Neurology

Vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia may help protect against Alzheimer’s disease,  two large observational studies suggest.

In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.

In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.

The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.

The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence

The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.

Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.

Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.

Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.

One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.

Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.

Pneumonia vaccine

The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.

In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.

Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.

“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.

The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.

Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.

Brain protective?

“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.

The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.

Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia may help protect against Alzheimer’s disease,  two large observational studies suggest.

In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.

In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.

The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.

The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence

The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.

Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.

Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.

Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.

One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.

Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.

Pneumonia vaccine

The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.

In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.

Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.

“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.

The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.

Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.

Brain protective?

“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.

The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.

Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Vaccinations against influenza and pneumonia may help protect against Alzheimer’s disease,  two large observational studies suggest.

In a cohort study of more than 9,000 older adults, receiving a single influenza vaccination was associated with a 17% lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease compared with not receiving the vaccine. In addition, for those who were vaccinated more than once over the years, there was an additional 13% reduction in Alzheimer’s disease incidence.

In another study, which included more than 5,000 older participants, being vaccinated against pneumonia between the ages of 65 and 75 reduced the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 30%.

The subject of vaccines “is obviously very topical with the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. “While these are very preliminary data, these studies do suggest that with vaccination against both respiratory illnesses, there is the potential to lower risk for developing cognitive decline and dementia,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved in the research.

The findings of both studies were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Lower Alzheimer’s disease prevalence

The influenza vaccine study was presented by Albert Amran, a fourth-year medical student at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. The researchers used electronic health record data to create a propensity-matched cohort of 9,066 vaccinated and unvaccinated adults ages 60 and older.

Influenza vaccination, increased frequency of administration, and younger age at time of vaccination were all associated with reduced incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr. Amran reported.

Being vaccinated for influenza was significantly linked to a lower prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.83; P < .0001) in comparison with not being vaccinated. Receiving more than one vaccination over the years was associated with an additional reduction in AD incidence (OR, 0.87; P = .0342). The protection appeared to be strongest for those who received their first vaccination at a younger age, for example, at age 60 versus 70.

Mr. Amran and research colleagues have two theories as to why influenza vaccination may protect the brain.

One is that vaccination may aid the immune system as people age. “As people get older, their immune systems become less able to control infection. We’ve seen this with the ongoing pandemic, with older people at much higher risk for dying. Giving people the vaccine once a year may help keep the immune system in shape,” Mr. Amran said.

Another theory is that the prevention of influenza itself may be relevant. “Flu infections can be extremely deadly in older patients. Maybe the results of our study will give another reason for people to get vaccinated,” Mr. Amran said.

Pneumonia vaccine

The other study was presented by Svetlana Ukraintseva, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Ukraintseva and colleagues investigated associations between pneumococcal vaccine, with and without an accompanying influenza vaccine, and the risk for Alzheimer’s disease among 5,146 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Covariates included sex, race, birth cohort, education, smoking, and a known genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: the rs2075650 G allele in the TOMM40 gene.

In a logistic model with all covariates, vaccination against pneumonia between ages 65 and 75 was significantly associated with reduced risk of developing AD (OR, 0.70; P < .04). The largest reduction in Alzheimer’s disease risk (OR, 0.62; P < .04) was among those vaccinated against pneumonia who were noncarriers of the rs2075650 G allele.

Total number of vaccinations against pneumonia and influenza between ages 65 and 75 was also associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease (OR, 0.88; P < .01). However, the effect was not evident for the influenza vaccination alone.

“The fact that very different pathogens – viral, bacterial, fungal – have been linked to Alzheimer’s disease indicates a possibility that compromised host immunity may play a role in Alzheimer’s disease through increasing overall brain’s vulnerability to various microbes,” said Dr. Ukraintseva.

The current findings support further investigation of pneumococcal vaccine as a “reasonable candidate for repurposing in personalized AD prevention,” she noted. “These results also support the important role of boosting overall immune robustness/resilience in preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Ukraintseva added.

Her group is currently working on confirming the findings in another population.

Brain protective?

“Neither study can prove that the benefit is directly related to the vaccine itself, but what they can indicate is that potentially, vaccines are a way to protect your health and brain,” Dr. Edelmayer said.

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that more research is needed.

The new data call “for further studies in large, diverse clinical trials to inform whether vaccinations as a public health strategy decrease our risk for developing dementia as we age,” Dr. Carillo said.

Funding for the influenza vaccine study was provided by the Christopher Sarofim Family Professorship in Biomedical Informatics and Bioengineering, a UT STARs Award, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and the National Institutes of Health. Funding for the pneumonia study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Amran, Dr. Ukraintseva, Dr. Edelmayer, and Dr. Carrillo have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

From the Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery are at high risk for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). Early ambulation has been encouraged to lower rates of VTE, but evidence demonstrating its effectiveness outside of a bundle is limited.

Objective: To create a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol in an effort to reduce postoperative VTE.

Methods: A single-center, retrospective, comparative study of patients who underwent colectomy or proctectomy was conducted. Outcomes of patients operated on prior to protocol implementation were compared with a cohort after implementation. The intervention studied was the implementation of a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol. The primary endpoint was postoperative VTE.

Results: There was no difference between the pre-intervention group (n = 1762) and the postintervention group (n = 253) in terms of sex, race, origin, emergency status, operative time, and the majority of medical comorbidities (with the exception of smoking status and congestive heart failure). After the protocol was implemented, ambulation rates on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2 improved from 36.4%, 47.3%, and 50.2% to 36.8%, 74.7%, and 82.6%, respectively The VTE rate in the pre-intervention group was 2.7% versus a rate of 0.4% in the postintervention group (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: Creation of an ambulation protocol is associated with a significant reduction in VTE. Commitment from patients, families, nurses, physician extenders, and physicians is critical to the success of the program.

Keywords: VTE; pulmonary embolism; deep vein thrombosis; postoperative; quality improvement.

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost.^1,2 Colorectal surgery patients are at particularly high risk for VTE due to positioning during surgery, pelvic dissection, and other conditions often found in these patients, such as cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.³ A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis demonstrated an overall rate of VTE in colorectal surgery patients of 2.4%, although other studies have demonstrated rates up to 9%, even in those receiving appropriate chemoprophylaxis.^4-6 Many of these VTEs occur in the postdischarge setting. In a NSQIP study of colorectal surgery patients, the rate of VTE between discharge and 30 days was 0.47%.⁷ The cost burdenfor a postoperative VTE has been estimated to be more than $18,000.⁸

Studies from NSQIP have identified multiple factors associated with VTE in colorectal surgery patients, but NSQIP does not record ambulation as a standard variable.⁹ Multiple strategies have been implemented to reduce postoperative VTE. Often, these studies focus on increasing compliance with appropriate chemoprophylaxis, risk stratification, or bundling multiple strategies.^10,11 However, despite the fact that postsurgical ambulation is widely encouraged and recommended by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines, there is little evidence demonstrating the role of ambulation alone in the reduction of VTE.^4,12 The purpose of this study was to create a multidisciplinary protocol to increase postoperative ambulation and evaluate its effect on VTE.

Methods

Setting

This study was conducted at a single academic tertiary care center.

Patients and Outcome Measures

All patients undergoing colectomy or proctectomy by surgeons in the section of colon and rectal surgery at a single institution between January 2011 and March 2017 were included. Colectomy and proctectomy were defined by CPT codes 44140, 44141, 44143, 44144, 44145, 44146, 44147, 44150, 44151, 44155, 44156, 44157, 44158, 44160, 44204, 44205, 44206, 44207, 44208, 44210, 44211, 44212, 44213, 45110, 45111, 45112, 45113, 45114, 45116, 45119, 45120, 45121, 45123, 45126, 45160, 45395, and 45397. The primary outcome of VTE within 30 days, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), was measured using institution-specific data from NSQIP in both the pre-intervention and postintervention setting. The occurrence of both DVT and PE in 1 patient was counted as a single event of VTE. Ambulation rate on postoperative day (POD) 0, 1, and 2 was calculated by NSQIP in the pre-intervention setting (our institution-specific NSQIP recorded ambulation data for an unrelated project) and by review of the electronic health record in the postintervention setting, as this institution-specific variable was no longer being collected. Ambulation was defined as getting out of bed and taking at least 1 step. The threshold for ambulating each day was once on POD 0 and twice on PODs 1 and 2. Patients with missing ambulation data were excluded from the analysis. Both prior to and throughout the intervention, all patients were given VTE chemoprophylaxis with either low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin prior to induction of anesthesia, with chemoprophylaxis extending an additional 21 days after discharge (unless specifically contraindicated); sequential compression devices; and standard orders to ambulate 3 times daily from POD 0 as part of the standard Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol.

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using univariate analysis. Chi-square test and univariate logistic regression were used to determine the association between ambulation rates and VTE in the pre-intervention group. Chi-square test was also used to compare ambulation and VTE rates between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle fidelity (the degree to which a PDSA cycle is carried out in accordance with the guiding principles of its use) was measured by recording the ambulation rates both before and after the intervention.¹³ Statistical analysis was performed using SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). This study was reviewed by the Washington University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board and deemed to be quality improvement, not human subjects research, and therefore did not require formal approval.

 

 

Baseline Outcome Rates

A total of 1762 patients were identified during the pre-intervention period. The overall VTE rate in the pre-intervention group was 2.7% (n = 48), with 39 DVTs (2.2%) and 13 PEs (0.7%). Pre-intervention ambulation data were available on 590 patients. Baseline ambulation rates on PODs 0, 1, and 2 were 36.4% (213/590), 47.3% (279/590), and 50.2% (296/590), respectively. Patients who did not ambulate on POD 0 had a VTE rate of 4.3%, as compared to 0.9% in those who did ambulate (Table 1). Patients who did not ambulate twice on POD 1 had a VTE rate of 4.8%, compared to 1.1% in those who did ambulate (odds ratio [OR], 4.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 16.28). Patients who did not ambulate twice on POD 2 had a VTE rate of 5.4%, compared to 0.7% in those who did. Finally, those who ambulated twice on both PODs 1 and 2 had a 0% rate of VTE, compared to 4.9% in those who did not ambulate on both PODs.

Ambulation Protocol

After baseline outcome rates had been established, a multidisciplinary team of medical assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians worked together to identify all processes that involved postoperative ambulation. Given the significant differences in VTE rates between patients who ambulated and those that did not, we created a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol using the PDSA method.¹⁴ Multiple points of patient contact were chosen for intervention, and the ambulation protocol was implemented in June 2018 and continued for 7 months.

Patients were observed from their initial office visit with a surgeon, during the preoperative education encounter, and in the operating room and on the surgical ward until discharge. Representatives from multiple disciplines who encountered patients at various times in the process, including medical assistants, patient care technicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and physicians, participated in a kick-off meeting to identify difficulties they encounter when encouraging patient ambulation. The following 4 areas were identified.

Barriers to Patient Ambulation

Patient Expectations. Patients did not appear to have a clear expectation of what their ambulation goals were postoperatively, despite the fact that each patient is given an operative pathway booklet that includes their goals for each day, including ambulation. The consensus was that patients were overwhelmed with the amount of information and, oftentimes, the severity of their diagnosis, so the information regarding ambulation was not retained. Nurses commented that patients frequently stated that they did not think their surgeon wanted them to get out of bed postoperatively.

Electronic Orders. There was confusion within the nursing staff regarding orders in the electronic health record compared to physician expectations. Orders stated patients should ambulate 3 times daily, but did not specify on which postoperative day this should start. Often, nursing verbal sign-out from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) would be an order for bedrest, despite no clear origin of this order. This created confusion among the nursing staff as to what the appropriate ambulation orders should be.

Nursing Workflow. The initial state of the nursing workflow was not conducive to evaluating for, or assisting with, ambulation. With no set time to assist and evaluate patients for ambulation, it turned into a task nurses needed to accomplish when they had extra time. With increasing demands of charting in the electronic health record, nurses often had to skip ambulation in order to accomplish other tasks.

Family Expectations. In addition to patient expectations, family members often had expectations that were not congruent with the planned postoperative course. Nurses stated family members would often tell them that they did not feel that their family member should be ambulating so soon after surgery. Often these family members had not attended preoperative education sessions with the patient. This was compounded by the uncertainty among the nursing staff regarding what exactly the ambulation orders were.

Interventions

Targeted interventions were created to address these 4 barriers to ambulation identified by staff.

Preoperative Education. Although all elective patients received a printed operative pathway booklet describing daily goals, including ambulation, patients still did not have a sufficient understanding of what was expected of them. The education session was modified to increase the time spent on both the expectation for and the rationale behind ambulation. That section of the education session ended with a verbal commitment and read-back of the expectations for ambulation by the patient.

Clarification of Electronic Orders. Postoperative orders within the colorectal standard pathway were changed, including specific time frames and frequency, to match the information provided in the patient education booklet. These orders were for ambulation within 4 hours of arrival to the floor, and the orders also noted that no patient should be on bedrest unless explicitly stated. From POD 1, all patients were to ambulate at least twice daily for the remainder of the hospital stay (patients were encouraged to walk 4 times daily, but we set a minimum expectation of twice daily for the order set). These orders were clarified with in-person meetings with the nursing staff and leadership from the PACU and the colorectal surgical ward.

Adjusted Nursing Workflow. Nurses were interviewed and asked to create a plan regarding how they could better incorporate ambulation into their daily workflow. Ambulation assessment was incorporated into the twice-per-shift recording of vital signs and patient safety assessment. This was recorded into the electronic health record at the same time as the patients’ vital signs. This allowed nurses to keep track of which patients would need extra assistance in ambulation and which patients were doing well on their own with the assistance of family. It also helped focus the resources of physical therapy and the single ambulation technician on the floor and to assist patients who needed more assistance.

Creation of Ambulation Encouragement Signs. The authors discovered that despite patients being told preoperatively about ambulation expectations, friends and family are not always included in these conversations. As nurses frequently cited both patients and family as reasons patients thought they should not walk, multiple signs inviting patients to take an active role in their recovery by ambulating were created and placed around the unit. The signs outlined the expectations of being out of bed and taking at least 1 step on the day of surgery and walking at least 4 times per day thereafter. In addition, we addressed frequently asked questions around issues such as walking with intravenous poles and urinary catheters. The posters were signed by all staff colorectal surgeons.

Results

Over the course of 7 months (June 2018 to December 2018), 253 postintervention patients were identified (Table 2). There was no difference between the pre-intervention group (n = 1762) and the postintervention group in terms of sex, race, origin, emergency status, operative time, and the majority of medical comorbidities (with the exception of smoking status and congestive heart failure). The postintervention group was slightly older (60 versus 57 years) and had a higher percentage of patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score greater than 2 (66.8% versus 51.2%). The postintervention group also had higher rates of both malignancy (53.4% versus 33.3%) and inflammatory bowel disease (18.2% versus 14.4%).

The fidelity of the PDSA cycle was measured by pre-intervention and postintervention ambulation rates. Ambulation rates on POD 0, 1, and 2 improved from 36.4%, 47.3%, and 50.2% to 36.8%, 74.7%, and 82.6%, respectively (Table 3). The VTE rate decreased from 2.7% to 0.4% (P = 0.02), with 1 DVT and 0 PEs. It should be noted that the only patient who developed a VTE postintervention did not ambulate on PODs 0, 1, or 2.

Discussion

Postoperative VTE is a severe complication for postoperative colorectal surgery patients. Previous studies have demonstrated that increasing ambulation is associated with a lower rate of overall complications, and, when incorporated into a bundle, is associated with decreased rates of VTE.^11,15 However, this is the first study to our knowledge demonstrating that creation of an ambulation protocol alone is associated with a decrease in VTE.

Analysis of pre-intervention data demonstrated a strong association between ambulation and an absence of VTE. No patient who ambulated on PODs 0, 1, and 2 developed a VTE. Based on those results, we moved forward with creating the ambulation protocol. While ambulation stayed stable on POD 0, there were 60% and 65% increases on PODs 1 and 2, respectively. Nurses cited late arrival to the floor for second and third start cases as the primary difficulty in getting patients to ambulate more on POD 0.

We believe the key to the success of the ambulation protocol was its multidisciplinary nature. Certainly, the easiest way to create an ambulation protocol is to change the postoperative orders to state patients must walk 4 times per day. However, if the nursing staff is unable or unwilling to carry out these orders, the orders serve little purpose. In order to make lasting changes, all stakeholders in the process must be identified. In our case, stakeholders included surgery and nursing leadership, surgeons, nurse practitioners, nurses, medical assistants, physical therapists, patient care technicians, and patients. This is where we utilized kaizen, a core principle of Lean methodology that empowers employees at the level of the work being carried out to propose ideas for improvement.¹⁶ From the beginning of the patient experience, the health care practitioners who were carrying out each step of the process were best able to identify the problems and create solutions. In addition, stakeholders were given regular updates regarding how their efforts were increasing ambulation rates and the results at the end of the study period.

This study also demonstrates that, in a health care system increasingly focused on both quality and cost, significant improvements in quality can be made without increasing cost or resource utilization. Early in the process, it was proposed that the only way to increase the ambulation rate would be to increase the number of physical therapists, nurses, and nursing assistants. However, after identifying the root causes of the problem, the solutions had more to do with improving workflow and fixing problem areas identified by the staff.

In addition to having a positive effect on the outcome studied, collaborative projects such as this between physicians and nurses may lead to increased nursing job satisfaction. A meta-analysis of 31 studies identified nurse-physician collaboration and autonomy as 2 factors that correlate most strongly with nursing satisfaction.¹⁷ A Cochrane review also suggests that practice-based interprofessional collaboration may lead to improved health care processes and outcomes.¹⁸

This study has several limitations. Pre-intervention ambulation rates were abstracted from institution-specific NSQIP data, and missing data were excluded from analysis. Also, due to the retrospective collection of the pre-intervention data, the distance of ambulation could not be quantified. The bar for ambulation is low, as patients were only required to get out of bed and walk 1 step. However, we feel that getting out of bed and taking even 1 step is substantially better than complete bedrest. It is likely that once patients cross the threshold of taking 1 step, they are more likely to ambulate. An area of future study may be to more precisely define the relationship between the quantity of ambulation in steps and its effect on VTE. Finally, we acknowledge that while there is no direct increase in costs, implementing an ambulation protocol does take time from all who participate in the project.

Conclusion

Creation of an ambulation protocol is associated with a decrease in postoperative VTE rates in colorectal surgery patients. A multidisciplinary approach is critical to identify the underlying problems and propose effective solutions. Further studies are required to better correlate the distance of ambulation and its effect on VTE. However, this study shows that even a minimum of 1 step is associated with decreased VTE rates.

Corresponding author: Aneel Damle, MD, MBA, Colon & Rectal Surgery Associates, 3433 Broadway St. NE, Suite 115, Minneapolis, MN 55413; adamle@CRSAL.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery are at high risk for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). Early ambulation has been encouraged to lower rates of VTE, but evidence demonstrating its effectiveness outside of a bundle is limited.

Objective: To create a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol in an effort to reduce postoperative VTE.

Methods: A single-center, retrospective, comparative study of patients who underwent colectomy or proctectomy was conducted. Outcomes of patients operated on prior to protocol implementation were compared with a cohort after implementation. The intervention studied was the implementation of a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol. The primary endpoint was postoperative VTE.

Results: There was no difference between the pre-intervention group (n = 1762) and the postintervention group (n = 253) in terms of sex, race, origin, emergency status, operative time, and the majority of medical comorbidities (with the exception of smoking status and congestive heart failure). After the protocol was implemented, ambulation rates on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2 improved from 36.4%, 47.3%, and 50.2% to 36.8%, 74.7%, and 82.6%, respectively The VTE rate in the pre-intervention group was 2.7% versus a rate of 0.4% in the postintervention group (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: Creation of an ambulation protocol is associated with a significant reduction in VTE. Commitment from patients, families, nurses, physician extenders, and physicians is critical to the success of the program.

Keywords: VTE; pulmonary embolism; deep vein thrombosis; postoperative; quality improvement.

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost.^1,2 Colorectal surgery patients are at particularly high risk for VTE due to positioning during surgery, pelvic dissection, and other conditions often found in these patients, such as cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.³ A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis demonstrated an overall rate of VTE in colorectal surgery patients of 2.4%, although other studies have demonstrated rates up to 9%, even in those receiving appropriate chemoprophylaxis.^4-6 Many of these VTEs occur in the postdischarge setting. In a NSQIP study of colorectal surgery patients, the rate of VTE between discharge and 30 days was 0.47%.⁷ The cost burdenfor a postoperative VTE has been estimated to be more than $18,000.⁸

Studies from NSQIP have identified multiple factors associated with VTE in colorectal surgery patients, but NSQIP does not record ambulation as a standard variable.⁹ Multiple strategies have been implemented to reduce postoperative VTE. Often, these studies focus on increasing compliance with appropriate chemoprophylaxis, risk stratification, or bundling multiple strategies.^10,11 However, despite the fact that postsurgical ambulation is widely encouraged and recommended by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines, there is little evidence demonstrating the role of ambulation alone in the reduction of VTE.^4,12 The purpose of this study was to create a multidisciplinary protocol to increase postoperative ambulation and evaluate its effect on VTE.

Methods

Setting

This study was conducted at a single academic tertiary care center.

Patients and Outcome Measures

All patients undergoing colectomy or proctectomy by surgeons in the section of colon and rectal surgery at a single institution between January 2011 and March 2017 were included. Colectomy and proctectomy were defined by CPT codes 44140, 44141, 44143, 44144, 44145, 44146, 44147, 44150, 44151, 44155, 44156, 44157, 44158, 44160, 44204, 44205, 44206, 44207, 44208, 44210, 44211, 44212, 44213, 45110, 45111, 45112, 45113, 45114, 45116, 45119, 45120, 45121, 45123, 45126, 45160, 45395, and 45397. The primary outcome of VTE within 30 days, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), was measured using institution-specific data from NSQIP in both the pre-intervention and postintervention setting. The occurrence of both DVT and PE in 1 patient was counted as a single event of VTE. Ambulation rate on postoperative day (POD) 0, 1, and 2 was calculated by NSQIP in the pre-intervention setting (our institution-specific NSQIP recorded ambulation data for an unrelated project) and by review of the electronic health record in the postintervention setting, as this institution-specific variable was no longer being collected. Ambulation was defined as getting out of bed and taking at least 1 step. The threshold for ambulating each day was once on POD 0 and twice on PODs 1 and 2. Patients with missing ambulation data were excluded from the analysis. Both prior to and throughout the intervention, all patients were given VTE chemoprophylaxis with either low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin prior to induction of anesthesia, with chemoprophylaxis extending an additional 21 days after discharge (unless specifically contraindicated); sequential compression devices; and standard orders to ambulate 3 times daily from POD 0 as part of the standard Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol.

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using univariate analysis. Chi-square test and univariate logistic regression were used to determine the association between ambulation rates and VTE in the pre-intervention group. Chi-square test was also used to compare ambulation and VTE rates between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle fidelity (the degree to which a PDSA cycle is carried out in accordance with the guiding principles of its use) was measured by recording the ambulation rates both before and after the intervention.¹³ Statistical analysis was performed using SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). This study was reviewed by the Washington University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board and deemed to be quality improvement, not human subjects research, and therefore did not require formal approval.

 

 

Baseline Outcome Rates

A total of 1762 patients were identified during the pre-intervention period. The overall VTE rate in the pre-intervention group was 2.7% (n = 48), with 39 DVTs (2.2%) and 13 PEs (0.7%). Pre-intervention ambulation data were available on 590 patients. Baseline ambulation rates on PODs 0, 1, and 2 were 36.4% (213/590), 47.3% (279/590), and 50.2% (296/590), respectively. Patients who did not ambulate on POD 0 had a VTE rate of 4.3%, as compared to 0.9% in those who did ambulate (Table 1). Patients who did not ambulate twice on POD 1 had a VTE rate of 4.8%, compared to 1.1% in those who did ambulate (odds ratio [OR], 4.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 16.28). Patients who did not ambulate twice on POD 2 had a VTE rate of 5.4%, compared to 0.7% in those who did. Finally, those who ambulated twice on both PODs 1 and 2 had a 0% rate of VTE, compared to 4.9% in those who did not ambulate on both PODs.

Ambulation Protocol

After baseline outcome rates had been established, a multidisciplinary team of medical assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians worked together to identify all processes that involved postoperative ambulation. Given the significant differences in VTE rates between patients who ambulated and those that did not, we created a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol using the PDSA method.¹⁴ Multiple points of patient contact were chosen for intervention, and the ambulation protocol was implemented in June 2018 and continued for 7 months.

Patients were observed from their initial office visit with a surgeon, during the preoperative education encounter, and in the operating room and on the surgical ward until discharge. Representatives from multiple disciplines who encountered patients at various times in the process, including medical assistants, patient care technicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and physicians, participated in a kick-off meeting to identify difficulties they encounter when encouraging patient ambulation. The following 4 areas were identified.

Barriers to Patient Ambulation

Patient Expectations. Patients did not appear to have a clear expectation of what their ambulation goals were postoperatively, despite the fact that each patient is given an operative pathway booklet that includes their goals for each day, including ambulation. The consensus was that patients were overwhelmed with the amount of information and, oftentimes, the severity of their diagnosis, so the information regarding ambulation was not retained. Nurses commented that patients frequently stated that they did not think their surgeon wanted them to get out of bed postoperatively.

Electronic Orders. There was confusion within the nursing staff regarding orders in the electronic health record compared to physician expectations. Orders stated patients should ambulate 3 times daily, but did not specify on which postoperative day this should start. Often, nursing verbal sign-out from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) would be an order for bedrest, despite no clear origin of this order. This created confusion among the nursing staff as to what the appropriate ambulation orders should be.

Nursing Workflow. The initial state of the nursing workflow was not conducive to evaluating for, or assisting with, ambulation. With no set time to assist and evaluate patients for ambulation, it turned into a task nurses needed to accomplish when they had extra time. With increasing demands of charting in the electronic health record, nurses often had to skip ambulation in order to accomplish other tasks.

Family Expectations. In addition to patient expectations, family members often had expectations that were not congruent with the planned postoperative course. Nurses stated family members would often tell them that they did not feel that their family member should be ambulating so soon after surgery. Often these family members had not attended preoperative education sessions with the patient. This was compounded by the uncertainty among the nursing staff regarding what exactly the ambulation orders were.

Interventions

Targeted interventions were created to address these 4 barriers to ambulation identified by staff.

Preoperative Education. Although all elective patients received a printed operative pathway booklet describing daily goals, including ambulation, patients still did not have a sufficient understanding of what was expected of them. The education session was modified to increase the time spent on both the expectation for and the rationale behind ambulation. That section of the education session ended with a verbal commitment and read-back of the expectations for ambulation by the patient.

Clarification of Electronic Orders. Postoperative orders within the colorectal standard pathway were changed, including specific time frames and frequency, to match the information provided in the patient education booklet. These orders were for ambulation within 4 hours of arrival to the floor, and the orders also noted that no patient should be on bedrest unless explicitly stated. From POD 1, all patients were to ambulate at least twice daily for the remainder of the hospital stay (patients were encouraged to walk 4 times daily, but we set a minimum expectation of twice daily for the order set). These orders were clarified with in-person meetings with the nursing staff and leadership from the PACU and the colorectal surgical ward.

Adjusted Nursing Workflow. Nurses were interviewed and asked to create a plan regarding how they could better incorporate ambulation into their daily workflow. Ambulation assessment was incorporated into the twice-per-shift recording of vital signs and patient safety assessment. This was recorded into the electronic health record at the same time as the patients’ vital signs. This allowed nurses to keep track of which patients would need extra assistance in ambulation and which patients were doing well on their own with the assistance of family. It also helped focus the resources of physical therapy and the single ambulation technician on the floor and to assist patients who needed more assistance.

Creation of Ambulation Encouragement Signs. The authors discovered that despite patients being told preoperatively about ambulation expectations, friends and family are not always included in these conversations. As nurses frequently cited both patients and family as reasons patients thought they should not walk, multiple signs inviting patients to take an active role in their recovery by ambulating were created and placed around the unit. The signs outlined the expectations of being out of bed and taking at least 1 step on the day of surgery and walking at least 4 times per day thereafter. In addition, we addressed frequently asked questions around issues such as walking with intravenous poles and urinary catheters. The posters were signed by all staff colorectal surgeons.

Results

Over the course of 7 months (June 2018 to December 2018), 253 postintervention patients were identified (Table 2). There was no difference between the pre-intervention group (n = 1762) and the postintervention group in terms of sex, race, origin, emergency status, operative time, and the majority of medical comorbidities (with the exception of smoking status and congestive heart failure). The postintervention group was slightly older (60 versus 57 years) and had a higher percentage of patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score greater than 2 (66.8% versus 51.2%). The postintervention group also had higher rates of both malignancy (53.4% versus 33.3%) and inflammatory bowel disease (18.2% versus 14.4%).

The fidelity of the PDSA cycle was measured by pre-intervention and postintervention ambulation rates. Ambulation rates on POD 0, 1, and 2 improved from 36.4%, 47.3%, and 50.2% to 36.8%, 74.7%, and 82.6%, respectively (Table 3). The VTE rate decreased from 2.7% to 0.4% (P = 0.02), with 1 DVT and 0 PEs. It should be noted that the only patient who developed a VTE postintervention did not ambulate on PODs 0, 1, or 2.

Discussion

Postoperative VTE is a severe complication for postoperative colorectal surgery patients. Previous studies have demonstrated that increasing ambulation is associated with a lower rate of overall complications, and, when incorporated into a bundle, is associated with decreased rates of VTE.^11,15 However, this is the first study to our knowledge demonstrating that creation of an ambulation protocol alone is associated with a decrease in VTE.

Analysis of pre-intervention data demonstrated a strong association between ambulation and an absence of VTE. No patient who ambulated on PODs 0, 1, and 2 developed a VTE. Based on those results, we moved forward with creating the ambulation protocol. While ambulation stayed stable on POD 0, there were 60% and 65% increases on PODs 1 and 2, respectively. Nurses cited late arrival to the floor for second and third start cases as the primary difficulty in getting patients to ambulate more on POD 0.

We believe the key to the success of the ambulation protocol was its multidisciplinary nature. Certainly, the easiest way to create an ambulation protocol is to change the postoperative orders to state patients must walk 4 times per day. However, if the nursing staff is unable or unwilling to carry out these orders, the orders serve little purpose. In order to make lasting changes, all stakeholders in the process must be identified. In our case, stakeholders included surgery and nursing leadership, surgeons, nurse practitioners, nurses, medical assistants, physical therapists, patient care technicians, and patients. This is where we utilized kaizen, a core principle of Lean methodology that empowers employees at the level of the work being carried out to propose ideas for improvement.¹⁶ From the beginning of the patient experience, the health care practitioners who were carrying out each step of the process were best able to identify the problems and create solutions. In addition, stakeholders were given regular updates regarding how their efforts were increasing ambulation rates and the results at the end of the study period.

This study also demonstrates that, in a health care system increasingly focused on both quality and cost, significant improvements in quality can be made without increasing cost or resource utilization. Early in the process, it was proposed that the only way to increase the ambulation rate would be to increase the number of physical therapists, nurses, and nursing assistants. However, after identifying the root causes of the problem, the solutions had more to do with improving workflow and fixing problem areas identified by the staff.

In addition to having a positive effect on the outcome studied, collaborative projects such as this between physicians and nurses may lead to increased nursing job satisfaction. A meta-analysis of 31 studies identified nurse-physician collaboration and autonomy as 2 factors that correlate most strongly with nursing satisfaction.¹⁷ A Cochrane review also suggests that practice-based interprofessional collaboration may lead to improved health care processes and outcomes.¹⁸

This study has several limitations. Pre-intervention ambulation rates were abstracted from institution-specific NSQIP data, and missing data were excluded from analysis. Also, due to the retrospective collection of the pre-intervention data, the distance of ambulation could not be quantified. The bar for ambulation is low, as patients were only required to get out of bed and walk 1 step. However, we feel that getting out of bed and taking even 1 step is substantially better than complete bedrest. It is likely that once patients cross the threshold of taking 1 step, they are more likely to ambulate. An area of future study may be to more precisely define the relationship between the quantity of ambulation in steps and its effect on VTE. Finally, we acknowledge that while there is no direct increase in costs, implementing an ambulation protocol does take time from all who participate in the project.

Conclusion

Creation of an ambulation protocol is associated with a decrease in postoperative VTE rates in colorectal surgery patients. A multidisciplinary approach is critical to identify the underlying problems and propose effective solutions. Further studies are required to better correlate the distance of ambulation and its effect on VTE. However, this study shows that even a minimum of 1 step is associated with decreased VTE rates.

Corresponding author: Aneel Damle, MD, MBA, Colon & Rectal Surgery Associates, 3433 Broadway St. NE, Suite 115, Minneapolis, MN 55413; adamle@CRSAL.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

Abstract

Background: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery are at high risk for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). Early ambulation has been encouraged to lower rates of VTE, but evidence demonstrating its effectiveness outside of a bundle is limited.

Objective: To create a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol in an effort to reduce postoperative VTE.

Methods: A single-center, retrospective, comparative study of patients who underwent colectomy or proctectomy was conducted. Outcomes of patients operated on prior to protocol implementation were compared with a cohort after implementation. The intervention studied was the implementation of a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol. The primary endpoint was postoperative VTE.

Results: There was no difference between the pre-intervention group (n = 1762) and the postintervention group (n = 253) in terms of sex, race, origin, emergency status, operative time, and the majority of medical comorbidities (with the exception of smoking status and congestive heart failure). After the protocol was implemented, ambulation rates on postoperative days 0, 1, and 2 improved from 36.4%, 47.3%, and 50.2% to 36.8%, 74.7%, and 82.6%, respectively The VTE rate in the pre-intervention group was 2.7% versus a rate of 0.4% in the postintervention group (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: Creation of an ambulation protocol is associated with a significant reduction in VTE. Commitment from patients, families, nurses, physician extenders, and physicians is critical to the success of the program.

Keywords: VTE; pulmonary embolism; deep vein thrombosis; postoperative; quality improvement.

Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost.^1,2 Colorectal surgery patients are at particularly high risk for VTE due to positioning during surgery, pelvic dissection, and other conditions often found in these patients, such as cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.³ A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis demonstrated an overall rate of VTE in colorectal surgery patients of 2.4%, although other studies have demonstrated rates up to 9%, even in those receiving appropriate chemoprophylaxis.^4-6 Many of these VTEs occur in the postdischarge setting. In a NSQIP study of colorectal surgery patients, the rate of VTE between discharge and 30 days was 0.47%.⁷ The cost burdenfor a postoperative VTE has been estimated to be more than $18,000.⁸

Studies from NSQIP have identified multiple factors associated with VTE in colorectal surgery patients, but NSQIP does not record ambulation as a standard variable.⁹ Multiple strategies have been implemented to reduce postoperative VTE. Often, these studies focus on increasing compliance with appropriate chemoprophylaxis, risk stratification, or bundling multiple strategies.^10,11 However, despite the fact that postsurgical ambulation is widely encouraged and recommended by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons clinical practice guidelines, there is little evidence demonstrating the role of ambulation alone in the reduction of VTE.^4,12 The purpose of this study was to create a multidisciplinary protocol to increase postoperative ambulation and evaluate its effect on VTE.

Methods

Setting

This study was conducted at a single academic tertiary care center.

Patients and Outcome Measures

All patients undergoing colectomy or proctectomy by surgeons in the section of colon and rectal surgery at a single institution between January 2011 and March 2017 were included. Colectomy and proctectomy were defined by CPT codes 44140, 44141, 44143, 44144, 44145, 44146, 44147, 44150, 44151, 44155, 44156, 44157, 44158, 44160, 44204, 44205, 44206, 44207, 44208, 44210, 44211, 44212, 44213, 45110, 45111, 45112, 45113, 45114, 45116, 45119, 45120, 45121, 45123, 45126, 45160, 45395, and 45397. The primary outcome of VTE within 30 days, including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), was measured using institution-specific data from NSQIP in both the pre-intervention and postintervention setting. The occurrence of both DVT and PE in 1 patient was counted as a single event of VTE. Ambulation rate on postoperative day (POD) 0, 1, and 2 was calculated by NSQIP in the pre-intervention setting (our institution-specific NSQIP recorded ambulation data for an unrelated project) and by review of the electronic health record in the postintervention setting, as this institution-specific variable was no longer being collected. Ambulation was defined as getting out of bed and taking at least 1 step. The threshold for ambulating each day was once on POD 0 and twice on PODs 1 and 2. Patients with missing ambulation data were excluded from the analysis. Both prior to and throughout the intervention, all patients were given VTE chemoprophylaxis with either low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin prior to induction of anesthesia, with chemoprophylaxis extending an additional 21 days after discharge (unless specifically contraindicated); sequential compression devices; and standard orders to ambulate 3 times daily from POD 0 as part of the standard Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol.

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using univariate analysis. Chi-square test and univariate logistic regression were used to determine the association between ambulation rates and VTE in the pre-intervention group. Chi-square test was also used to compare ambulation and VTE rates between the pre-intervention and postintervention groups. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle fidelity (the degree to which a PDSA cycle is carried out in accordance with the guiding principles of its use) was measured by recording the ambulation rates both before and after the intervention.¹³ Statistical analysis was performed using SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). This study was reviewed by the Washington University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board and deemed to be quality improvement, not human subjects research, and therefore did not require formal approval.

 

 

Baseline Outcome Rates

A total of 1762 patients were identified during the pre-intervention period. The overall VTE rate in the pre-intervention group was 2.7% (n = 48), with 39 DVTs (2.2%) and 13 PEs (0.7%). Pre-intervention ambulation data were available on 590 patients. Baseline ambulation rates on PODs 0, 1, and 2 were 36.4% (213/590), 47.3% (279/590), and 50.2% (296/590), respectively. Patients who did not ambulate on POD 0 had a VTE rate of 4.3%, as compared to 0.9% in those who did ambulate (Table 1). Patients who did not ambulate twice on POD 1 had a VTE rate of 4.8%, compared to 1.1% in those who did ambulate (odds ratio [OR], 4.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 16.28). Patients who did not ambulate twice on POD 2 had a VTE rate of 5.4%, compared to 0.7% in those who did. Finally, those who ambulated twice on both PODs 1 and 2 had a 0% rate of VTE, compared to 4.9% in those who did not ambulate on both PODs.

Ambulation Protocol

After baseline outcome rates had been established, a multidisciplinary team of medical assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians worked together to identify all processes that involved postoperative ambulation. Given the significant differences in VTE rates between patients who ambulated and those that did not, we created a multidisciplinary ambulation protocol using the PDSA method.¹⁴ Multiple points of patient contact were chosen for intervention, and the ambulation protocol was implemented in June 2018 and continued for 7 months.

Patients were observed from their initial office visit with a surgeon, during the preoperative education encounter, and in the operating room and on the surgical ward until discharge. Representatives from multiple disciplines who encountered patients at various times in the process, including medical assistants, patient care technicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and physicians, participated in a kick-off meeting to identify difficulties they encounter when encouraging patient ambulation. The following 4 areas were identified.

Barriers to Patient Ambulation

Patient Expectations. Patients did not appear to have a clear expectation of what their ambulation goals were postoperatively, despite the fact that each patient is given an operative pathway booklet that includes their goals for each day, including ambulation. The consensus was that patients were overwhelmed with the amount of information and, oftentimes, the severity of their diagnosis, so the information regarding ambulation was not retained. Nurses commented that patients frequently stated that they did not think their surgeon wanted them to get out of bed postoperatively.

Electronic Orders. There was confusion within the nursing staff regarding orders in the electronic health record compared to physician expectations. Orders stated patients should ambulate 3 times daily, but did not specify on which postoperative day this should start. Often, nursing verbal sign-out from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) would be an order for bedrest, despite no clear origin of this order. This created confusion among the nursing staff as to what the appropriate ambulation orders should be.

Nursing Workflow. The initial state of the nursing workflow was not conducive to evaluating for, or assisting with, ambulation. With no set time to assist and evaluate patients for ambulation, it turned into a task nurses needed to accomplish when they had extra time. With increasing demands of charting in the electronic health record, nurses often had to skip ambulation in order to accomplish other tasks.

Family Expectations. In addition to patient expectations, family members often had expectations that were not congruent with the planned postoperative course. Nurses stated family members would often tell them that they did not feel that their family member should be ambulating so soon after surgery. Often these family members had not attended preoperative education sessions with the patient. This was compounded by the uncertainty among the nursing staff regarding what exactly the ambulation orders were.

Interventions

Targeted interventions were created to address these 4 barriers to ambulation identified by staff.

Preoperative Education. Although all elective patients received a printed operative pathway booklet describing daily goals, including ambulation, patients still did not have a sufficient understanding of what was expected of them. The education session was modified to increase the time spent on both the expectation for and the rationale behind ambulation. That section of the education session ended with a verbal commitment and read-back of the expectations for ambulation by the patient.

Clarification of Electronic Orders. Postoperative orders within the colorectal standard pathway were changed, including specific time frames and frequency, to match the information provided in the patient education booklet. These orders were for ambulation within 4 hours of arrival to the floor, and the orders also noted that no patient should be on bedrest unless explicitly stated. From POD 1, all patients were to ambulate at least twice daily for the remainder of the hospital stay (patients were encouraged to walk 4 times daily, but we set a minimum expectation of twice daily for the order set). These orders were clarified with in-person meetings with the nursing staff and leadership from the PACU and the colorectal surgical ward.

Adjusted Nursing Workflow. Nurses were interviewed and asked to create a plan regarding how they could better incorporate ambulation into their daily workflow. Ambulation assessment was incorporated into the twice-per-shift recording of vital signs and patient safety assessment. This was recorded into the electronic health record at the same time as the patients’ vital signs. This allowed nurses to keep track of which patients would need extra assistance in ambulation and which patients were doing well on their own with the assistance of family. It also helped focus the resources of physical therapy and the single ambulation technician on the floor and to assist patients who needed more assistance.

Creation of Ambulation Encouragement Signs. The authors discovered that despite patients being told preoperatively about ambulation expectations, friends and family are not always included in these conversations. As nurses frequently cited both patients and family as reasons patients thought they should not walk, multiple signs inviting patients to take an active role in their recovery by ambulating were created and placed around the unit. The signs outlined the expectations of being out of bed and taking at least 1 step on the day of surgery and walking at least 4 times per day thereafter. In addition, we addressed frequently asked questions around issues such as walking with intravenous poles and urinary catheters. The posters were signed by all staff colorectal surgeons.

Results

Over the course of 7 months (June 2018 to December 2018), 253 postintervention patients were identified (Table 2). There was no difference between the pre-intervention group (n = 1762) and the postintervention group in terms of sex, race, origin, emergency status, operative time, and the majority of medical comorbidities (with the exception of smoking status and congestive heart failure). The postintervention group was slightly older (60 versus 57 years) and had a higher percentage of patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score greater than 2 (66.8% versus 51.2%). The postintervention group also had higher rates of both malignancy (53.4% versus 33.3%) and inflammatory bowel disease (18.2% versus 14.4%).

The fidelity of the PDSA cycle was measured by pre-intervention and postintervention ambulation rates. Ambulation rates on POD 0, 1, and 2 improved from 36.4%, 47.3%, and 50.2% to 36.8%, 74.7%, and 82.6%, respectively (Table 3). The VTE rate decreased from 2.7% to 0.4% (P = 0.02), with 1 DVT and 0 PEs. It should be noted that the only patient who developed a VTE postintervention did not ambulate on PODs 0, 1, or 2.

Discussion

Postoperative VTE is a severe complication for postoperative colorectal surgery patients. Previous studies have demonstrated that increasing ambulation is associated with a lower rate of overall complications, and, when incorporated into a bundle, is associated with decreased rates of VTE.^11,15 However, this is the first study to our knowledge demonstrating that creation of an ambulation protocol alone is associated with a decrease in VTE.

Analysis of pre-intervention data demonstrated a strong association between ambulation and an absence of VTE. No patient who ambulated on PODs 0, 1, and 2 developed a VTE. Based on those results, we moved forward with creating the ambulation protocol. While ambulation stayed stable on POD 0, there were 60% and 65% increases on PODs 1 and 2, respectively. Nurses cited late arrival to the floor for second and third start cases as the primary difficulty in getting patients to ambulate more on POD 0.

We believe the key to the success of the ambulation protocol was its multidisciplinary nature. Certainly, the easiest way to create an ambulation protocol is to change the postoperative orders to state patients must walk 4 times per day. However, if the nursing staff is unable or unwilling to carry out these orders, the orders serve little purpose. In order to make lasting changes, all stakeholders in the process must be identified. In our case, stakeholders included surgery and nursing leadership, surgeons, nurse practitioners, nurses, medical assistants, physical therapists, patient care technicians, and patients. This is where we utilized kaizen, a core principle of Lean methodology that empowers employees at the level of the work being carried out to propose ideas for improvement.¹⁶ From the beginning of the patient experience, the health care practitioners who were carrying out each step of the process were best able to identify the problems and create solutions. In addition, stakeholders were given regular updates regarding how their efforts were increasing ambulation rates and the results at the end of the study period.

This study also demonstrates that, in a health care system increasingly focused on both quality and cost, significant improvements in quality can be made without increasing cost or resource utilization. Early in the process, it was proposed that the only way to increase the ambulation rate would be to increase the number of physical therapists, nurses, and nursing assistants. However, after identifying the root causes of the problem, the solutions had more to do with improving workflow and fixing problem areas identified by the staff.

In addition to having a positive effect on the outcome studied, collaborative projects such as this between physicians and nurses may lead to increased nursing job satisfaction. A meta-analysis of 31 studies identified nurse-physician collaboration and autonomy as 2 factors that correlate most strongly with nursing satisfaction.¹⁷ A Cochrane review also suggests that practice-based interprofessional collaboration may lead to improved health care processes and outcomes.¹⁸

This study has several limitations. Pre-intervention ambulation rates were abstracted from institution-specific NSQIP data, and missing data were excluded from analysis. Also, due to the retrospective collection of the pre-intervention data, the distance of ambulation could not be quantified. The bar for ambulation is low, as patients were only required to get out of bed and walk 1 step. However, we feel that getting out of bed and taking even 1 step is substantially better than complete bedrest. It is likely that once patients cross the threshold of taking 1 step, they are more likely to ambulate. An area of future study may be to more precisely define the relationship between the quantity of ambulation in steps and its effect on VTE. Finally, we acknowledge that while there is no direct increase in costs, implementing an ambulation protocol does take time from all who participate in the project.

Conclusion

Creation of an ambulation protocol is associated with a decrease in postoperative VTE rates in colorectal surgery patients. A multidisciplinary approach is critical to identify the underlying problems and propose effective solutions. Further studies are required to better correlate the distance of ambulation and its effect on VTE. However, this study shows that even a minimum of 1 step is associated with decreased VTE rates.

Corresponding author: Aneel Damle, MD, MBA, Colon & Rectal Surgery Associates, 3433 Broadway St. NE, Suite 115, Minneapolis, MN 55413; adamle@CRSAL.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

rfranki@mdedge.com

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

rfranki@mdedge.com

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A 25-year-old woman presents to discuss treatment of her headaches. They occur two or three times a month and last for 4-6 hours. The headaches are disabling, have a pounding quality behind the patient’s right eye, and worsen with exercise. The patient’s neurologic exam is normal.

She has tried oral sumatriptan and naproxen, but neither drug provided her with any relief from the headaches. What treatment would you recommend?
 

A. Topiramate

B. Beta-blocker

C. Lasmiditan

D. Metoclopramide plus sumatriptan

E. Ubrogepant

It is common to see patients with migraine headaches and to see patients with migraines who have not responded to previous migraine therapies. This column will focus on some migraine therapy pearls.

DKart/iStockphoto

For this patient, I would try choice D first, giving metoclopramide with oral sumatriptan to see if it can improve response to sumatriptan. The two new classes of drugs for acute migraine therapy, the gepants and ditans, certainly have a role in patients unresponsive or intolerant of triptans/NSAIDS, but I would try several tricks with these less expensive medications first before entering into prior authorization hell trying to get a gepant or ditan.

When a patient has already used a triptan but experienced no benefit from it, often the next medication a patient tries is a different triptan. Dahlof reviewed four trials that looked at the efficacy of switching sumatriptan nonresponders to a different triptan and found that lack of response to sumatriptan did not predict lack of response to an alternative triptan.¹ Unfortunately, acquiring insurance coverage for an alternate triptan can be difficult.

Other treatment options are nasal or injectable formulations of sumatriptan. Both of these are more costly than oral sumatriptan, and injectable sumatriptan has more side effects than oral triptans.

Combining treatment with metoclopramide can be helpful. In a study by Schulman and Dermott looking at patients who had previously been triptan nonresponders, 63% of those who took metoclopramide with sumatriptan had meaningful pain relief, compared with 31% of those who received sumatriptan and placebo.²

In a different study, Tfelt-Hansen et al. compared treatment with the combination of lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide versus treatment with 100 mg of sumatriptan.³ There was no difference in outcomes between the two treatment groups, with the lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide patients having a 57% success rate for first treated migraine compared with 53% of the sumatriptan-treated patients.

Treating with the combination of naproxen plus sumatriptan is superior to treating with either medication alone. Brandes et al. reported on two studies involving the use of the sumatriptan/naproxen combination, compared with using sumatriptan, naproxen, or placebo.⁴ In both, taking the sumatriptan/naproxen combination was superior to taking sumatriptan, naproxen, or placebo (P < .001).

In a study of patients with poor prior response to triptans, Mathew et al. found that the sumatriptan/naproxen combination was superior to placebo for both 2- and 24-hour headache relief (P < .001).⁵
 

Pearl

Try several options before abandoning triptans in previous triptan nonresponders, including trying a different triptan, adding metoclopramide, orcombining with an NSAID.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dahlöf CG. Infrequent or nonresponse to oral sumatriptan does not predict response to other triptans – review of four trials. Cephalalgia. 2006 Feb;26(2):98-106.

2. Schulman EA, Dermott KF. Sumatriptan plus metoclopramide in triptan-nonresponsive migraineurs. Headache. 2003 Jul-Aug;43(7):729-33.

3. Tfelt-Hansen P et al. The effectiveness of combined oral lysine acetylsalicylate and metoclopramide compared with oral sumatriptan for migraine. Lancet. 1995 Oct 7;346(8980):923-6.

4. Brandes JL et al. Sumatriptan‐naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: A randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;297:1443‐54.

5. Mathew NT, Landy S, Stark S, et al. Fixed‐dose sumatriptan and naproxen in poor responders to triptans with a short half‐life. Headache. 2009;49:971‐82.

A 25-year-old woman presents to discuss treatment of her headaches. They occur two or three times a month and last for 4-6 hours. The headaches are disabling, have a pounding quality behind the patient’s right eye, and worsen with exercise. The patient’s neurologic exam is normal.

She has tried oral sumatriptan and naproxen, but neither drug provided her with any relief from the headaches. What treatment would you recommend?
 

A. Topiramate

B. Beta-blocker

C. Lasmiditan

D. Metoclopramide plus sumatriptan

E. Ubrogepant

It is common to see patients with migraine headaches and to see patients with migraines who have not responded to previous migraine therapies. This column will focus on some migraine therapy pearls.

DKart/iStockphoto

For this patient, I would try choice D first, giving metoclopramide with oral sumatriptan to see if it can improve response to sumatriptan. The two new classes of drugs for acute migraine therapy, the gepants and ditans, certainly have a role in patients unresponsive or intolerant of triptans/NSAIDS, but I would try several tricks with these less expensive medications first before entering into prior authorization hell trying to get a gepant or ditan.

When a patient has already used a triptan but experienced no benefit from it, often the next medication a patient tries is a different triptan. Dahlof reviewed four trials that looked at the efficacy of switching sumatriptan nonresponders to a different triptan and found that lack of response to sumatriptan did not predict lack of response to an alternative triptan.¹ Unfortunately, acquiring insurance coverage for an alternate triptan can be difficult.

Other treatment options are nasal or injectable formulations of sumatriptan. Both of these are more costly than oral sumatriptan, and injectable sumatriptan has more side effects than oral triptans.

Combining treatment with metoclopramide can be helpful. In a study by Schulman and Dermott looking at patients who had previously been triptan nonresponders, 63% of those who took metoclopramide with sumatriptan had meaningful pain relief, compared with 31% of those who received sumatriptan and placebo.²

In a different study, Tfelt-Hansen et al. compared treatment with the combination of lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide versus treatment with 100 mg of sumatriptan.³ There was no difference in outcomes between the two treatment groups, with the lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide patients having a 57% success rate for first treated migraine compared with 53% of the sumatriptan-treated patients.

Treating with the combination of naproxen plus sumatriptan is superior to treating with either medication alone. Brandes et al. reported on two studies involving the use of the sumatriptan/naproxen combination, compared with using sumatriptan, naproxen, or placebo.⁴ In both, taking the sumatriptan/naproxen combination was superior to taking sumatriptan, naproxen, or placebo (P < .001).

In a study of patients with poor prior response to triptans, Mathew et al. found that the sumatriptan/naproxen combination was superior to placebo for both 2- and 24-hour headache relief (P < .001).⁵
 

Pearl

Try several options before abandoning triptans in previous triptan nonresponders, including trying a different triptan, adding metoclopramide, orcombining with an NSAID.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dahlöf CG. Infrequent or nonresponse to oral sumatriptan does not predict response to other triptans – review of four trials. Cephalalgia. 2006 Feb;26(2):98-106.

2. Schulman EA, Dermott KF. Sumatriptan plus metoclopramide in triptan-nonresponsive migraineurs. Headache. 2003 Jul-Aug;43(7):729-33.

3. Tfelt-Hansen P et al. The effectiveness of combined oral lysine acetylsalicylate and metoclopramide compared with oral sumatriptan for migraine. Lancet. 1995 Oct 7;346(8980):923-6.

4. Brandes JL et al. Sumatriptan‐naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: A randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;297:1443‐54.

5. Mathew NT, Landy S, Stark S, et al. Fixed‐dose sumatriptan and naproxen in poor responders to triptans with a short half‐life. Headache. 2009;49:971‐82.

A 25-year-old woman presents to discuss treatment of her headaches. They occur two or three times a month and last for 4-6 hours. The headaches are disabling, have a pounding quality behind the patient’s right eye, and worsen with exercise. The patient’s neurologic exam is normal.

She has tried oral sumatriptan and naproxen, but neither drug provided her with any relief from the headaches. What treatment would you recommend?
 

A. Topiramate

B. Beta-blocker

C. Lasmiditan

D. Metoclopramide plus sumatriptan

E. Ubrogepant

It is common to see patients with migraine headaches and to see patients with migraines who have not responded to previous migraine therapies. This column will focus on some migraine therapy pearls.

DKart/iStockphoto

For this patient, I would try choice D first, giving metoclopramide with oral sumatriptan to see if it can improve response to sumatriptan. The two new classes of drugs for acute migraine therapy, the gepants and ditans, certainly have a role in patients unresponsive or intolerant of triptans/NSAIDS, but I would try several tricks with these less expensive medications first before entering into prior authorization hell trying to get a gepant or ditan.

When a patient has already used a triptan but experienced no benefit from it, often the next medication a patient tries is a different triptan. Dahlof reviewed four trials that looked at the efficacy of switching sumatriptan nonresponders to a different triptan and found that lack of response to sumatriptan did not predict lack of response to an alternative triptan.¹ Unfortunately, acquiring insurance coverage for an alternate triptan can be difficult.

Other treatment options are nasal or injectable formulations of sumatriptan. Both of these are more costly than oral sumatriptan, and injectable sumatriptan has more side effects than oral triptans.

Combining treatment with metoclopramide can be helpful. In a study by Schulman and Dermott looking at patients who had previously been triptan nonresponders, 63% of those who took metoclopramide with sumatriptan had meaningful pain relief, compared with 31% of those who received sumatriptan and placebo.²

In a different study, Tfelt-Hansen et al. compared treatment with the combination of lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide versus treatment with 100 mg of sumatriptan.³ There was no difference in outcomes between the two treatment groups, with the lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide patients having a 57% success rate for first treated migraine compared with 53% of the sumatriptan-treated patients.

Treating with the combination of naproxen plus sumatriptan is superior to treating with either medication alone. Brandes et al. reported on two studies involving the use of the sumatriptan/naproxen combination, compared with using sumatriptan, naproxen, or placebo.⁴ In both, taking the sumatriptan/naproxen combination was superior to taking sumatriptan, naproxen, or placebo (P < .001).

In a study of patients with poor prior response to triptans, Mathew et al. found that the sumatriptan/naproxen combination was superior to placebo for both 2- and 24-hour headache relief (P < .001).⁵
 

Pearl

Try several options before abandoning triptans in previous triptan nonresponders, including trying a different triptan, adding metoclopramide, orcombining with an NSAID.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Dahlöf CG. Infrequent or nonresponse to oral sumatriptan does not predict response to other triptans – review of four trials. Cephalalgia. 2006 Feb;26(2):98-106.

2. Schulman EA, Dermott KF. Sumatriptan plus metoclopramide in triptan-nonresponsive migraineurs. Headache. 2003 Jul-Aug;43(7):729-33.

3. Tfelt-Hansen P et al. The effectiveness of combined oral lysine acetylsalicylate and metoclopramide compared with oral sumatriptan for migraine. Lancet. 1995 Oct 7;346(8980):923-6.

4. Brandes JL et al. Sumatriptan‐naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: A randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;297:1443‐54.

5. Mathew NT, Landy S, Stark S, et al. Fixed‐dose sumatriptan and naproxen in poor responders to triptans with a short half‐life. Headache. 2009;49:971‐82.

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using point-of-care ultrasound, internists can reduce the number of tests performed in a hospital without affecting mortality, researchers say.

“It’s a safe and very useful tool,” Marco Barchiesi, MD, an internal medicine resident at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, said in an interview. “We had a great reduction in chest x-rays because of the use of ultrasound.”

The finding addresses concerns that ultrasound used in primary care could consume more health care resources or put patients at risk.

Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues published their findings July 20 in the European Journal of Internal Medicine.

Point-of-care ultrasound has become increasingly common as miniaturization of devices has made them more portable. The approach has caught on particularly in emergency departments where quick decisions are of the essence.

Its use in internal medicine has been more controversial, with concerns raised that improperly trained practitioners may miss diagnoses or refer patients for unnecessary tests as a result of uncertainty about their findings.

To measure the effect of point-of-care ultrasound in an internal medicine hospital ward, Dr. Barchiesi and colleagues alternated months when point-of-care ultrasound was allowed with months when it was not allowed, for a total of 4 months each, on an internal medicine unit. They allowed the ultrasound to be used for invasive procedures and excluded patients whose critical condition made point-of-care ultrasound crucial.

The researchers analyzed data on 263 patients in the “on” months when point-of-care ultrasound was used, and 255 in the “off” months when it wasn’t used. The two groups were well balanced in age, sex, comorbidity, and clinical impairment.

During the on months, the internists ordered 113 diagnostic tests (0.43 per patient). During the off months they ordered 329 tests (1.29 per patient).

The odds of being referred for a chest x-ray were 87% less in the “on” months, compared with the off months, a statistically significant finding (P < .001). The risk for a chest CT scan and abdominal ultrasound were also reduced during the on months, but the risk for an abdominal CT was increased.

Nineteen patients died during the o” months and 10 during the off months, a difference that was not statistically significant (P = .15). The median length of stay in the hospital was almost the same for the two groups: 9 days for the on months and 9 days for the off months. The difference was also not statistically significant (P = .094).

Point-of-care ultrasound is particularly accurate in identifying cardiac abnormalities and pleural fluid and pneumonia, and it can be used effectively for monitoring heart conditions, the researchers wrote. This could explain the reduction in chest x-rays and CT scans.

On the other hand, ultrasound cannot address such questions as staging in an abdominal malignancy, and unexpected findings are more common with abdominal than chest ultrasound. This could explain why the point-of-care ultrasound did not reduce the use of abdominal CT, the researchers speculated.

They acknowledged that the patients in their sample had an average age of 81 years, raising questions about how well their data could be applied to a younger population. And they noted that they used point-of-care ultrasound frequently, so they were particularly adept with it. “We use it almost every day in our clinical practice,” said Dr. Barchiesi.

Those factors may have played a key role in the success of point-of-care ultrasound in this study, said Michael Wagner, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Greenville, who has helped colleagues incorporate ultrasound into their practices.

Elderly patients often present with multiple comorbidities and atypical signs and symptoms, he said. “Sometimes they can be very confusing as to the underlying clinical picture. Ultrasound is being used frequently to better assess these complicated patients.”

Dr. Wagner said extensive training is required to use point-of-care ultrasound accurately.

Dr. Barchiesi also acknowledged that the devices used in this study were large portable machines, not the simpler and less expensive hand-held versions that are also available for similar purposes.

Point-of-care ultrasound is a promising innovation, said Thomas Melgar, MD, a professor of medicine at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. “The advantage is that the exam is being done by someone who knows the patient and specifically what they’re looking for. It’s done at the bedside so you don’t have to move the patient.”

The study could help address opposition to internal medicine residents being trained in the technique, he said, adding that “I think it’s very exciting.”

The study was partially supported by Philips, which provided the ultrasound devices. Dr. Barchiesi, Dr. Melgar, and Dr. Wagner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on oral anticoagulants who experience a bleeding event may be able to discontinue therapy if certain circumstances apply, according to updated guidance from the American College of Cardiology.

The emergence of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent venous thromboembolism and the introduction of new reversal strategies for factor Xa inhibitors prompted the creation of an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway to update the version from 2017, according to the ACC. Expert consensus decision pathways (ECDPs) are a component of the solution sets issued by the ACC to “address key questions facing care teams and attempt to provide practical guidance to be applied at the point of care.”

In an ECDP published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the writing committee members developed treatment algorithms for managing bleeding in patients on DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

Bleeding was classified as major or nonmajor, with major defined as “bleeding that is associated with hemodynamic compromise, occurs in an anatomically critical site, requires transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells [RBCs]), or results in a hemoglobin drop greater than 2 g/dL. All other types of bleeding were classified as nonmajor.

The document includes a graphic algorithm for assessing bleed severity and managing major versus nonmajor bleeding, and a separate graphic describes considerations for reversal and use of hemostatic agents according to whether the patient is taking a VKA (warfarin and other coumarins), a direct thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran), the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban, or the factor Xa inhibitors betrixaban and edoxaban.

Another algorithm outlines whether to discontinue, delay, or restart anticoagulation. Considerations for restarting anticoagulation include whether the patient is pregnant, awaiting an invasive procedure, not able to receive medication by mouth, has a high risk of rebleeding, or is being bridged back to a vitamin K antagonist with high thrombotic risk.

In most cases of GI bleeding, for example, current data support restarting oral anticoagulants once hemostasis is achieved, but patients who experience intracranial hemorrhage should delay restarting any anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks if they are without high thrombotic risk, according to the document.

The report also recommends clinician-patient discussion before resuming anticoagulation, ideally with time allowed for patients to develop questions. Discussions should include the signs of bleeding, assessment of risk for a thromboembolic event, and the benefits of anticoagulation.

“The proliferation of oral anticoagulants (warfarin and DOACs) and growing indications for their use prompted the need for guidance on the management of these drugs,” said Gordon F. Tomaselli, MD, chair of the writing committee, in an interview. “This document provides guidance on management at the time of a bleeding complication. This includes acute management, starting and stopping drugs, and use of reversal agents,” he said. “This of course will be a dynamic document as the list of these drugs and their antidotes expand,” he noted.  

“The biggest change from the previous guidelines are twofold: an update on laboratory assessment to monitor drug levels and use of reversal agents,” while the acute management strategies have otherwise remained similar to previous documents, said Dr. Tomaselli.

Dr. Tomaselli said that he was not surprised by the biological aspects of recent research while developing the statement. However, “the extent of the use of multiple anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents was a bit surprising and complicates therapy with each of the agents,” he noted.

The way the pathways are presented may make them challenging to follow in clinical practice, said Dr. Tomaselli. “The pathways are described linearly and in practice often many things have to happen at once,” he said. “The other main issue may be limitations in the availability of some of the newer reversal agents,” he added.

“The complication of bleeding is difficult to avoid,” said Dr. Tomaselli, and for future research, “the focus needs to continue to refine the indications for anticoagulation and appropriate use with other drugs that predispose to bleeding. We also need better methods and testing to monitor drugs levels and the effect on coagulation,” he said.

In accordance with the ACC Solution Set Oversight Committee, the writing committee members, including Dr. Tomaselli, had no relevant relationships with industry to disclose.

SOURCE: Tomaselli GF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.053.

Patients on oral anticoagulants who experience a bleeding event may be able to discontinue therapy if certain circumstances apply, according to updated guidance from the American College of Cardiology.

The emergence of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent venous thromboembolism and the introduction of new reversal strategies for factor Xa inhibitors prompted the creation of an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway to update the version from 2017, according to the ACC. Expert consensus decision pathways (ECDPs) are a component of the solution sets issued by the ACC to “address key questions facing care teams and attempt to provide practical guidance to be applied at the point of care.”

In an ECDP published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the writing committee members developed treatment algorithms for managing bleeding in patients on DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

Bleeding was classified as major or nonmajor, with major defined as “bleeding that is associated with hemodynamic compromise, occurs in an anatomically critical site, requires transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells [RBCs]), or results in a hemoglobin drop greater than 2 g/dL. All other types of bleeding were classified as nonmajor.

The document includes a graphic algorithm for assessing bleed severity and managing major versus nonmajor bleeding, and a separate graphic describes considerations for reversal and use of hemostatic agents according to whether the patient is taking a VKA (warfarin and other coumarins), a direct thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran), the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban, or the factor Xa inhibitors betrixaban and edoxaban.

Another algorithm outlines whether to discontinue, delay, or restart anticoagulation. Considerations for restarting anticoagulation include whether the patient is pregnant, awaiting an invasive procedure, not able to receive medication by mouth, has a high risk of rebleeding, or is being bridged back to a vitamin K antagonist with high thrombotic risk.

In most cases of GI bleeding, for example, current data support restarting oral anticoagulants once hemostasis is achieved, but patients who experience intracranial hemorrhage should delay restarting any anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks if they are without high thrombotic risk, according to the document.

The report also recommends clinician-patient discussion before resuming anticoagulation, ideally with time allowed for patients to develop questions. Discussions should include the signs of bleeding, assessment of risk for a thromboembolic event, and the benefits of anticoagulation.

“The proliferation of oral anticoagulants (warfarin and DOACs) and growing indications for their use prompted the need for guidance on the management of these drugs,” said Gordon F. Tomaselli, MD, chair of the writing committee, in an interview. “This document provides guidance on management at the time of a bleeding complication. This includes acute management, starting and stopping drugs, and use of reversal agents,” he said. “This of course will be a dynamic document as the list of these drugs and their antidotes expand,” he noted.  

“The biggest change from the previous guidelines are twofold: an update on laboratory assessment to monitor drug levels and use of reversal agents,” while the acute management strategies have otherwise remained similar to previous documents, said Dr. Tomaselli.

Dr. Tomaselli said that he was not surprised by the biological aspects of recent research while developing the statement. However, “the extent of the use of multiple anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents was a bit surprising and complicates therapy with each of the agents,” he noted.

The way the pathways are presented may make them challenging to follow in clinical practice, said Dr. Tomaselli. “The pathways are described linearly and in practice often many things have to happen at once,” he said. “The other main issue may be limitations in the availability of some of the newer reversal agents,” he added.

“The complication of bleeding is difficult to avoid,” said Dr. Tomaselli, and for future research, “the focus needs to continue to refine the indications for anticoagulation and appropriate use with other drugs that predispose to bleeding. We also need better methods and testing to monitor drugs levels and the effect on coagulation,” he said.

In accordance with the ACC Solution Set Oversight Committee, the writing committee members, including Dr. Tomaselli, had no relevant relationships with industry to disclose.

SOURCE: Tomaselli GF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.053.

Patients on oral anticoagulants who experience a bleeding event may be able to discontinue therapy if certain circumstances apply, according to updated guidance from the American College of Cardiology.

The emergence of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent venous thromboembolism and the introduction of new reversal strategies for factor Xa inhibitors prompted the creation of an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway to update the version from 2017, according to the ACC. Expert consensus decision pathways (ECDPs) are a component of the solution sets issued by the ACC to “address key questions facing care teams and attempt to provide practical guidance to be applied at the point of care.”

In an ECDP published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the writing committee members developed treatment algorithms for managing bleeding in patients on DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

Bleeding was classified as major or nonmajor, with major defined as “bleeding that is associated with hemodynamic compromise, occurs in an anatomically critical site, requires transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells [RBCs]), or results in a hemoglobin drop greater than 2 g/dL. All other types of bleeding were classified as nonmajor.

The document includes a graphic algorithm for assessing bleed severity and managing major versus nonmajor bleeding, and a separate graphic describes considerations for reversal and use of hemostatic agents according to whether the patient is taking a VKA (warfarin and other coumarins), a direct thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran), the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban, or the factor Xa inhibitors betrixaban and edoxaban.

Another algorithm outlines whether to discontinue, delay, or restart anticoagulation. Considerations for restarting anticoagulation include whether the patient is pregnant, awaiting an invasive procedure, not able to receive medication by mouth, has a high risk of rebleeding, or is being bridged back to a vitamin K antagonist with high thrombotic risk.

In most cases of GI bleeding, for example, current data support restarting oral anticoagulants once hemostasis is achieved, but patients who experience intracranial hemorrhage should delay restarting any anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks if they are without high thrombotic risk, according to the document.

The report also recommends clinician-patient discussion before resuming anticoagulation, ideally with time allowed for patients to develop questions. Discussions should include the signs of bleeding, assessment of risk for a thromboembolic event, and the benefits of anticoagulation.

“The proliferation of oral anticoagulants (warfarin and DOACs) and growing indications for their use prompted the need for guidance on the management of these drugs,” said Gordon F. Tomaselli, MD, chair of the writing committee, in an interview. “This document provides guidance on management at the time of a bleeding complication. This includes acute management, starting and stopping drugs, and use of reversal agents,” he said. “This of course will be a dynamic document as the list of these drugs and their antidotes expand,” he noted.  

“The biggest change from the previous guidelines are twofold: an update on laboratory assessment to monitor drug levels and use of reversal agents,” while the acute management strategies have otherwise remained similar to previous documents, said Dr. Tomaselli.

Dr. Tomaselli said that he was not surprised by the biological aspects of recent research while developing the statement. However, “the extent of the use of multiple anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents was a bit surprising and complicates therapy with each of the agents,” he noted.

The way the pathways are presented may make them challenging to follow in clinical practice, said Dr. Tomaselli. “The pathways are described linearly and in practice often many things have to happen at once,” he said. “The other main issue may be limitations in the availability of some of the newer reversal agents,” he added.

“The complication of bleeding is difficult to avoid,” said Dr. Tomaselli, and for future research, “the focus needs to continue to refine the indications for anticoagulation and appropriate use with other drugs that predispose to bleeding. We also need better methods and testing to monitor drugs levels and the effect on coagulation,” he said.

In accordance with the ACC Solution Set Oversight Committee, the writing committee members, including Dr. Tomaselli, had no relevant relationships with industry to disclose.

SOURCE: Tomaselli GF et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.053.

The combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to aspirin alone in reducing the risk for secondary stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and death, new data show. However, severe bleeding was more common in the ticagrelor/aspirin group than in the aspirin-only group.

“We found that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death, compared to aspirin alone in patients presenting acutely with stroke or TIA,” reported lead author S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, dean and vice president for medical affairs, Dell Medical School, the University of Texas, Austin.

Although the combination also increased the risk for major hemorrhage, that increase was small and would not overwhelm the benefit, he said.

The study was published online July 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Attractive properties

“Lots of patients have stroke in the days to weeks after first presenting with a stroke or TIA,” said Dr. Johnston, who is also the Frank and Charmaine Denius Distinguished Dean’s Chair at Dell Medical School. “Aspirin has been the standard of care but is only partially effective. Clopidogrel plus aspirin is another option that has recently been proven, [but] ticagrelor has attractive properties as an antiplatelet agent and works synergistically with aspirin,” he added.

Ticagrelor is a direct-acting antiplatelet agent that does not depend on metabolic activation and that “reversibly binds” and inhibits the P2Y12 receptor on platelets. Previous research has evaluated clopidogrel and aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke or TIA. In an earlier trial, ticagrelor was no better than aspirin in preventing these subsequent events. However, the investigators noted that the combination of the two drugs has not been well studied.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involved 11,016 patients at 414 sites in 28 countries. Patients who had experienced mild to moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (mean age, 65 years; 39% women; roughly 54% White) were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 5,523) or aspirin alone (n = 5,493) for 30 days. Of these patients, 91% had sustained a stroke, and 9% had sustained a TIA.

Thirty days was chosen as the treatment period because the risk for subsequent stroke tends to occur mainly in the first month after an acute ischemic stroke or TIA. The primary outcome was “a composite of stroke or death in a time-to-first-event analysis from randomization to 30 days of follow-up.” For the study, “stroke” encompassed ischemic, hemorrhagic, or stroke of undetermined type, and “death” included deaths of all causes. Secondary outcomes included first subsequent ischemic stroke and disability (defined as a score of >1 on the Rankin Scale).

Almost all patients (99.5%) were taking aspirin during the treatment period, and most were also taking an antihypertensive and a statin (74% and 83%, respectively).

Patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group had fewer primary-outcome events in comparison with those in the aspirin-only group (303 patients [5.5%] vs. 362 patients [6.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.02). Incidence of subsequent ischemic stroke were similarly lower in the ticagrelor/aspirin group in comparison with the aspirin-only group (276 patients [5.0%] vs. 345 patients [6.3%]; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P = .004).

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of overall disability (23.8% of the patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in 24.1% of the patients in the aspirin group; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P = .61).

There were differences between the groups in severe bleeding, which occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in seven patients (0.15) in the ticagrelor group (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.74-9.14; P = .001). Moreover, more patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group experienced a composite of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding compared with the aspirin-only group (0.4% vs 0.1%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 0.2% of patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group versus 0.1% of patients in the aspirin group. More patients in the ticagrelor-aspirin group permanently discontinued the treatment because of bleeding than in the aspirin-only group (2.8% vs. 0.6%).

“The benefit from treatment with ticagrelor/aspirin, as compared with aspirin alone, would be expected to result in a number needed to treat of 92 to prevent one primary outcome event, and a number needed to harm of 263 for severe bleeding,” the authors noted.
 

Risks versus benefits

Commenting on the study, Konark Malhotra, MD, a vascular neurologist at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, noted that ticagrelor is an antiplatelet medication “that adds to the armamentarium of stroke neurologists for the treatment of mild acute ischemic or high-risk TIA patients.” Dr. Malhotra, who was not involved with the study, added that the “combined use of ticagrelor and aspirin is effective in the reduction of ischemic events, however, at the expense of increased risk of bleeding events.”

In an accompanying editorial, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, of the Wolfson Center for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Oxford (England) who was not involved with the study, suggested that the “bleeding risk associated with ticagrelor and aspirin might exceed the benefit among lower-risk patients who make up the majority in practice, and so the results should not be overgeneralized.” Moreover, “regardless of which combination of antiplatelet therapy is favored for the high-risk minority, all patients should receive aspirin immediately after TIA, unless aspirin is contraindicated.”

He noted that “too many patients are sent home from emergency departments without this simple treatment that substantially reduces the risk and severity of early recurrent stroke.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnston has received a grant from AstraZeneca and nonfinancial support from SANOFI. Dr. Rothwell has received personal fees from Bayer and BMS. Dr. Malhotra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to aspirin alone in reducing the risk for secondary stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and death, new data show. However, severe bleeding was more common in the ticagrelor/aspirin group than in the aspirin-only group.

“We found that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death, compared to aspirin alone in patients presenting acutely with stroke or TIA,” reported lead author S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, dean and vice president for medical affairs, Dell Medical School, the University of Texas, Austin.

Although the combination also increased the risk for major hemorrhage, that increase was small and would not overwhelm the benefit, he said.

The study was published online July 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Attractive properties

“Lots of patients have stroke in the days to weeks after first presenting with a stroke or TIA,” said Dr. Johnston, who is also the Frank and Charmaine Denius Distinguished Dean’s Chair at Dell Medical School. “Aspirin has been the standard of care but is only partially effective. Clopidogrel plus aspirin is another option that has recently been proven, [but] ticagrelor has attractive properties as an antiplatelet agent and works synergistically with aspirin,” he added.

Ticagrelor is a direct-acting antiplatelet agent that does not depend on metabolic activation and that “reversibly binds” and inhibits the P2Y12 receptor on platelets. Previous research has evaluated clopidogrel and aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke or TIA. In an earlier trial, ticagrelor was no better than aspirin in preventing these subsequent events. However, the investigators noted that the combination of the two drugs has not been well studied.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involved 11,016 patients at 414 sites in 28 countries. Patients who had experienced mild to moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (mean age, 65 years; 39% women; roughly 54% White) were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 5,523) or aspirin alone (n = 5,493) for 30 days. Of these patients, 91% had sustained a stroke, and 9% had sustained a TIA.

Thirty days was chosen as the treatment period because the risk for subsequent stroke tends to occur mainly in the first month after an acute ischemic stroke or TIA. The primary outcome was “a composite of stroke or death in a time-to-first-event analysis from randomization to 30 days of follow-up.” For the study, “stroke” encompassed ischemic, hemorrhagic, or stroke of undetermined type, and “death” included deaths of all causes. Secondary outcomes included first subsequent ischemic stroke and disability (defined as a score of >1 on the Rankin Scale).

Almost all patients (99.5%) were taking aspirin during the treatment period, and most were also taking an antihypertensive and a statin (74% and 83%, respectively).

Patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group had fewer primary-outcome events in comparison with those in the aspirin-only group (303 patients [5.5%] vs. 362 patients [6.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.02). Incidence of subsequent ischemic stroke were similarly lower in the ticagrelor/aspirin group in comparison with the aspirin-only group (276 patients [5.0%] vs. 345 patients [6.3%]; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P = .004).

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of overall disability (23.8% of the patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in 24.1% of the patients in the aspirin group; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P = .61).

There were differences between the groups in severe bleeding, which occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in seven patients (0.15) in the ticagrelor group (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.74-9.14; P = .001). Moreover, more patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group experienced a composite of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding compared with the aspirin-only group (0.4% vs 0.1%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 0.2% of patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group versus 0.1% of patients in the aspirin group. More patients in the ticagrelor-aspirin group permanently discontinued the treatment because of bleeding than in the aspirin-only group (2.8% vs. 0.6%).

“The benefit from treatment with ticagrelor/aspirin, as compared with aspirin alone, would be expected to result in a number needed to treat of 92 to prevent one primary outcome event, and a number needed to harm of 263 for severe bleeding,” the authors noted.
 

Risks versus benefits

Commenting on the study, Konark Malhotra, MD, a vascular neurologist at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, noted that ticagrelor is an antiplatelet medication “that adds to the armamentarium of stroke neurologists for the treatment of mild acute ischemic or high-risk TIA patients.” Dr. Malhotra, who was not involved with the study, added that the “combined use of ticagrelor and aspirin is effective in the reduction of ischemic events, however, at the expense of increased risk of bleeding events.”

In an accompanying editorial, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, of the Wolfson Center for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Oxford (England) who was not involved with the study, suggested that the “bleeding risk associated with ticagrelor and aspirin might exceed the benefit among lower-risk patients who make up the majority in practice, and so the results should not be overgeneralized.” Moreover, “regardless of which combination of antiplatelet therapy is favored for the high-risk minority, all patients should receive aspirin immediately after TIA, unless aspirin is contraindicated.”

He noted that “too many patients are sent home from emergency departments without this simple treatment that substantially reduces the risk and severity of early recurrent stroke.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnston has received a grant from AstraZeneca and nonfinancial support from SANOFI. Dr. Rothwell has received personal fees from Bayer and BMS. Dr. Malhotra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The combination of ticagrelor and aspirin is superior to aspirin alone in reducing the risk for secondary stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and death, new data show. However, severe bleeding was more common in the ticagrelor/aspirin group than in the aspirin-only group.

“We found that ticagrelor plus aspirin reduced the risk of stroke or death, compared to aspirin alone in patients presenting acutely with stroke or TIA,” reported lead author S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD, dean and vice president for medical affairs, Dell Medical School, the University of Texas, Austin.

Although the combination also increased the risk for major hemorrhage, that increase was small and would not overwhelm the benefit, he said.

The study was published online July 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Attractive properties

“Lots of patients have stroke in the days to weeks after first presenting with a stroke or TIA,” said Dr. Johnston, who is also the Frank and Charmaine Denius Distinguished Dean’s Chair at Dell Medical School. “Aspirin has been the standard of care but is only partially effective. Clopidogrel plus aspirin is another option that has recently been proven, [but] ticagrelor has attractive properties as an antiplatelet agent and works synergistically with aspirin,” he added.

Ticagrelor is a direct-acting antiplatelet agent that does not depend on metabolic activation and that “reversibly binds” and inhibits the P2Y12 receptor on platelets. Previous research has evaluated clopidogrel and aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke or TIA. In an earlier trial, ticagrelor was no better than aspirin in preventing these subsequent events. However, the investigators noted that the combination of the two drugs has not been well studied.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involved 11,016 patients at 414 sites in 28 countries. Patients who had experienced mild to moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (mean age, 65 years; 39% women; roughly 54% White) were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 5,523) or aspirin alone (n = 5,493) for 30 days. Of these patients, 91% had sustained a stroke, and 9% had sustained a TIA.

Thirty days was chosen as the treatment period because the risk for subsequent stroke tends to occur mainly in the first month after an acute ischemic stroke or TIA. The primary outcome was “a composite of stroke or death in a time-to-first-event analysis from randomization to 30 days of follow-up.” For the study, “stroke” encompassed ischemic, hemorrhagic, or stroke of undetermined type, and “death” included deaths of all causes. Secondary outcomes included first subsequent ischemic stroke and disability (defined as a score of >1 on the Rankin Scale).

Almost all patients (99.5%) were taking aspirin during the treatment period, and most were also taking an antihypertensive and a statin (74% and 83%, respectively).

Patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group had fewer primary-outcome events in comparison with those in the aspirin-only group (303 patients [5.5%] vs. 362 patients [6.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.02). Incidence of subsequent ischemic stroke were similarly lower in the ticagrelor/aspirin group in comparison with the aspirin-only group (276 patients [5.0%] vs. 345 patients [6.3%]; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P = .004).

On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of overall disability (23.8% of the patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in 24.1% of the patients in the aspirin group; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P = .61).

There were differences between the groups in severe bleeding, which occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and in seven patients (0.15) in the ticagrelor group (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.74-9.14; P = .001). Moreover, more patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group experienced a composite of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding compared with the aspirin-only group (0.4% vs 0.1%). Fatal bleeding occurred in 0.2% of patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group versus 0.1% of patients in the aspirin group. More patients in the ticagrelor-aspirin group permanently discontinued the treatment because of bleeding than in the aspirin-only group (2.8% vs. 0.6%).

“The benefit from treatment with ticagrelor/aspirin, as compared with aspirin alone, would be expected to result in a number needed to treat of 92 to prevent one primary outcome event, and a number needed to harm of 263 for severe bleeding,” the authors noted.
 

Risks versus benefits

Commenting on the study, Konark Malhotra, MD, a vascular neurologist at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, noted that ticagrelor is an antiplatelet medication “that adds to the armamentarium of stroke neurologists for the treatment of mild acute ischemic or high-risk TIA patients.” Dr. Malhotra, who was not involved with the study, added that the “combined use of ticagrelor and aspirin is effective in the reduction of ischemic events, however, at the expense of increased risk of bleeding events.”

In an accompanying editorial, Peter Rothwell, MD, PhD, of the Wolfson Center for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Oxford (England) who was not involved with the study, suggested that the “bleeding risk associated with ticagrelor and aspirin might exceed the benefit among lower-risk patients who make up the majority in practice, and so the results should not be overgeneralized.” Moreover, “regardless of which combination of antiplatelet therapy is favored for the high-risk minority, all patients should receive aspirin immediately after TIA, unless aspirin is contraindicated.”

He noted that “too many patients are sent home from emergency departments without this simple treatment that substantially reduces the risk and severity of early recurrent stroke.”

The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Johnston has received a grant from AstraZeneca and nonfinancial support from SANOFI. Dr. Rothwell has received personal fees from Bayer and BMS. Dr. Malhotra has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

This year, medical media has been dominated by reporting on the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies and analyses have shown that staying at home, social distancing, quarantining of close contacts, and wearing face masks and face shields are effective ways of preventing spread.

Although initially there were no known effective treatments for severe COVID-19 infection (other than oxygen and ventilator support), we now know that dexamethasone,¹ remdesivir,² and convalescent plasma³ are effective in lessening the severity of illness and perhaps preventing death. That said, we will continue to struggle with COVID-19 for the foreseeable future.

We must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

But other medical illnesses actually predominate in terms of morbidity and mortality, even during this pandemic. For example, although there has been an average of roughly 5600 COVID-19-related deaths per week for the past 4 months,⁴ there are, on average, more than 54,000 deaths per week in the United States from other causes.⁵ This means that we must continue to tend to the other health care needs of our patients even as we deal with COVID-19.

In that light, JFP continues to publish practical, evidence-based clinical reviews designed to keep family physicians and other primary health care clinicians up to date on a variety of topics. For instance, in this issue of JFP, we have articles on:

• Opioid prescribing. Although opioids have risks, they remain potent medications for relief from acute pain, as well as cancer-related pain and chronic pain not sufficiently treated with other medications. Mahvan et al provide expert advice on maximizing benefit and minimizing the risks of opioid prescribing.
• Secondary ischemic stroke prevention. For patients who have suffered a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke, a mainstay of prevention is antiplatelet therapy. Aspirin alone used to be the treatment of choice, but research has demonstrated the value of adding another antiplatelet agent. Helmer et al’s thorough review reminds us that the antiplatelet drug of choice, in addition to aspirin, is clopidogrel, which should be used only for the first 30 days after the event because of an increased bleeding risk.
• Combatting Clostridioides difficile infection. CDI has been a difficult condition to treat, especially in high-risk patients. Zukauckas et al provide a comprehensive review of diagnosis and management. Vancomycin is now the drug of choice, and fecal transplant is highly effective in preventing recurrent CDI.

This diverse range of timely, practical, evidence-based guidance—in addition to coverage of COVID-19 and other rapidly emerging medical news stories—can all be found on our Web site at www.mdedge.com/familymedicine. We remain committed to supplying you with all of the information you need to provide your patients with the very best care—no matter what brings them in to see you.

The incidence of ischemic stroke in the United States is estimated to be more than 795,000 events each year.¹ After an initial stroke, the rate of recurrence is 5% to 20% within the first year, with the greatest prevalence in the first 90 days following an event.^2-5 Although dual antiplatelet therapy, often with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, reduces the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events, cerebrovascular events, and death following acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous intervention, the role of combination antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke continues to be debated.⁶ Reconciling currently available data can be challenging, as many studies vary considerably in both the time to antiplatelet initiation and duration of therapy.

For many years, aspirin alone was the drug of choice for secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke.⁷ Efficacy is similar at dosages anywhere between 50 and 1500 mg/d; higher doses incur a greater risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage.⁷ Current secondary prevention guidelines recommend a dosage of aspirin somewhere between 50 and 325 mg/d.⁷

Alternative agents have also been evaluated for secondary stroke prevention, but only clopidogrel is currently considered an acceptable alternative for monotherapy based on a subgroup analysis of the CAPRIE (Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events) trial.^7,8 Other alternatives, including cilostazol, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor, are limited by a lack of data, adverse drug reactions, or unproven efficacy and are not recommended in current guidelines.^7,9 The ongoing THALES (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death) trial, assessing combination ticagrelor and aspirin, may identify an additional option for antiplatelet therapy following acute stroke.¹⁰

The current guidelines from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) support the combination of aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) as a long-term alternative to aspirin monotherapy.^7,11 Additionally, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin (CLO-ASA) is now recommended for limited duration in the early management of ischemic stroke.¹¹

This review will explore the role of dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), with particular focus on acute use of CLO-ASA.

Clopidogrel and aspirin: When to initiate, when to stop

The combined use of clopidogrel and aspirin has been well-studied for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke and TIA. However, interpreting and applying the results of these trials can be challenging given key differences in both time to treatment initiation and the duration of combination therapy. Highlights of the major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of CLO-ASA are detailed in TABLE 1.^4,5,12-15

Initial trials evaluating CLO-ASA for secondary stroke prevention, including the MATCH (Management of ATherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-risk patients),¹² SPS3 (Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes),¹³ and CHARISMA (Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischaemic Stabilization, Management and Avoidance)¹⁴ trials assessed the long-term benefits of combination therapy, with most patients initiating treatment a month or more following an initial stroke and continuing therapy for at least 18 months.^12-14 Results from these trials indicate that long-term use (> 18 months) of CLO-ASA does not reduce recurrent events but increases rates of clinically significant bleeding.^12-14

Continue to: A look at Tx timing

A look at Tx timing. Since these initial attempts failed to show a long-term benefit with CLO-ASA, subsequent trials attempted to establish an appropriate balance between the optimal time to initiate CLO-ASA and the optimal duration of therapy. The FASTER (Fast Assessment of Stroke and Transient ischaemic attack to prevent Early Recurrence) trial was a small pilot study of 392 patients randomized to CLO-ASA or aspirin within 24 hours of stroke or TIA onset and continued for only 3 months.¹⁵ While this trial did not find a significant reduction in ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with combination therapy, there was a large numerical difference in event rates between the 2 groups (7.1% CLO-ASA vs 10.8% aspirin).¹⁵ An underpowered sample size (due to difficulty recruiting participants) is likely responsible for the lack of statistical significance.¹⁵ Despite the trial’s failure to show a benefit with acute use of CLO-ASA, it suggested a possible benefit that led to further investigation in the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High-risk patients with Acute Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events)⁵ and POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) ⁴ trials.

Patients who are best suited to benefit from clopidogrel + aspirin are those who have had minor noncardioembolic ischemic strokes or high-risk TIAs.

The CHANCE trial conducted in China included more than 5000 patients with acute minor ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 3) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 [a scale that assesses the risk of stroke on the basis of age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, and presence or absence of diabetes] score ≥ 4).⁵ Similar to FASTER, patients were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to CLO-ASA or aspirin. However, CHANCE utilized combination therapy for only 21 days, after which the patients were continued on clopidogrel monotherapy for up to 90 days; the aspirin monotherapy group continued aspirin for 90 days.

After 90 days, patients initially using combination therapy had significantly lower rates of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke vs those assigned to aspirin monotherapy. This result was driven heavily by the reduction in ischemic stroke (7.9% CLO-ASA vs 11.4% aspirin; P < .001). Additionally, there was no significant difference in moderate or severe bleeding events between the 2 groups.⁵ Efficacy and safety results were similar among a subgroup of patients who were randomized to treatment within 12 hours rather than 24 hours from symptom onset.¹⁶ The CHANCE trial was the first major study to demonstrate a clinical benefit of CLO-ASA to prevent recurrent stroke. Accordingly, the 2018 AHA/ASA guidelines included a new recommendation regarding secondary prevention for the use of CLO-ASA initiated within 24 hours and continued for 21 days following a minor stroke or TIA.¹¹

A drawback of the CHANCE trial was its narrow patient population of only Chinese patients, which may limit applicability in clinical practice. There are known genetic variations in cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) that may affect clopidogrel metabolism. CYP2C19 is responsible for the conversion of clopidogrel into its activated form in vivo. Carriers of a CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele may have reduced clopidogrel activation and subsequent reduced antiplatelet activity. Such loss-of-function alleles are more common in Asian populations vs non-Asian populations.¹⁷

A substudy of CHANCE found that CLO-ASA’s efficacy benefit was preserved in noncarrier patients; however, patients with the CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele did not benefit from combination therapy.¹⁸ Interestingly, these genetic differences did not affect bleeding outcomes. Given that approximately 60% of patients in the CHANCE substudy were loss-of-function allele carriers and that the overall study results still showed benefit with combination therapy, application of CHANCE’s findings to broader populations may not be a concern after all.¹⁸

Continue to: In efforts to gain insight...

In efforts to gain insight on CLO-ASA’s use in a more diverse patient population, the POINT trial included almost 5000 patients, with 82% from the United States, who were randomized within 12 hours of symptom onset to CLO-ASA or aspirin monotherapy for 90 days.⁴ Similar to the CHANCE study, the POINT study included patients with mild ischemic strokes (NIHSS ≤ 3) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 ≥ 4). Combination therapy significantly reduced the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death from an ischemic event. Contrary to CHANCE, there was a significant increase in major bleeding in those assigned to combination therapy, which resulted in the trial being stopped early.⁴

A closer look at safety differences. CHANCE and POINT were the first major trials to show a benefit of CLO-ASA for secondary prevention of stroke, yet their differences in safety outcomes, specifically major hemorrhage, argued for a deeper reconciliation of their results.^4,5 While both trials initiated secondary prevention within 24 hours of symptom onset, the difference in duration of combination therapy (21 days in CHANCE vs 90 days in POINT) likely impacted the rates of hemorrhage. When results from POINT were stratified by time period, particularly within the first 30 days of therapy (similar to the 21-day treatment duration of CHANCE), combination therapy significantly reduced the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, or death from an ischemic event (3.9% CLO-ASA vs 5.8% aspirin; P = .02) without an increased risk for major hemorrhage. Between 30 and 90 days, this efficacy benefit disappeared. However, bleeding rates between groups continued to separate throughout the 90-day course. In this light, the 30-day outcomes of POINT are largely similar to CHANCE and support the short-term use of CLO-ASA for secondary prevention without an associated increase in major bleeding.^4,5

Antiplatelet dosing in POINT and CHANCE may also play a role in the contrasting safety results between the trials.^4,5 While both studies utilized clopidogrel loading doses, POINT used 600 mg while CHANCE used 300 mg. Clopidogrel maintenance dosing was the same at 75 mg/d. In CHANCE, aspirin dosing was protocolized to 75 mg/d; however, in POINT, 31% of patients used > 100 mg/d aspirin.^4,5 It is possible that the higher doses of both aspirin and clopidogrel in the POINT trial contributed to the difference in the occurrence of major hemorrhage between the treatment groups in these trials.

The takeaway. Based on currently available data, patients who are best suited to benefit from CLO-ASA are those who have had minor noncardioembolic ischemic strokes or high-risk TIAs.^4,5,11 Clopidogrel should be given as a 300-mg loading dose followed by 75 mg/d given concomitantly with aspirin at a dose no higher than 100 mg/d. CLO-ASA therapy should be initiated within 24 hours of symptom onset and be continued for no longer than 1 month, after which chronic preventive therapy with either aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy should be started.^4,5,11

Dipyridamole and aspirin: A controversial option

Since the approval of the combination product ASA-ERDP, there has been considerable controversy about using this combination over other therapies, such as aspirin or clopidogrel, for recurrent ischemic stroke prevention. Much of this controversy arises from limitations in the trial designs.

Continue to: The first trial to show benefit...

The first trial to show benefit with ASA-ERDP was ESPS2 (European Stroke Prevention Study 2), which demonstrated superiority of the combination over placebo in reducing recurrent stroke when treatment was added within 3 months of an index stroke.¹⁹ A few studies have evaluated ASA-ERDP compared to aspirin monotherapy; however, most of these studies were small and did not show any difference in outcomes.²⁰ Only ESPRIT (European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial)²¹ carried significant weight in a 2013 meta-analysis, which showed a significant reduction in recurrent events with the combination product compared to aspirin monotherapy.²⁰

Initiate clopidogrel + aspirin therapy within 24 hours of symptom onset and continue for no longer than 1 month; then switch to monotherapy with aspirin or clopidogrel.

Both the ESPS2 and ESPRIT trials had significant limitations.^19,21 Patients in both studies had vascular comorbidities including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD); however, pharmacotherapies designated to treat these diseases were not mentioned in the demographic data, nor were these medications taken into consideration to limit potential bias.^19,21 Retrospectively, a significant proportion of aspirin doses utilized as a control in ESPRIT were inferior to the guideline-recommended dosing with 42% to 46% of patients receiving 30 mg/d.²¹ Despite these controversies, ASA-ERDP is still considered an alternative to aspirin monotherapy in the guidelines.⁷

The timing of ASA-ERDP initiation appears to be inversely related to the efficacy of the combination over therapeutic alternatives. Studies in which the therapy was initiated 3 to 6 months from the index stroke indicated favorable outcomes for the combination when compared to ASA or ERDP monotherapy.^19,21 Studies utilizing early initiation (ie, within 24 or 48 hours of the index event) or even within 3 weeks showed no difference in outcomes; however, this may be due in part to the use of clopidogrel or other combination antiplatelet therapy as active comparators.^22-24

Early initiation of ASA-ERDP also demonstrated a higher risk of major and intracranial bleeding compared to clopidogrel.²² Additionally, use of triple therapy with ASA-ERDP plus clopidogrel increased bleeding events without improving efficacy.²⁴ More recent studies of ASA-ERDP are focusing on earlier initiation of therapy; it is unknown whether the benefits of late initiation will be confirmed in future studies. Highlights of the major RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of ASA-ERDP are detailed in TABLE 2^19,21-24.

The takeaway. Methodological issues and potential confounding factors in many of the key trials for ASA-ERDP make it challenging to fully discern the role that ASA-ERDP may play in the secondary prevention of stroke. Further evidence utilizing appropriate controls, timing, and assessment of confounders is needed. Additionally, ASA-ERDP is plagued by tolerability issues such as headache, nausea, and vomiting, leading to higher rates of discontinuation than its comparators in clinical trials. Accordingly, the maintenance use of ASA-ERDP for secondary stroke prevention may be considered less preferred than other recommended alternatives such as aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapies.

CORRESPONDENCE
Robert S. Helmer, PharmD, BCPS, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, 650 Clinic Drive, Suite 2100, Mobile, AL 36688; Rsh0011@auburn.edu.

The incidence of ischemic stroke in the United States is estimated to be more than 795,000 events each year.¹ After an initial stroke, the rate of recurrence is 5% to 20% within the first year, with the greatest prevalence in the first 90 days following an event.^2-5 Although dual antiplatelet therapy, often with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, reduces the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events, cerebrovascular events, and death following acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous intervention, the role of combination antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke continues to be debated.⁶ Reconciling currently available data can be challenging, as many studies vary considerably in both the time to antiplatelet initiation and duration of therapy.

For many years, aspirin alone was the drug of choice for secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke.⁷ Efficacy is similar at dosages anywhere between 50 and 1500 mg/d; higher doses incur a greater risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage.⁷ Current secondary prevention guidelines recommend a dosage of aspirin somewhere between 50 and 325 mg/d.⁷

Alternative agents have also been evaluated for secondary stroke prevention, but only clopidogrel is currently considered an acceptable alternative for monotherapy based on a subgroup analysis of the CAPRIE (Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events) trial.^7,8 Other alternatives, including cilostazol, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor, are limited by a lack of data, adverse drug reactions, or unproven efficacy and are not recommended in current guidelines.^7,9 The ongoing THALES (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death) trial, assessing combination ticagrelor and aspirin, may identify an additional option for antiplatelet therapy following acute stroke.¹⁰

The current guidelines from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) support the combination of aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) as a long-term alternative to aspirin monotherapy.^7,11 Additionally, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin (CLO-ASA) is now recommended for limited duration in the early management of ischemic stroke.¹¹

This review will explore the role of dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), with particular focus on acute use of CLO-ASA.

Clopidogrel and aspirin: When to initiate, when to stop

The combined use of clopidogrel and aspirin has been well-studied for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke and TIA. However, interpreting and applying the results of these trials can be challenging given key differences in both time to treatment initiation and the duration of combination therapy. Highlights of the major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of CLO-ASA are detailed in TABLE 1.^4,5,12-15

Initial trials evaluating CLO-ASA for secondary stroke prevention, including the MATCH (Management of ATherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-risk patients),¹² SPS3 (Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes),¹³ and CHARISMA (Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischaemic Stabilization, Management and Avoidance)¹⁴ trials assessed the long-term benefits of combination therapy, with most patients initiating treatment a month or more following an initial stroke and continuing therapy for at least 18 months.^12-14 Results from these trials indicate that long-term use (> 18 months) of CLO-ASA does not reduce recurrent events but increases rates of clinically significant bleeding.^12-14

Continue to: A look at Tx timing

A look at Tx timing. Since these initial attempts failed to show a long-term benefit with CLO-ASA, subsequent trials attempted to establish an appropriate balance between the optimal time to initiate CLO-ASA and the optimal duration of therapy. The FASTER (Fast Assessment of Stroke and Transient ischaemic attack to prevent Early Recurrence) trial was a small pilot study of 392 patients randomized to CLO-ASA or aspirin within 24 hours of stroke or TIA onset and continued for only 3 months.¹⁵ While this trial did not find a significant reduction in ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with combination therapy, there was a large numerical difference in event rates between the 2 groups (7.1% CLO-ASA vs 10.8% aspirin).¹⁵ An underpowered sample size (due to difficulty recruiting participants) is likely responsible for the lack of statistical significance.¹⁵ Despite the trial’s failure to show a benefit with acute use of CLO-ASA, it suggested a possible benefit that led to further investigation in the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High-risk patients with Acute Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events)⁵ and POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) ⁴ trials.

Patients who are best suited to benefit from clopidogrel + aspirin are those who have had minor noncardioembolic ischemic strokes or high-risk TIAs.

The CHANCE trial conducted in China included more than 5000 patients with acute minor ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 3) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 [a scale that assesses the risk of stroke on the basis of age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, and presence or absence of diabetes] score ≥ 4).⁵ Similar to FASTER, patients were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to CLO-ASA or aspirin. However, CHANCE utilized combination therapy for only 21 days, after which the patients were continued on clopidogrel monotherapy for up to 90 days; the aspirin monotherapy group continued aspirin for 90 days.

After 90 days, patients initially using combination therapy had significantly lower rates of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke vs those assigned to aspirin monotherapy. This result was driven heavily by the reduction in ischemic stroke (7.9% CLO-ASA vs 11.4% aspirin; P < .001). Additionally, there was no significant difference in moderate or severe bleeding events between the 2 groups.⁵ Efficacy and safety results were similar among a subgroup of patients who were randomized to treatment within 12 hours rather than 24 hours from symptom onset.¹⁶ The CHANCE trial was the first major study to demonstrate a clinical benefit of CLO-ASA to prevent recurrent stroke. Accordingly, the 2018 AHA/ASA guidelines included a new recommendation regarding secondary prevention for the use of CLO-ASA initiated within 24 hours and continued for 21 days following a minor stroke or TIA.¹¹

A drawback of the CHANCE trial was its narrow patient population of only Chinese patients, which may limit applicability in clinical practice. There are known genetic variations in cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) that may affect clopidogrel metabolism. CYP2C19 is responsible for the conversion of clopidogrel into its activated form in vivo. Carriers of a CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele may have reduced clopidogrel activation and subsequent reduced antiplatelet activity. Such loss-of-function alleles are more common in Asian populations vs non-Asian populations.¹⁷

A substudy of CHANCE found that CLO-ASA’s efficacy benefit was preserved in noncarrier patients; however, patients with the CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele did not benefit from combination therapy.¹⁸ Interestingly, these genetic differences did not affect bleeding outcomes. Given that approximately 60% of patients in the CHANCE substudy were loss-of-function allele carriers and that the overall study results still showed benefit with combination therapy, application of CHANCE’s findings to broader populations may not be a concern after all.¹⁸

Continue to: In efforts to gain insight...

In efforts to gain insight on CLO-ASA’s use in a more diverse patient population, the POINT trial included almost 5000 patients, with 82% from the United States, who were randomized within 12 hours of symptom onset to CLO-ASA or aspirin monotherapy for 90 days.⁴ Similar to the CHANCE study, the POINT study included patients with mild ischemic strokes (NIHSS ≤ 3) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 ≥ 4). Combination therapy significantly reduced the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death from an ischemic event. Contrary to CHANCE, there was a significant increase in major bleeding in those assigned to combination therapy, which resulted in the trial being stopped early.⁴

A closer look at safety differences. CHANCE and POINT were the first major trials to show a benefit of CLO-ASA for secondary prevention of stroke, yet their differences in safety outcomes, specifically major hemorrhage, argued for a deeper reconciliation of their results.^4,5 While both trials initiated secondary prevention within 24 hours of symptom onset, the difference in duration of combination therapy (21 days in CHANCE vs 90 days in POINT) likely impacted the rates of hemorrhage. When results from POINT were stratified by time period, particularly within the first 30 days of therapy (similar to the 21-day treatment duration of CHANCE), combination therapy significantly reduced the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, or death from an ischemic event (3.9% CLO-ASA vs 5.8% aspirin; P = .02) without an increased risk for major hemorrhage. Between 30 and 90 days, this efficacy benefit disappeared. However, bleeding rates between groups continued to separate throughout the 90-day course. In this light, the 30-day outcomes of POINT are largely similar to CHANCE and support the short-term use of CLO-ASA for secondary prevention without an associated increase in major bleeding.^4,5

Antiplatelet dosing in POINT and CHANCE may also play a role in the contrasting safety results between the trials.^4,5 While both studies utilized clopidogrel loading doses, POINT used 600 mg while CHANCE used 300 mg. Clopidogrel maintenance dosing was the same at 75 mg/d. In CHANCE, aspirin dosing was protocolized to 75 mg/d; however, in POINT, 31% of patients used > 100 mg/d aspirin.^4,5 It is possible that the higher doses of both aspirin and clopidogrel in the POINT trial contributed to the difference in the occurrence of major hemorrhage between the treatment groups in these trials.

The takeaway. Based on currently available data, patients who are best suited to benefit from CLO-ASA are those who have had minor noncardioembolic ischemic strokes or high-risk TIAs.^4,5,11 Clopidogrel should be given as a 300-mg loading dose followed by 75 mg/d given concomitantly with aspirin at a dose no higher than 100 mg/d. CLO-ASA therapy should be initiated within 24 hours of symptom onset and be continued for no longer than 1 month, after which chronic preventive therapy with either aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy should be started.^4,5,11

Dipyridamole and aspirin: A controversial option

Since the approval of the combination product ASA-ERDP, there has been considerable controversy about using this combination over other therapies, such as aspirin or clopidogrel, for recurrent ischemic stroke prevention. Much of this controversy arises from limitations in the trial designs.

Continue to: The first trial to show benefit...

The first trial to show benefit with ASA-ERDP was ESPS2 (European Stroke Prevention Study 2), which demonstrated superiority of the combination over placebo in reducing recurrent stroke when treatment was added within 3 months of an index stroke.¹⁹ A few studies have evaluated ASA-ERDP compared to aspirin monotherapy; however, most of these studies were small and did not show any difference in outcomes.²⁰ Only ESPRIT (European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial)²¹ carried significant weight in a 2013 meta-analysis, which showed a significant reduction in recurrent events with the combination product compared to aspirin monotherapy.²⁰

Initiate clopidogrel + aspirin therapy within 24 hours of symptom onset and continue for no longer than 1 month; then switch to monotherapy with aspirin or clopidogrel.

Both the ESPS2 and ESPRIT trials had significant limitations.^19,21 Patients in both studies had vascular comorbidities including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD); however, pharmacotherapies designated to treat these diseases were not mentioned in the demographic data, nor were these medications taken into consideration to limit potential bias.^19,21 Retrospectively, a significant proportion of aspirin doses utilized as a control in ESPRIT were inferior to the guideline-recommended dosing with 42% to 46% of patients receiving 30 mg/d.²¹ Despite these controversies, ASA-ERDP is still considered an alternative to aspirin monotherapy in the guidelines.⁷

The timing of ASA-ERDP initiation appears to be inversely related to the efficacy of the combination over therapeutic alternatives. Studies in which the therapy was initiated 3 to 6 months from the index stroke indicated favorable outcomes for the combination when compared to ASA or ERDP monotherapy.^19,21 Studies utilizing early initiation (ie, within 24 or 48 hours of the index event) or even within 3 weeks showed no difference in outcomes; however, this may be due in part to the use of clopidogrel or other combination antiplatelet therapy as active comparators.^22-24

Early initiation of ASA-ERDP also demonstrated a higher risk of major and intracranial bleeding compared to clopidogrel.²² Additionally, use of triple therapy with ASA-ERDP plus clopidogrel increased bleeding events without improving efficacy.²⁴ More recent studies of ASA-ERDP are focusing on earlier initiation of therapy; it is unknown whether the benefits of late initiation will be confirmed in future studies. Highlights of the major RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of ASA-ERDP are detailed in TABLE 2^19,21-24.

The takeaway. Methodological issues and potential confounding factors in many of the key trials for ASA-ERDP make it challenging to fully discern the role that ASA-ERDP may play in the secondary prevention of stroke. Further evidence utilizing appropriate controls, timing, and assessment of confounders is needed. Additionally, ASA-ERDP is plagued by tolerability issues such as headache, nausea, and vomiting, leading to higher rates of discontinuation than its comparators in clinical trials. Accordingly, the maintenance use of ASA-ERDP for secondary stroke prevention may be considered less preferred than other recommended alternatives such as aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapies.

CORRESPONDENCE
Robert S. Helmer, PharmD, BCPS, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, 650 Clinic Drive, Suite 2100, Mobile, AL 36688; Rsh0011@auburn.edu.

The incidence of ischemic stroke in the United States is estimated to be more than 795,000 events each year.¹ After an initial stroke, the rate of recurrence is 5% to 20% within the first year, with the greatest prevalence in the first 90 days following an event.^2-5 Although dual antiplatelet therapy, often with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, reduces the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events, cerebrovascular events, and death following acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous intervention, the role of combination antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke continues to be debated.⁶ Reconciling currently available data can be challenging, as many studies vary considerably in both the time to antiplatelet initiation and duration of therapy.

For many years, aspirin alone was the drug of choice for secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke.⁷ Efficacy is similar at dosages anywhere between 50 and 1500 mg/d; higher doses incur a greater risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage.⁷ Current secondary prevention guidelines recommend a dosage of aspirin somewhere between 50 and 325 mg/d.⁷

Alternative agents have also been evaluated for secondary stroke prevention, but only clopidogrel is currently considered an acceptable alternative for monotherapy based on a subgroup analysis of the CAPRIE (Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischaemic Events) trial.^7,8 Other alternatives, including cilostazol, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor, are limited by a lack of data, adverse drug reactions, or unproven efficacy and are not recommended in current guidelines.^7,9 The ongoing THALES (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death) trial, assessing combination ticagrelor and aspirin, may identify an additional option for antiplatelet therapy following acute stroke.¹⁰

The current guidelines from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) support the combination of aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) as a long-term alternative to aspirin monotherapy.^7,11 Additionally, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin (CLO-ASA) is now recommended for limited duration in the early management of ischemic stroke.¹¹

This review will explore the role of dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), with particular focus on acute use of CLO-ASA.

Clopidogrel and aspirin: When to initiate, when to stop

The combined use of clopidogrel and aspirin has been well-studied for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke and TIA. However, interpreting and applying the results of these trials can be challenging given key differences in both time to treatment initiation and the duration of combination therapy. Highlights of the major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of CLO-ASA are detailed in TABLE 1.^4,5,12-15

Initial trials evaluating CLO-ASA for secondary stroke prevention, including the MATCH (Management of ATherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-risk patients),¹² SPS3 (Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes),¹³ and CHARISMA (Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischaemic Stabilization, Management and Avoidance)¹⁴ trials assessed the long-term benefits of combination therapy, with most patients initiating treatment a month or more following an initial stroke and continuing therapy for at least 18 months.^12-14 Results from these trials indicate that long-term use (> 18 months) of CLO-ASA does not reduce recurrent events but increases rates of clinically significant bleeding.^12-14

Continue to: A look at Tx timing

A look at Tx timing. Since these initial attempts failed to show a long-term benefit with CLO-ASA, subsequent trials attempted to establish an appropriate balance between the optimal time to initiate CLO-ASA and the optimal duration of therapy. The FASTER (Fast Assessment of Stroke and Transient ischaemic attack to prevent Early Recurrence) trial was a small pilot study of 392 patients randomized to CLO-ASA or aspirin within 24 hours of stroke or TIA onset and continued for only 3 months.¹⁵ While this trial did not find a significant reduction in ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with combination therapy, there was a large numerical difference in event rates between the 2 groups (7.1% CLO-ASA vs 10.8% aspirin).¹⁵ An underpowered sample size (due to difficulty recruiting participants) is likely responsible for the lack of statistical significance.¹⁵ Despite the trial’s failure to show a benefit with acute use of CLO-ASA, it suggested a possible benefit that led to further investigation in the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High-risk patients with Acute Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Events)⁵ and POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) ⁴ trials.

Patients who are best suited to benefit from clopidogrel + aspirin are those who have had minor noncardioembolic ischemic strokes or high-risk TIAs.

The CHANCE trial conducted in China included more than 5000 patients with acute minor ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤ 3) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 [a scale that assesses the risk of stroke on the basis of age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, and presence or absence of diabetes] score ≥ 4).⁵ Similar to FASTER, patients were randomized within 24 hours of symptom onset to CLO-ASA or aspirin. However, CHANCE utilized combination therapy for only 21 days, after which the patients were continued on clopidogrel monotherapy for up to 90 days; the aspirin monotherapy group continued aspirin for 90 days.

After 90 days, patients initially using combination therapy had significantly lower rates of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke vs those assigned to aspirin monotherapy. This result was driven heavily by the reduction in ischemic stroke (7.9% CLO-ASA vs 11.4% aspirin; P < .001). Additionally, there was no significant difference in moderate or severe bleeding events between the 2 groups.⁵ Efficacy and safety results were similar among a subgroup of patients who were randomized to treatment within 12 hours rather than 24 hours from symptom onset.¹⁶ The CHANCE trial was the first major study to demonstrate a clinical benefit of CLO-ASA to prevent recurrent stroke. Accordingly, the 2018 AHA/ASA guidelines included a new recommendation regarding secondary prevention for the use of CLO-ASA initiated within 24 hours and continued for 21 days following a minor stroke or TIA.¹¹

A drawback of the CHANCE trial was its narrow patient population of only Chinese patients, which may limit applicability in clinical practice. There are known genetic variations in cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) that may affect clopidogrel metabolism. CYP2C19 is responsible for the conversion of clopidogrel into its activated form in vivo. Carriers of a CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele may have reduced clopidogrel activation and subsequent reduced antiplatelet activity. Such loss-of-function alleles are more common in Asian populations vs non-Asian populations.¹⁷

A substudy of CHANCE found that CLO-ASA’s efficacy benefit was preserved in noncarrier patients; however, patients with the CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele did not benefit from combination therapy.¹⁸ Interestingly, these genetic differences did not affect bleeding outcomes. Given that approximately 60% of patients in the CHANCE substudy were loss-of-function allele carriers and that the overall study results still showed benefit with combination therapy, application of CHANCE’s findings to broader populations may not be a concern after all.¹⁸

Continue to: In efforts to gain insight...

In efforts to gain insight on CLO-ASA’s use in a more diverse patient population, the POINT trial included almost 5000 patients, with 82% from the United States, who were randomized within 12 hours of symptom onset to CLO-ASA or aspirin monotherapy for 90 days.⁴ Similar to the CHANCE study, the POINT study included patients with mild ischemic strokes (NIHSS ≤ 3) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 ≥ 4). Combination therapy significantly reduced the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), or death from an ischemic event. Contrary to CHANCE, there was a significant increase in major bleeding in those assigned to combination therapy, which resulted in the trial being stopped early.⁴

A closer look at safety differences. CHANCE and POINT were the first major trials to show a benefit of CLO-ASA for secondary prevention of stroke, yet their differences in safety outcomes, specifically major hemorrhage, argued for a deeper reconciliation of their results.^4,5 While both trials initiated secondary prevention within 24 hours of symptom onset, the difference in duration of combination therapy (21 days in CHANCE vs 90 days in POINT) likely impacted the rates of hemorrhage. When results from POINT were stratified by time period, particularly within the first 30 days of therapy (similar to the 21-day treatment duration of CHANCE), combination therapy significantly reduced the primary endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, or death from an ischemic event (3.9% CLO-ASA vs 5.8% aspirin; P = .02) without an increased risk for major hemorrhage. Between 30 and 90 days, this efficacy benefit disappeared. However, bleeding rates between groups continued to separate throughout the 90-day course. In this light, the 30-day outcomes of POINT are largely similar to CHANCE and support the short-term use of CLO-ASA for secondary prevention without an associated increase in major bleeding.^4,5

Antiplatelet dosing in POINT and CHANCE may also play a role in the contrasting safety results between the trials.^4,5 While both studies utilized clopidogrel loading doses, POINT used 600 mg while CHANCE used 300 mg. Clopidogrel maintenance dosing was the same at 75 mg/d. In CHANCE, aspirin dosing was protocolized to 75 mg/d; however, in POINT, 31% of patients used > 100 mg/d aspirin.^4,5 It is possible that the higher doses of both aspirin and clopidogrel in the POINT trial contributed to the difference in the occurrence of major hemorrhage between the treatment groups in these trials.

The takeaway. Based on currently available data, patients who are best suited to benefit from CLO-ASA are those who have had minor noncardioembolic ischemic strokes or high-risk TIAs.^4,5,11 Clopidogrel should be given as a 300-mg loading dose followed by 75 mg/d given concomitantly with aspirin at a dose no higher than 100 mg/d. CLO-ASA therapy should be initiated within 24 hours of symptom onset and be continued for no longer than 1 month, after which chronic preventive therapy with either aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy should be started.^4,5,11

Dipyridamole and aspirin: A controversial option

Since the approval of the combination product ASA-ERDP, there has been considerable controversy about using this combination over other therapies, such as aspirin or clopidogrel, for recurrent ischemic stroke prevention. Much of this controversy arises from limitations in the trial designs.

Continue to: The first trial to show benefit...

The first trial to show benefit with ASA-ERDP was ESPS2 (European Stroke Prevention Study 2), which demonstrated superiority of the combination over placebo in reducing recurrent stroke when treatment was added within 3 months of an index stroke.¹⁹ A few studies have evaluated ASA-ERDP compared to aspirin monotherapy; however, most of these studies were small and did not show any difference in outcomes.²⁰ Only ESPRIT (European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial)²¹ carried significant weight in a 2013 meta-analysis, which showed a significant reduction in recurrent events with the combination product compared to aspirin monotherapy.²⁰

Initiate clopidogrel + aspirin therapy within 24 hours of symptom onset and continue for no longer than 1 month; then switch to monotherapy with aspirin or clopidogrel.

Both the ESPS2 and ESPRIT trials had significant limitations.^19,21 Patients in both studies had vascular comorbidities including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD); however, pharmacotherapies designated to treat these diseases were not mentioned in the demographic data, nor were these medications taken into consideration to limit potential bias.^19,21 Retrospectively, a significant proportion of aspirin doses utilized as a control in ESPRIT were inferior to the guideline-recommended dosing with 42% to 46% of patients receiving 30 mg/d.²¹ Despite these controversies, ASA-ERDP is still considered an alternative to aspirin monotherapy in the guidelines.⁷

The timing of ASA-ERDP initiation appears to be inversely related to the efficacy of the combination over therapeutic alternatives. Studies in which the therapy was initiated 3 to 6 months from the index stroke indicated favorable outcomes for the combination when compared to ASA or ERDP monotherapy.^19,21 Studies utilizing early initiation (ie, within 24 or 48 hours of the index event) or even within 3 weeks showed no difference in outcomes; however, this may be due in part to the use of clopidogrel or other combination antiplatelet therapy as active comparators.^22-24

Early initiation of ASA-ERDP also demonstrated a higher risk of major and intracranial bleeding compared to clopidogrel.²² Additionally, use of triple therapy with ASA-ERDP plus clopidogrel increased bleeding events without improving efficacy.²⁴ More recent studies of ASA-ERDP are focusing on earlier initiation of therapy; it is unknown whether the benefits of late initiation will be confirmed in future studies. Highlights of the major RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of ASA-ERDP are detailed in TABLE 2^19,21-24.

The takeaway. Methodological issues and potential confounding factors in many of the key trials for ASA-ERDP make it challenging to fully discern the role that ASA-ERDP may play in the secondary prevention of stroke. Further evidence utilizing appropriate controls, timing, and assessment of confounders is needed. Additionally, ASA-ERDP is plagued by tolerability issues such as headache, nausea, and vomiting, leading to higher rates of discontinuation than its comparators in clinical trials. Accordingly, the maintenance use of ASA-ERDP for secondary stroke prevention may be considered less preferred than other recommended alternatives such as aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapies.

CORRESPONDENCE
Robert S. Helmer, PharmD, BCPS, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Auburn University Harrison School of Pharmacy, 650 Clinic Drive, Suite 2100, Mobile, AL 36688; Rsh0011@auburn.edu.

Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, and smoking, are linked to a significantly increased risk for cognitive decline in midlife in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.

“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.

The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
 

New insight

Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.

To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.

The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.

Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
 

Dose-dependent effect

Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.

The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.

Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).

The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”

The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.

Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
 

More to explore

Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”

She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.

“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.

“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.

“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”

CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, and smoking, are linked to a significantly increased risk for cognitive decline in midlife in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.

“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.

The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
 

New insight

Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.

To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.

The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.

Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
 

Dose-dependent effect

Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.

The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.

Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).

The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”

The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.

Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
 

More to explore

Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”

She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.

“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.

“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.

“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”

CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, and smoking, are linked to a significantly increased risk for cognitive decline in midlife in a dose-dependent manner, new research shows. The findings suggest that the relationship between CVRFs and cognition becomes evident much earlier than previously realized. Investigators found that individuals who smoked were 65% more likely to have accelerated cognitive decline, those with hypertension were 87% more likely, and individuals with diabetes had nearly a 200% increased risk.

“What is new here is that almost no one has looked at cardiovascular risk factors in such a young age [mean, 50 years] and cognitive change in middle age from 50 to 55 or so. Almost all other studies have looked at mid- or late-life cardiovascular risk factors and late-life cognition or dementia,” said study investigator Kristine Yaffe, MD.

The research was published online July 15 in Neurology.
 

New insight

Previous research has shown a strong association between CVRFs and a greater risk for cognitive decline and dementia in late life, but the investigators note that data about the influence of CVRFs on cognition in midlife are “sparse.” Longitudinal studies have also shown that several cognitive domains – particularly processing speed and executive function – may start to decline in midlife, but whether CVRFs, many of which also emerge in midlife, contribute to these changes is unclear.

To assess the effect of CVRFs on cognitive changes in midlife, the investigators analyzed data from the ongoing Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. CARDIA is a multicenter longitudinal study designed to measure risk factors for coronary artery disease in a large cohort of Black and White men and women.

The analysis was based on data from 2,675 participants who underwent CVRF assessment and cognitive testing at baseline and 5 years later. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 50.2 years. Approximately 57% of participants were women, 55% were White, and the mean number of years of education was 15. At study outset, 43% (n = 1,133) of participants were considered obese, 31% (n = 826) had hypertension, 15% (n = 701) were current smokers, 11% (n = 290) had diabetes, and 9% (n = 248) had high cholesterol.

Cognition was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which measures processing speed and executive function; the Stroop Test, which measures executive function; and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, which measures verbal memory.
 

Dose-dependent effect

Overall results showed that, for 5% of participants, cognitive decline was accelerated at 5 years. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing accelerated cognitive decline over 5 years was associated with hypertension (7.5% vs. 4.3%; odds ratio, 1.79, 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.52), diabetes (10.3% vs. 4.7%; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.53-3.56), and smoking (7.7% current smokers vs. 4.3% never smokers; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.21-2.90). After adjusting for age, sex, and race, the associations remained significant.

The researchers found no significant effect of high cholesterol (6.9% vs. 5.2%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80-2.28) or obesity (6.1% vs. 4.8%; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.92-1.82) on accelerated cognitive decline.

Compared with participants with no CVRFs, the likelihood of accelerated cognitive decline was higher for individuals with one or two risk factors (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.16-3.25) and was higher still for those with three or more risk factors (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 2.05-6.00).

The fact that there was no association between midlife cognitive decline and obesity or high cholesterol did not come as a surprise, said Dr. Yaffe. “Most studies have not shown a consistent finding with high cholesterol and later-life cognition, so it is not surprising we did not see one in midlife, when there is not as much cognitive change.”

The study’s results, said Dr. Yaffe, provide physicians with another good reason to help patients address CVRFs and to work with them to lower blood pressure, stop smoking, reduce diabetes incidence, or control diabetes.

Dr. Yaffe said she and her colleagues plan further research into CVRFs and accelerated cognitive decline. “We want to know if this earlier cognitive decline [in midlife] is connected to greater decline later in life. We also want to know if improving these risk factors in midlife might prevent or slow dementia later.”
 

More to explore

Commenting on the findings, Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said one of the study’s main implications “is that the prevention and treatment of midlife hypertension and diabetes and smoking cessation directly impacts shorter-term changes in cognition.”

She added that the study also provides a foundation for answering further questions about the effects of CVRFs on cognition in midlife. For example, questions about sex differences remain unanswered. Men develop CVRFs earlier than women, but the investigators did not provide the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors by sex.

“It was also not reported whether a specific midlife cardiovascular risk factor was more strongly associated with accelerated cognitive decline for women or for men,” she said. In addition, the mean age of the population at baseline is the approximate age of the onset of menopause, after which cardiovascular risk factors increase among women.

“Additional research is needed to understand the emergence of cardiovascular risk factors pre- versus post menopause on subsequent cognition and also consider the use of menopausal hormone therapy,” said Dr. Mielke.

“Another future research avenue is to further understand the impact of antihypertensive and diabetes medications,” she continued. “For example, in the current study, it was not clear how many [participants] with hypertension were treated versus untreated and whether this impacted subsequent cognition. Similarly, it is not known whether specific antihypertensives are more beneficial for cognition in midlife.”

CARDIA is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Alabama at Birmingham; Northwestern University, Chicago; the University of Minnesota; and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Yaffe serves on data safety monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and studies sponsored by the National Institute on Aging. She is a board member of Alector and is a member of the Beeson Scientific Advisory Board and the Global Council on Brain Health. Dr. Mielke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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