adjunctive imaging during PCI as promising.
“The currently enrolling ILUMEN IV trial, among other studies, will help determine whether imaging-guided intervention can help improve intermediate and long-term rates of MACE,” he observed.
Promising medical therapies that could potentially confer benefit in terms of reducing long-term MACE in patients who’ve undergone PCI for SIHD include novel lipid-lowering drugs, tailored antithrombotic strategies, new anti-inflammatory agents, and the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Madhavan continued.
In terms of advances in stent design, he cited recent evidence that ultrathin-strut stents featuring bioresorbable polymer, such as the Orsiro stent, may reduce late stent-related MACE through 3 years.
“We’ll have to see if these benefits extend to longer-term follow-up up to 5 years,” he said.
He deemed his study results “fairly consistent” with those of the ISCHEMIA trial, where ischemic events in the patients with SIHD assigned to an initial invasive strategy continued to occur in the latter years of follow-up without any clear plateau effect (N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 9;382[15]:1395-407).
Dr. Madhavan reported no financial conflicts regarding his study, funded by an institutional research grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Shortly following Dr. Madhavan’s presentation at ACC 2020, the study results were published online (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr;13[4[:e008565. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008565).
SOURCE: Madhavan MV. ACC 2020, Abstract 909-10.
FROM ACC 20
Survey: Hydroxychloroquine use fairly common in COVID-19
One of five physicians in front-line treatment roles has prescribed hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, according to a new survey from health care market research company InCrowd.
The most common treatments were acetaminophen, prescribed to 82% of patients, antibiotics (41%), and bronchodilators (40%), InCrowd said after surveying 203 primary care physicians, pediatricians, and emergency medicine or critical care physicians who are treating at least 20 patients with flulike symptoms.
On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine outside of hospitals and clinical trials.
The InCrowd survey, which took place April 14-15 and is the fourth in a series investigating COVID-19’s impact on physicians, showed that access to testing was up to 82% in mid-April, compared with 67% in March and 20% in late February. The April respondents also were twice as likely (59% vs. 24% in March) to say that their facilities were prepared to treat patients, InCrowd reported.
“U.S. physicians report sluggish optimism around preparedness, safety, and institutional efforts, while many worry about the future, including a second outbreak and job security,” the company said in a separate written statement.
The average estimate for a return to normal was just over 6 months among respondents, and only 28% believed that their facility was prepared for a second outbreak later in the year, InCrowd noted.
On a personal level, 45% of the respondents were concerned about the safety of their job. An emergency/critical care physician from Tennessee said, “We’ve been cutting back on staff due to overall revenue reductions, but have increased acuity and complexity which requires more staffing. This puts even more of a burden on those of us still here.”
Support for institutional responses to slow the pandemic was strongest for state governments, which gained approval from 54% of front-line physicians, up from 33% in March. Actions taken by the federal government were supported by 21% of respondents, compared with 38% for the World Health Organization and 46% for governments outside the United States, InCrowd reported.
Suggestions for further actions by state and local authorities included this comment from an emergency/critical care physician in Florida: “Continued, broad and properly enforced stay at home and social distancing measures MUST remain in place to keep citizens and healthcare workers safe, and the latter alive and in adequate supply.”
One of five physicians in front-line treatment roles has prescribed hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, according to a new survey from health care market research company InCrowd.
The most common treatments were acetaminophen, prescribed to 82% of patients, antibiotics (41%), and bronchodilators (40%), InCrowd said after surveying 203 primary care physicians, pediatricians, and emergency medicine or critical care physicians who are treating at least 20 patients with flulike symptoms.
On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine outside of hospitals and clinical trials.
The InCrowd survey, which took place April 14-15 and is the fourth in a series investigating COVID-19’s impact on physicians, showed that access to testing was up to 82% in mid-April, compared with 67% in March and 20% in late February. The April respondents also were twice as likely (59% vs. 24% in March) to say that their facilities were prepared to treat patients, InCrowd reported.
“U.S. physicians report sluggish optimism around preparedness, safety, and institutional efforts, while many worry about the future, including a second outbreak and job security,” the company said in a separate written statement.
The average estimate for a return to normal was just over 6 months among respondents, and only 28% believed that their facility was prepared for a second outbreak later in the year, InCrowd noted.
On a personal level, 45% of the respondents were concerned about the safety of their job. An emergency/critical care physician from Tennessee said, “We’ve been cutting back on staff due to overall revenue reductions, but have increased acuity and complexity which requires more staffing. This puts even more of a burden on those of us still here.”
Support for institutional responses to slow the pandemic was strongest for state governments, which gained approval from 54% of front-line physicians, up from 33% in March. Actions taken by the federal government were supported by 21% of respondents, compared with 38% for the World Health Organization and 46% for governments outside the United States, InCrowd reported.
Suggestions for further actions by state and local authorities included this comment from an emergency/critical care physician in Florida: “Continued, broad and properly enforced stay at home and social distancing measures MUST remain in place to keep citizens and healthcare workers safe, and the latter alive and in adequate supply.”
One of five physicians in front-line treatment roles has prescribed hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, according to a new survey from health care market research company InCrowd.
The most common treatments were acetaminophen, prescribed to 82% of patients, antibiotics (41%), and bronchodilators (40%), InCrowd said after surveying 203 primary care physicians, pediatricians, and emergency medicine or critical care physicians who are treating at least 20 patients with flulike symptoms.
On April 24, the Food and Drug Administration warned against the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine outside of hospitals and clinical trials.
The InCrowd survey, which took place April 14-15 and is the fourth in a series investigating COVID-19’s impact on physicians, showed that access to testing was up to 82% in mid-April, compared with 67% in March and 20% in late February. The April respondents also were twice as likely (59% vs. 24% in March) to say that their facilities were prepared to treat patients, InCrowd reported.
“U.S. physicians report sluggish optimism around preparedness, safety, and institutional efforts, while many worry about the future, including a second outbreak and job security,” the company said in a separate written statement.
The average estimate for a return to normal was just over 6 months among respondents, and only 28% believed that their facility was prepared for a second outbreak later in the year, InCrowd noted.
On a personal level, 45% of the respondents were concerned about the safety of their job. An emergency/critical care physician from Tennessee said, “We’ve been cutting back on staff due to overall revenue reductions, but have increased acuity and complexity which requires more staffing. This puts even more of a burden on those of us still here.”
Support for institutional responses to slow the pandemic was strongest for state governments, which gained approval from 54% of front-line physicians, up from 33% in March. Actions taken by the federal government were supported by 21% of respondents, compared with 38% for the World Health Organization and 46% for governments outside the United States, InCrowd reported.
Suggestions for further actions by state and local authorities included this comment from an emergency/critical care physician in Florida: “Continued, broad and properly enforced stay at home and social distancing measures MUST remain in place to keep citizens and healthcare workers safe, and the latter alive and in adequate supply.”