User login
Many EMS protocols for status epilepticus do not follow evidence-based guidelines
“Many protocols did not follow evidence-based guidelines and did not accurately define generalized convulsive status epilepticus,” said John P. Betjemann, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues. They reported their findings in the March 26 issue of JAMA.
Generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a neurologic emergency, and trials published in 2001 and 2012 found that benzodiazepines are effective prehospital treatments for patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus. These trials informed a 2016 evidence-based guideline that cites level A evidence for intramuscular midazolam, IV lorazepam, and IV diazepam as initial treatment options for adults.
To determine whether EMS system protocols follow these recommendations, the investigators reviewed treatment protocols from 33 EMS systems that cover the 58 counties in California. The researchers reviewed EMS system protocols between May and June 2018 to determine when they were last updated and whether they defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline (namely, 5 or more minutes of continuous seizure or two or more discrete seizures between which a patient has incomplete recovery of consciousness). They also determined whether the protocols included any of the three benzodiazepines in the guideline and, if so, at what dose and using which route of administration.
Protocols’ most recent revision dates ranged between 2007 and 2018. Twenty-seven protocols (81.8%) were revised after the second clinical trial was published in 2012, and 17 (51.5%) were revised after the 2016 guideline. Seven EMS system protocols (21.2%) defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline. Thirty-two protocols (97.0%) included intramuscular midazolam, 2 (6.1%) included IV lorazepam, and 5 (15.2%) included IV diazepam.
Although the protocols “appropriately emphasized” intramuscular midazolam, the protocol doses often were lower than those used in the trials or recommended in the guideline. In addition, most protocols listed IV and intraosseous midazolam as options, although these treatments were not studied in the trials nor recommended in the guideline. In all, six of the protocols (18.2%) recommended at least one medication by the route and dose suggested in the trials or in the guideline.
“Why EMS system protocols deviate from the evidence and how this affects patient outcomes deserves further study,” the authors said.
The researchers noted that they examined EMS protocols in only one state and that “protocols may not necessarily reflect what emergency medical technicians actually do in practice.” In addition, the researchers accessed the most recent protocols by consulting EMS system websites rather than by contacting each EMS system for its most up-to-date protocol.
The authors reported personal compensation from JAMA Neurology and from Continuum Audio unrelated to the present study, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Betjemann JP et al. JAMA. 2019 Mar 26.
“Many protocols did not follow evidence-based guidelines and did not accurately define generalized convulsive status epilepticus,” said John P. Betjemann, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues. They reported their findings in the March 26 issue of JAMA.
Generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a neurologic emergency, and trials published in 2001 and 2012 found that benzodiazepines are effective prehospital treatments for patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus. These trials informed a 2016 evidence-based guideline that cites level A evidence for intramuscular midazolam, IV lorazepam, and IV diazepam as initial treatment options for adults.
To determine whether EMS system protocols follow these recommendations, the investigators reviewed treatment protocols from 33 EMS systems that cover the 58 counties in California. The researchers reviewed EMS system protocols between May and June 2018 to determine when they were last updated and whether they defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline (namely, 5 or more minutes of continuous seizure or two or more discrete seizures between which a patient has incomplete recovery of consciousness). They also determined whether the protocols included any of the three benzodiazepines in the guideline and, if so, at what dose and using which route of administration.
Protocols’ most recent revision dates ranged between 2007 and 2018. Twenty-seven protocols (81.8%) were revised after the second clinical trial was published in 2012, and 17 (51.5%) were revised after the 2016 guideline. Seven EMS system protocols (21.2%) defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline. Thirty-two protocols (97.0%) included intramuscular midazolam, 2 (6.1%) included IV lorazepam, and 5 (15.2%) included IV diazepam.
Although the protocols “appropriately emphasized” intramuscular midazolam, the protocol doses often were lower than those used in the trials or recommended in the guideline. In addition, most protocols listed IV and intraosseous midazolam as options, although these treatments were not studied in the trials nor recommended in the guideline. In all, six of the protocols (18.2%) recommended at least one medication by the route and dose suggested in the trials or in the guideline.
“Why EMS system protocols deviate from the evidence and how this affects patient outcomes deserves further study,” the authors said.
The researchers noted that they examined EMS protocols in only one state and that “protocols may not necessarily reflect what emergency medical technicians actually do in practice.” In addition, the researchers accessed the most recent protocols by consulting EMS system websites rather than by contacting each EMS system for its most up-to-date protocol.
The authors reported personal compensation from JAMA Neurology and from Continuum Audio unrelated to the present study, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Betjemann JP et al. JAMA. 2019 Mar 26.
“Many protocols did not follow evidence-based guidelines and did not accurately define generalized convulsive status epilepticus,” said John P. Betjemann, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues. They reported their findings in the March 26 issue of JAMA.
Generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a neurologic emergency, and trials published in 2001 and 2012 found that benzodiazepines are effective prehospital treatments for patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus. These trials informed a 2016 evidence-based guideline that cites level A evidence for intramuscular midazolam, IV lorazepam, and IV diazepam as initial treatment options for adults.
To determine whether EMS system protocols follow these recommendations, the investigators reviewed treatment protocols from 33 EMS systems that cover the 58 counties in California. The researchers reviewed EMS system protocols between May and June 2018 to determine when they were last updated and whether they defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline (namely, 5 or more minutes of continuous seizure or two or more discrete seizures between which a patient has incomplete recovery of consciousness). They also determined whether the protocols included any of the three benzodiazepines in the guideline and, if so, at what dose and using which route of administration.
Protocols’ most recent revision dates ranged between 2007 and 2018. Twenty-seven protocols (81.8%) were revised after the second clinical trial was published in 2012, and 17 (51.5%) were revised after the 2016 guideline. Seven EMS system protocols (21.2%) defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline. Thirty-two protocols (97.0%) included intramuscular midazolam, 2 (6.1%) included IV lorazepam, and 5 (15.2%) included IV diazepam.
Although the protocols “appropriately emphasized” intramuscular midazolam, the protocol doses often were lower than those used in the trials or recommended in the guideline. In addition, most protocols listed IV and intraosseous midazolam as options, although these treatments were not studied in the trials nor recommended in the guideline. In all, six of the protocols (18.2%) recommended at least one medication by the route and dose suggested in the trials or in the guideline.
“Why EMS system protocols deviate from the evidence and how this affects patient outcomes deserves further study,” the authors said.
The researchers noted that they examined EMS protocols in only one state and that “protocols may not necessarily reflect what emergency medical technicians actually do in practice.” In addition, the researchers accessed the most recent protocols by consulting EMS system websites rather than by contacting each EMS system for its most up-to-date protocol.
The authors reported personal compensation from JAMA Neurology and from Continuum Audio unrelated to the present study, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: Betjemann JP et al. JAMA. 2019 Mar 26.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: Many emergency medical services (EMS) system protocols may not follow evidence-based guidelines or accurately define generalized convulsive status epilepticus.
Major finding: In all, 18.2% of the protocols recommended at least one medication by the route and at the dose suggested in clinical trials or in an evidence-based guideline.
Study details: A review of treatment protocols from 33 EMS systems that cover the 58 counties in California.
Disclosures: The authors reported personal compensation from JAMA Neurology and Continuum Audio unrelated to the present study and grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Source: Betjemann JP et al. JAMA. 2019 March 26.
Surge of gabapentinoids for pain lacks supporting evidence
Many clinicians are prescribing the gabapentinoid drugs pregabalin (Lyrica) and gabapentin (Neurontin) for off-label treatment of pain, despite a lack of supporting data or approval from the Food and Drug Administration, according to investigators.
Over the past 15 years, use of gabapentinoids has tripled, a level of growth that cannot be explained by prescriptions for approved indications, reported coauthors Christopher W. Goodman, MD, and Allan S. Brett, MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Instead, clinicians are turning to gabapentinoids, partly as an option to substitute for opioids, which now have greater prescribing restrictions as a result of the current opioid crisis.
Although clinicians may cite guidelines that support off-label use of gabapentinoids for pain, the investigators warned that many of these recommendations stand on shaky ground.
“Clinicians who prescribe gabapentinoids off-label for pain should be aware of the limited evidence and should acknowledge to patients that potential benefits are uncertain for most off-label uses,” the investigators wrote in a clinical review published online March 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The investigators narrowed down 677 publications to 84 papers describing the use of gabapentinoids for outpatient noncancer pain syndromes for which they are not FDA approved; 54 for gabapentin and 30 for pregabalin. In the domain of analgesia, both agents are currently FDA-approved for postherpetic neuralgia, while pregabalin is additionally approved for pain associated with fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain from diabetic neuropathy and spinal cord injury. Indications in reviewed studies ranged broadly, from conditions somewhat related to those currently approved, such as unspecified neuropathy, to dissimilar conditions, such as chronic pancreatitis and burn injury.
The investigators summarized findings from randomized clinical trials while using case studies to illustrate potential problems with off-label use. In addition, they reviewed the history of gabapentinoids and sources of recommendations for off-label use, such as guidelines and previous review articles.
Six major findings were reported: (1) evidence supporting gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy pain is “mixed at best”; (2) evidence supporting gabapentin for nondiabetic neuropathies is very limited; (3) evidence does not support gabapentinoids for radiculopathy or low back pain; (4) gabapentin has minimal benefit for fibromyalgia pain, based on minimal evidence; (5) evidence does not support gabapentinoids for acute herpes zoster pain; and (6) in almost all studies for other painful indications, gabapentinoids were ineffective or “associated with small analgesic effects that were statistically significant but of questionable clinical importance.”
Case studies complemented this overview, highlighting related clinical dilemmas that the investigators encounter “repeatedly” during inpatient and outpatient care. Along with off-label use, such as gabapentinoid prescriptions for acute sciatica, the investigators reported cases in which neuropathy was diagnosed in place of nonspecific lower body pain to facilitate gabapentin prescription. They also described apparent disregard for risks of polypharmacy in prescriptions for elderly patients and rote use of gabapentinoids in patients with diabetic neuropathy who did not have sufficient discomfort to warrant prescription.
The investigators also cited a number of problems with the language of reviews and guidelines involving gabapentinoids.
“The wording in many guidelines and review articles reinforces an inflated view of gabapentinoid effectiveness or fails to distinguish carefully between evidence-based and non–evidence-based recommendations,” they wrote, adding that clinicians may have misconceptions about neuropathic pain. “One unintended effect of the broad definition [of neuropathic pain] might be to create a mistaken perception that an effective drug for one type of neuropathic pain is effective for all neuropathic pain, regardless of underlying etiology or mechanism,” the investigators suggested.
Another facet of prescribing behavior could be explained in economic terms. Pregabalin, sold under the brand name Lyrica, is considerably more expensive than gabapentin; however, the investigators warned that the similarity of these agents does not equate with interchangeability, noting differences in bioavailability and rate of absorption.
“Unfortunately, published direct comparisons between the 2 drugs in double-blind studies of patients with chronic noncancer pain are virtually nonexistent,” the investigators wrote.
In addition to questionable effectiveness of gabapentinoids for off-label chronic noncancer pain syndromes, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Brett noted that the drugs produce a “substantial incidence of dizziness, somnolence, and gait disturbance.”
They also described a new trend of gabapentinoid abuse and diversion, which may not be surprising, considering that gabapentinoids are reported to augment opioid-induced euphoria.
“Evidence of misuse of gabapentinoids is accumulating and likely related to the opioid epidemic. A recent review article reported an overall population prevalence of gabapentinoid ‘misuse and abuse’ as high as 1%, with substantially higher prevalence noted among patients with opioid use disorders,” the investigators wrote. “This trend is troubling, particularly because concomitant use of opioids and gabapentinoids is associated with increased odds of opioid-related death. Whether these concerns apply to patients receiving long-term prescribed opioid therapy is unclear.”
In the era of the opioid crisis, the investigators acknowledged that many clinicians have serious concerns about adequately treating chronic noncancer pain.
“Comprehensive management of pain in primary care settings is difficult. It requires time and resources that are frequently unavailable,” the investigators wrote. “Many patients with chronic pain have limited or no access to high-quality pain practices or to nonpharmacologic interventions, such as cognitive behavior therapy.”
The investigators reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Goodman CW et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0086
Many clinicians are prescribing the gabapentinoid drugs pregabalin (Lyrica) and gabapentin (Neurontin) for off-label treatment of pain, despite a lack of supporting data or approval from the Food and Drug Administration, according to investigators.
Over the past 15 years, use of gabapentinoids has tripled, a level of growth that cannot be explained by prescriptions for approved indications, reported coauthors Christopher W. Goodman, MD, and Allan S. Brett, MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Instead, clinicians are turning to gabapentinoids, partly as an option to substitute for opioids, which now have greater prescribing restrictions as a result of the current opioid crisis.
Although clinicians may cite guidelines that support off-label use of gabapentinoids for pain, the investigators warned that many of these recommendations stand on shaky ground.
“Clinicians who prescribe gabapentinoids off-label for pain should be aware of the limited evidence and should acknowledge to patients that potential benefits are uncertain for most off-label uses,” the investigators wrote in a clinical review published online March 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The investigators narrowed down 677 publications to 84 papers describing the use of gabapentinoids for outpatient noncancer pain syndromes for which they are not FDA approved; 54 for gabapentin and 30 for pregabalin. In the domain of analgesia, both agents are currently FDA-approved for postherpetic neuralgia, while pregabalin is additionally approved for pain associated with fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain from diabetic neuropathy and spinal cord injury. Indications in reviewed studies ranged broadly, from conditions somewhat related to those currently approved, such as unspecified neuropathy, to dissimilar conditions, such as chronic pancreatitis and burn injury.
The investigators summarized findings from randomized clinical trials while using case studies to illustrate potential problems with off-label use. In addition, they reviewed the history of gabapentinoids and sources of recommendations for off-label use, such as guidelines and previous review articles.
Six major findings were reported: (1) evidence supporting gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy pain is “mixed at best”; (2) evidence supporting gabapentin for nondiabetic neuropathies is very limited; (3) evidence does not support gabapentinoids for radiculopathy or low back pain; (4) gabapentin has minimal benefit for fibromyalgia pain, based on minimal evidence; (5) evidence does not support gabapentinoids for acute herpes zoster pain; and (6) in almost all studies for other painful indications, gabapentinoids were ineffective or “associated with small analgesic effects that were statistically significant but of questionable clinical importance.”
Case studies complemented this overview, highlighting related clinical dilemmas that the investigators encounter “repeatedly” during inpatient and outpatient care. Along with off-label use, such as gabapentinoid prescriptions for acute sciatica, the investigators reported cases in which neuropathy was diagnosed in place of nonspecific lower body pain to facilitate gabapentin prescription. They also described apparent disregard for risks of polypharmacy in prescriptions for elderly patients and rote use of gabapentinoids in patients with diabetic neuropathy who did not have sufficient discomfort to warrant prescription.
The investigators also cited a number of problems with the language of reviews and guidelines involving gabapentinoids.
“The wording in many guidelines and review articles reinforces an inflated view of gabapentinoid effectiveness or fails to distinguish carefully between evidence-based and non–evidence-based recommendations,” they wrote, adding that clinicians may have misconceptions about neuropathic pain. “One unintended effect of the broad definition [of neuropathic pain] might be to create a mistaken perception that an effective drug for one type of neuropathic pain is effective for all neuropathic pain, regardless of underlying etiology or mechanism,” the investigators suggested.
Another facet of prescribing behavior could be explained in economic terms. Pregabalin, sold under the brand name Lyrica, is considerably more expensive than gabapentin; however, the investigators warned that the similarity of these agents does not equate with interchangeability, noting differences in bioavailability and rate of absorption.
“Unfortunately, published direct comparisons between the 2 drugs in double-blind studies of patients with chronic noncancer pain are virtually nonexistent,” the investigators wrote.
In addition to questionable effectiveness of gabapentinoids for off-label chronic noncancer pain syndromes, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Brett noted that the drugs produce a “substantial incidence of dizziness, somnolence, and gait disturbance.”
They also described a new trend of gabapentinoid abuse and diversion, which may not be surprising, considering that gabapentinoids are reported to augment opioid-induced euphoria.
“Evidence of misuse of gabapentinoids is accumulating and likely related to the opioid epidemic. A recent review article reported an overall population prevalence of gabapentinoid ‘misuse and abuse’ as high as 1%, with substantially higher prevalence noted among patients with opioid use disorders,” the investigators wrote. “This trend is troubling, particularly because concomitant use of opioids and gabapentinoids is associated with increased odds of opioid-related death. Whether these concerns apply to patients receiving long-term prescribed opioid therapy is unclear.”
In the era of the opioid crisis, the investigators acknowledged that many clinicians have serious concerns about adequately treating chronic noncancer pain.
“Comprehensive management of pain in primary care settings is difficult. It requires time and resources that are frequently unavailable,” the investigators wrote. “Many patients with chronic pain have limited or no access to high-quality pain practices or to nonpharmacologic interventions, such as cognitive behavior therapy.”
The investigators reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Goodman CW et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0086
Many clinicians are prescribing the gabapentinoid drugs pregabalin (Lyrica) and gabapentin (Neurontin) for off-label treatment of pain, despite a lack of supporting data or approval from the Food and Drug Administration, according to investigators.
Over the past 15 years, use of gabapentinoids has tripled, a level of growth that cannot be explained by prescriptions for approved indications, reported coauthors Christopher W. Goodman, MD, and Allan S. Brett, MD, of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Instead, clinicians are turning to gabapentinoids, partly as an option to substitute for opioids, which now have greater prescribing restrictions as a result of the current opioid crisis.
Although clinicians may cite guidelines that support off-label use of gabapentinoids for pain, the investigators warned that many of these recommendations stand on shaky ground.
“Clinicians who prescribe gabapentinoids off-label for pain should be aware of the limited evidence and should acknowledge to patients that potential benefits are uncertain for most off-label uses,” the investigators wrote in a clinical review published online March 25 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The investigators narrowed down 677 publications to 84 papers describing the use of gabapentinoids for outpatient noncancer pain syndromes for which they are not FDA approved; 54 for gabapentin and 30 for pregabalin. In the domain of analgesia, both agents are currently FDA-approved for postherpetic neuralgia, while pregabalin is additionally approved for pain associated with fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain from diabetic neuropathy and spinal cord injury. Indications in reviewed studies ranged broadly, from conditions somewhat related to those currently approved, such as unspecified neuropathy, to dissimilar conditions, such as chronic pancreatitis and burn injury.
The investigators summarized findings from randomized clinical trials while using case studies to illustrate potential problems with off-label use. In addition, they reviewed the history of gabapentinoids and sources of recommendations for off-label use, such as guidelines and previous review articles.
Six major findings were reported: (1) evidence supporting gabapentin for diabetic neuropathy pain is “mixed at best”; (2) evidence supporting gabapentin for nondiabetic neuropathies is very limited; (3) evidence does not support gabapentinoids for radiculopathy or low back pain; (4) gabapentin has minimal benefit for fibromyalgia pain, based on minimal evidence; (5) evidence does not support gabapentinoids for acute herpes zoster pain; and (6) in almost all studies for other painful indications, gabapentinoids were ineffective or “associated with small analgesic effects that were statistically significant but of questionable clinical importance.”
Case studies complemented this overview, highlighting related clinical dilemmas that the investigators encounter “repeatedly” during inpatient and outpatient care. Along with off-label use, such as gabapentinoid prescriptions for acute sciatica, the investigators reported cases in which neuropathy was diagnosed in place of nonspecific lower body pain to facilitate gabapentin prescription. They also described apparent disregard for risks of polypharmacy in prescriptions for elderly patients and rote use of gabapentinoids in patients with diabetic neuropathy who did not have sufficient discomfort to warrant prescription.
The investigators also cited a number of problems with the language of reviews and guidelines involving gabapentinoids.
“The wording in many guidelines and review articles reinforces an inflated view of gabapentinoid effectiveness or fails to distinguish carefully between evidence-based and non–evidence-based recommendations,” they wrote, adding that clinicians may have misconceptions about neuropathic pain. “One unintended effect of the broad definition [of neuropathic pain] might be to create a mistaken perception that an effective drug for one type of neuropathic pain is effective for all neuropathic pain, regardless of underlying etiology or mechanism,” the investigators suggested.
Another facet of prescribing behavior could be explained in economic terms. Pregabalin, sold under the brand name Lyrica, is considerably more expensive than gabapentin; however, the investigators warned that the similarity of these agents does not equate with interchangeability, noting differences in bioavailability and rate of absorption.
“Unfortunately, published direct comparisons between the 2 drugs in double-blind studies of patients with chronic noncancer pain are virtually nonexistent,” the investigators wrote.
In addition to questionable effectiveness of gabapentinoids for off-label chronic noncancer pain syndromes, Dr. Goodman and Dr. Brett noted that the drugs produce a “substantial incidence of dizziness, somnolence, and gait disturbance.”
They also described a new trend of gabapentinoid abuse and diversion, which may not be surprising, considering that gabapentinoids are reported to augment opioid-induced euphoria.
“Evidence of misuse of gabapentinoids is accumulating and likely related to the opioid epidemic. A recent review article reported an overall population prevalence of gabapentinoid ‘misuse and abuse’ as high as 1%, with substantially higher prevalence noted among patients with opioid use disorders,” the investigators wrote. “This trend is troubling, particularly because concomitant use of opioids and gabapentinoids is associated with increased odds of opioid-related death. Whether these concerns apply to patients receiving long-term prescribed opioid therapy is unclear.”
In the era of the opioid crisis, the investigators acknowledged that many clinicians have serious concerns about adequately treating chronic noncancer pain.
“Comprehensive management of pain in primary care settings is difficult. It requires time and resources that are frequently unavailable,” the investigators wrote. “Many patients with chronic pain have limited or no access to high-quality pain practices or to nonpharmacologic interventions, such as cognitive behavior therapy.”
The investigators reported no external funding or conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Goodman CW et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Mar 25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0086
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Patient selection for acute stroke thrombectomy stirs controversy
HONOLULU – A little more than a year ago, results from the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials substantially broadened the time window for endovascular thrombectomy of acute ischemic stroke by selecting patients using brain imaging. Stroke clinicians are now trying to reconcile widespread, routine use of this life-changing treatment against an uncertain need to replicate the higher-end perfusion CT and analytical software imaging that these landmark trials used for patient selection. This has produced a schism in what experts advise for using endovascular thrombectomy on acute ischemic stroke patients.
“Go open the artery, people!” Michael D. Hill, MD, exhorted during a talk at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Don’t get over-selective; more people will benefit than you think,” said Dr. Hill, a professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.).
“We are over-selecting, and depriving patients,” commented Raul C. Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta and a lead investigator of the DAWN trial, speaking from the audience during a discussion at the session where Dr. Hill spoke.
“The prevalence of treatable [acute ischemic stroke] patients is far higher than the prevalence of patients who are not good candidates, so you just want to exclude the ‘wipe-outs’; that’s what we do,” Dr. Hill explained. “Fortunately, endovascular therapy is very safe, and you’re not going to harm many patients. With other treatments [used routinely in medicine] some patients don’t benefit, but when you have a large effect size we use the treatment on almost everyone. The effect size from thrombectomy is so large it’s an argument to treat almost everyone, although the patients in the trials were selected by imaging.”
Dr. Hill repeatedly stressed that for most patients a non-contrast CT image is usually adequate to identify patients with salvageable brain tissue and a low risk for hemorrhage from intervention, and he endorsed also doing CT angiography to further inform the diagnosis. But he dismissed CT perfusion imaging as unnecessary. “Noncontrast CT and CT angiography are more than adequate to make treatment decisions,” he said. “The prevalence of poor collaterals is quite low, about 10%,” which means that about 90% of acute ischemic stroke patients will have more slowly progressing infarction,” making them amenable to treatment in an expanded time window and boosting the volume of salvageable tissue.
But these appeals for more liberal use of thrombectomy without the perfusion CT imaging used in DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21)and DEFUSE-3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:708-18) received push back. Maarten G. Lansberg, MD, a co-investigator on the DEFUSE 3 trial, highlighted the speed and simplicity of CT perfusion imaging, and its utility in helping to better target thrombectomy to the right patients. It’s “speedy, simple, and safe,” it “excludes patients who will not benefit” from thrombectomy, and it helps when the patient’s history and noncontrast CT images are inconclusive, said Dr. Lansberg, a neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“Clinical presentation will only tell you so much.” With imaging that includes CT perfusion, “you can find out, in 5, 10 minutes, whether there is an occlusion, its location, the extent of dead tissue – that’s all really helpful,” said Marc Fisher, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “There is a tension now between doing treatment really fast and the concept of slow and fast evolvers. For slow evolvers, the concern about speed is irrelevant because it can take days” for their brains to have substantial damage. “For the fast evolvers, time matters, but they could also possibly be harmed; that’s why we need more data.”
A pitch for more data also came from Pooja Khatri, MD, who also spoke at the session. “There is a real tension now between personalizing the imaging and figuring out exactly the right patients against the time trade off for doing that. Some argue to keep it simple and move fast, and by doing that you’ll wash out any difference from doing more fancy stuff. Plus some places, even in developed countries, can’t afford the image-processing software” used in the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials. The correct approach remains unclear and has created “an area ripe for a trial,” declared Dr. Khatri, professor of neurology at director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Hill has received honoraria from Merck and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Covidien, Medtronic, and Stryker. He has an ownership interest in Calgary Scientific and holds a patent on acute stroke triage methods. Dr. Nogueira has financial relationships with many companies. Dr. Lansberg and Dr. Fisher had no disclosures. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Lumosa and has received research funding from Cerenovus/Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and Nervive.
HONOLULU – A little more than a year ago, results from the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials substantially broadened the time window for endovascular thrombectomy of acute ischemic stroke by selecting patients using brain imaging. Stroke clinicians are now trying to reconcile widespread, routine use of this life-changing treatment against an uncertain need to replicate the higher-end perfusion CT and analytical software imaging that these landmark trials used for patient selection. This has produced a schism in what experts advise for using endovascular thrombectomy on acute ischemic stroke patients.
“Go open the artery, people!” Michael D. Hill, MD, exhorted during a talk at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Don’t get over-selective; more people will benefit than you think,” said Dr. Hill, a professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.).
“We are over-selecting, and depriving patients,” commented Raul C. Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta and a lead investigator of the DAWN trial, speaking from the audience during a discussion at the session where Dr. Hill spoke.
“The prevalence of treatable [acute ischemic stroke] patients is far higher than the prevalence of patients who are not good candidates, so you just want to exclude the ‘wipe-outs’; that’s what we do,” Dr. Hill explained. “Fortunately, endovascular therapy is very safe, and you’re not going to harm many patients. With other treatments [used routinely in medicine] some patients don’t benefit, but when you have a large effect size we use the treatment on almost everyone. The effect size from thrombectomy is so large it’s an argument to treat almost everyone, although the patients in the trials were selected by imaging.”
Dr. Hill repeatedly stressed that for most patients a non-contrast CT image is usually adequate to identify patients with salvageable brain tissue and a low risk for hemorrhage from intervention, and he endorsed also doing CT angiography to further inform the diagnosis. But he dismissed CT perfusion imaging as unnecessary. “Noncontrast CT and CT angiography are more than adequate to make treatment decisions,” he said. “The prevalence of poor collaterals is quite low, about 10%,” which means that about 90% of acute ischemic stroke patients will have more slowly progressing infarction,” making them amenable to treatment in an expanded time window and boosting the volume of salvageable tissue.
But these appeals for more liberal use of thrombectomy without the perfusion CT imaging used in DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21)and DEFUSE-3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:708-18) received push back. Maarten G. Lansberg, MD, a co-investigator on the DEFUSE 3 trial, highlighted the speed and simplicity of CT perfusion imaging, and its utility in helping to better target thrombectomy to the right patients. It’s “speedy, simple, and safe,” it “excludes patients who will not benefit” from thrombectomy, and it helps when the patient’s history and noncontrast CT images are inconclusive, said Dr. Lansberg, a neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“Clinical presentation will only tell you so much.” With imaging that includes CT perfusion, “you can find out, in 5, 10 minutes, whether there is an occlusion, its location, the extent of dead tissue – that’s all really helpful,” said Marc Fisher, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “There is a tension now between doing treatment really fast and the concept of slow and fast evolvers. For slow evolvers, the concern about speed is irrelevant because it can take days” for their brains to have substantial damage. “For the fast evolvers, time matters, but they could also possibly be harmed; that’s why we need more data.”
A pitch for more data also came from Pooja Khatri, MD, who also spoke at the session. “There is a real tension now between personalizing the imaging and figuring out exactly the right patients against the time trade off for doing that. Some argue to keep it simple and move fast, and by doing that you’ll wash out any difference from doing more fancy stuff. Plus some places, even in developed countries, can’t afford the image-processing software” used in the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials. The correct approach remains unclear and has created “an area ripe for a trial,” declared Dr. Khatri, professor of neurology at director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Hill has received honoraria from Merck and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Covidien, Medtronic, and Stryker. He has an ownership interest in Calgary Scientific and holds a patent on acute stroke triage methods. Dr. Nogueira has financial relationships with many companies. Dr. Lansberg and Dr. Fisher had no disclosures. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Lumosa and has received research funding from Cerenovus/Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and Nervive.
HONOLULU – A little more than a year ago, results from the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials substantially broadened the time window for endovascular thrombectomy of acute ischemic stroke by selecting patients using brain imaging. Stroke clinicians are now trying to reconcile widespread, routine use of this life-changing treatment against an uncertain need to replicate the higher-end perfusion CT and analytical software imaging that these landmark trials used for patient selection. This has produced a schism in what experts advise for using endovascular thrombectomy on acute ischemic stroke patients.
“Go open the artery, people!” Michael D. Hill, MD, exhorted during a talk at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Don’t get over-selective; more people will benefit than you think,” said Dr. Hill, a professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.).
“We are over-selecting, and depriving patients,” commented Raul C. Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta and a lead investigator of the DAWN trial, speaking from the audience during a discussion at the session where Dr. Hill spoke.
“The prevalence of treatable [acute ischemic stroke] patients is far higher than the prevalence of patients who are not good candidates, so you just want to exclude the ‘wipe-outs’; that’s what we do,” Dr. Hill explained. “Fortunately, endovascular therapy is very safe, and you’re not going to harm many patients. With other treatments [used routinely in medicine] some patients don’t benefit, but when you have a large effect size we use the treatment on almost everyone. The effect size from thrombectomy is so large it’s an argument to treat almost everyone, although the patients in the trials were selected by imaging.”
Dr. Hill repeatedly stressed that for most patients a non-contrast CT image is usually adequate to identify patients with salvageable brain tissue and a low risk for hemorrhage from intervention, and he endorsed also doing CT angiography to further inform the diagnosis. But he dismissed CT perfusion imaging as unnecessary. “Noncontrast CT and CT angiography are more than adequate to make treatment decisions,” he said. “The prevalence of poor collaterals is quite low, about 10%,” which means that about 90% of acute ischemic stroke patients will have more slowly progressing infarction,” making them amenable to treatment in an expanded time window and boosting the volume of salvageable tissue.
But these appeals for more liberal use of thrombectomy without the perfusion CT imaging used in DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21)and DEFUSE-3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:708-18) received push back. Maarten G. Lansberg, MD, a co-investigator on the DEFUSE 3 trial, highlighted the speed and simplicity of CT perfusion imaging, and its utility in helping to better target thrombectomy to the right patients. It’s “speedy, simple, and safe,” it “excludes patients who will not benefit” from thrombectomy, and it helps when the patient’s history and noncontrast CT images are inconclusive, said Dr. Lansberg, a neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“Clinical presentation will only tell you so much.” With imaging that includes CT perfusion, “you can find out, in 5, 10 minutes, whether there is an occlusion, its location, the extent of dead tissue – that’s all really helpful,” said Marc Fisher, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “There is a tension now between doing treatment really fast and the concept of slow and fast evolvers. For slow evolvers, the concern about speed is irrelevant because it can take days” for their brains to have substantial damage. “For the fast evolvers, time matters, but they could also possibly be harmed; that’s why we need more data.”
A pitch for more data also came from Pooja Khatri, MD, who also spoke at the session. “There is a real tension now between personalizing the imaging and figuring out exactly the right patients against the time trade off for doing that. Some argue to keep it simple and move fast, and by doing that you’ll wash out any difference from doing more fancy stuff. Plus some places, even in developed countries, can’t afford the image-processing software” used in the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials. The correct approach remains unclear and has created “an area ripe for a trial,” declared Dr. Khatri, professor of neurology at director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Hill has received honoraria from Merck and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Covidien, Medtronic, and Stryker. He has an ownership interest in Calgary Scientific and holds a patent on acute stroke triage methods. Dr. Nogueira has financial relationships with many companies. Dr. Lansberg and Dr. Fisher had no disclosures. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Lumosa and has received research funding from Cerenovus/Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and Nervive.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2019
Biogen, Eisai discontinue aducanumab Alzheimer’s trials
Biogen and Eisai have announced that they are discontinuing the ENGAGE and EMERGE trials, which were designed to test the efficacy and safety of aducanumab in patients with mild cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer’s disease and mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
The phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials were canceled not because of safety concerns but because of a futility analysis conducted by an independent data monitoring committee that indicated the drug would not meet the trials’ primary endpoint, which was the slowing of cognitive and functional impairment as measured by changes in Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes score, compared with placebo.
In addition to ENGAGE and EMERGE, the phase 2 EVOLVE safety study and the long-term extension of the phase 1b PRIME study have also been canceled. Data from the ENGAGE and EMERGE trials will be presented at future medical meetings.
Aducanumab is a human monoclonal antibody derived from B cells collected from healthy elderly subjects with no cognitive decline or those with unusually slow cognitive decline through Neurimmune’s technology platform called Reverse Translational Medicine. It was granted Fast Track designation by the Food and Drug Administration.
“This disappointing news confirms the complexity of treating Alzheimer’s disease and the need to further advance knowledge in neuroscience. We are incredibly grateful to all the Alzheimer’s disease patients, their families, and the investigators who participated in the trials and contributed greatly to this research,” Michel Vounatsos, CEO at Biogen, said in a press release.
Biogen and Eisai have announced that they are discontinuing the ENGAGE and EMERGE trials, which were designed to test the efficacy and safety of aducanumab in patients with mild cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer’s disease and mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
The phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials were canceled not because of safety concerns but because of a futility analysis conducted by an independent data monitoring committee that indicated the drug would not meet the trials’ primary endpoint, which was the slowing of cognitive and functional impairment as measured by changes in Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes score, compared with placebo.
In addition to ENGAGE and EMERGE, the phase 2 EVOLVE safety study and the long-term extension of the phase 1b PRIME study have also been canceled. Data from the ENGAGE and EMERGE trials will be presented at future medical meetings.
Aducanumab is a human monoclonal antibody derived from B cells collected from healthy elderly subjects with no cognitive decline or those with unusually slow cognitive decline through Neurimmune’s technology platform called Reverse Translational Medicine. It was granted Fast Track designation by the Food and Drug Administration.
“This disappointing news confirms the complexity of treating Alzheimer’s disease and the need to further advance knowledge in neuroscience. We are incredibly grateful to all the Alzheimer’s disease patients, their families, and the investigators who participated in the trials and contributed greatly to this research,” Michel Vounatsos, CEO at Biogen, said in a press release.
Biogen and Eisai have announced that they are discontinuing the ENGAGE and EMERGE trials, which were designed to test the efficacy and safety of aducanumab in patients with mild cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer’s disease and mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia.
The phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials were canceled not because of safety concerns but because of a futility analysis conducted by an independent data monitoring committee that indicated the drug would not meet the trials’ primary endpoint, which was the slowing of cognitive and functional impairment as measured by changes in Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes score, compared with placebo.
In addition to ENGAGE and EMERGE, the phase 2 EVOLVE safety study and the long-term extension of the phase 1b PRIME study have also been canceled. Data from the ENGAGE and EMERGE trials will be presented at future medical meetings.
Aducanumab is a human monoclonal antibody derived from B cells collected from healthy elderly subjects with no cognitive decline or those with unusually slow cognitive decline through Neurimmune’s technology platform called Reverse Translational Medicine. It was granted Fast Track designation by the Food and Drug Administration.
“This disappointing news confirms the complexity of treating Alzheimer’s disease and the need to further advance knowledge in neuroscience. We are incredibly grateful to all the Alzheimer’s disease patients, their families, and the investigators who participated in the trials and contributed greatly to this research,” Michel Vounatsos, CEO at Biogen, said in a press release.
Intensive blood pressure lowering may not reduce risk of recurrent stroke
HONOLULU – according to research presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Combined with data from previous trials, these results support a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 80 mm Hg for secondary stroke prevention, said Kazuo Kitagawa, MD, PhD.
Lowering blood pressure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke, but investigators have not identified the best target blood pressure for this indication. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes Trial (SPS3) examined the efficacy of intensive blood pressure treatment for secondary stroke prevention. The investigators randomized more than 3,000 patients with recent lacunar stroke to intensive or standard blood pressure treatment. Intensive treatment (a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg) conferred a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of recurrent stroke. A 2018 meta-analysis of SPS3 and two smaller randomized controlled trials also showed that intensive treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke.
A new multicenter trial
Dr. Kitagawa, of Tokyo Women’s Medical University, and colleagues conducted a new trial to evaluate whether intensive blood pressure reduction significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke, compared with standard treatment (a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 90 mm Hg). Between 2010 and 2016, they enrolled patients with a history of stroke within the previous 3 years at 140 hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomized to standard blood pressure treatment or intensive blood pressure treatment (defined in this study as a systolic target of less than 120 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 80 mm Hg). The primary end point was recurrent stroke.
Both treatment regimens were based on stepwise multidrug rationing. Step 1 was an angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB), step 2 was the addition of diuretics, step 3 was the addition of calcium channel blockers, step 4 was an increase of the ARB, step 5 was increase of the calcium channel blocker, and step 6 was the addition of spironolactone.
This trial was stopped at the end of 2016 because of slow recruitment and funding cessation. Investigators randomized 1,280 patients out of a planned 2,000. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 67 years, and mean systolic blood pressure was 145 mm Hg. The qualifying event was ischemic stroke for 85% of patients and intracerebral hemorrhage for 15%. Mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years.
Intensive treatment reduced blood pressure
At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 132.0 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 123.7 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 77.5 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 72.8 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. The investigators observed a significant difference in blood pressure between the groups throughout the study period.
The annual rate of stroke recurrence was 2.26% in the standard-treatment group and 1.65% in the intensive-treatment group. Intensive treatment tended to reduce stroke recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.73), but the result was not statistically significant. “The nonsignificant finding might be due to early termination or the modest difference in blood pressure level [between groups],” said Dr. Kitagawa.
Subgroup analyses did not indicate any interaction between treatment group and age, sex, qualifying event, mean systolic blood pressure at baseline, or diabetes. The rate of ischemic stroke was similar between the two groups, but the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage was lower in the intensive treatment group than in the standard treatment group. The rate of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups.
When Dr. Kitagawa and colleagues pooled their data with those examined in the 2018 meta-analysis, they found that intensive treatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.68), compared with standard treatment.
This study was sponsored by Biomedis International.
SOURCE: Kitagawa K et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB10.
HONOLULU – according to research presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Combined with data from previous trials, these results support a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 80 mm Hg for secondary stroke prevention, said Kazuo Kitagawa, MD, PhD.
Lowering blood pressure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke, but investigators have not identified the best target blood pressure for this indication. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes Trial (SPS3) examined the efficacy of intensive blood pressure treatment for secondary stroke prevention. The investigators randomized more than 3,000 patients with recent lacunar stroke to intensive or standard blood pressure treatment. Intensive treatment (a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg) conferred a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of recurrent stroke. A 2018 meta-analysis of SPS3 and two smaller randomized controlled trials also showed that intensive treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke.
A new multicenter trial
Dr. Kitagawa, of Tokyo Women’s Medical University, and colleagues conducted a new trial to evaluate whether intensive blood pressure reduction significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke, compared with standard treatment (a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 90 mm Hg). Between 2010 and 2016, they enrolled patients with a history of stroke within the previous 3 years at 140 hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomized to standard blood pressure treatment or intensive blood pressure treatment (defined in this study as a systolic target of less than 120 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 80 mm Hg). The primary end point was recurrent stroke.
Both treatment regimens were based on stepwise multidrug rationing. Step 1 was an angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB), step 2 was the addition of diuretics, step 3 was the addition of calcium channel blockers, step 4 was an increase of the ARB, step 5 was increase of the calcium channel blocker, and step 6 was the addition of spironolactone.
This trial was stopped at the end of 2016 because of slow recruitment and funding cessation. Investigators randomized 1,280 patients out of a planned 2,000. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 67 years, and mean systolic blood pressure was 145 mm Hg. The qualifying event was ischemic stroke for 85% of patients and intracerebral hemorrhage for 15%. Mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years.
Intensive treatment reduced blood pressure
At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 132.0 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 123.7 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 77.5 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 72.8 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. The investigators observed a significant difference in blood pressure between the groups throughout the study period.
The annual rate of stroke recurrence was 2.26% in the standard-treatment group and 1.65% in the intensive-treatment group. Intensive treatment tended to reduce stroke recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.73), but the result was not statistically significant. “The nonsignificant finding might be due to early termination or the modest difference in blood pressure level [between groups],” said Dr. Kitagawa.
Subgroup analyses did not indicate any interaction between treatment group and age, sex, qualifying event, mean systolic blood pressure at baseline, or diabetes. The rate of ischemic stroke was similar between the two groups, but the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage was lower in the intensive treatment group than in the standard treatment group. The rate of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups.
When Dr. Kitagawa and colleagues pooled their data with those examined in the 2018 meta-analysis, they found that intensive treatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.68), compared with standard treatment.
This study was sponsored by Biomedis International.
SOURCE: Kitagawa K et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB10.
HONOLULU – according to research presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.
Combined with data from previous trials, these results support a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of less than 80 mm Hg for secondary stroke prevention, said Kazuo Kitagawa, MD, PhD.
Lowering blood pressure reduces the risk of recurrent stroke, but investigators have not identified the best target blood pressure for this indication. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes Trial (SPS3) examined the efficacy of intensive blood pressure treatment for secondary stroke prevention. The investigators randomized more than 3,000 patients with recent lacunar stroke to intensive or standard blood pressure treatment. Intensive treatment (a target systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg) conferred a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of recurrent stroke. A 2018 meta-analysis of SPS3 and two smaller randomized controlled trials also showed that intensive treatment did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke.
A new multicenter trial
Dr. Kitagawa, of Tokyo Women’s Medical University, and colleagues conducted a new trial to evaluate whether intensive blood pressure reduction significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke, compared with standard treatment (a systolic target of less than 140 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 90 mm Hg). Between 2010 and 2016, they enrolled patients with a history of stroke within the previous 3 years at 140 hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomized to standard blood pressure treatment or intensive blood pressure treatment (defined in this study as a systolic target of less than 120 mm Hg and a diastolic target of less than 80 mm Hg). The primary end point was recurrent stroke.
Both treatment regimens were based on stepwise multidrug rationing. Step 1 was an angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB), step 2 was the addition of diuretics, step 3 was the addition of calcium channel blockers, step 4 was an increase of the ARB, step 5 was increase of the calcium channel blocker, and step 6 was the addition of spironolactone.
This trial was stopped at the end of 2016 because of slow recruitment and funding cessation. Investigators randomized 1,280 patients out of a planned 2,000. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis. At baseline, participants’ mean age was 67 years, and mean systolic blood pressure was 145 mm Hg. The qualifying event was ischemic stroke for 85% of patients and intracerebral hemorrhage for 15%. Mean follow-up duration was 3.9 years.
Intensive treatment reduced blood pressure
At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 132.0 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 123.7 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. Mean diastolic blood pressure was 77.5 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group and 72.8 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group. The investigators observed a significant difference in blood pressure between the groups throughout the study period.
The annual rate of stroke recurrence was 2.26% in the standard-treatment group and 1.65% in the intensive-treatment group. Intensive treatment tended to reduce stroke recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.73), but the result was not statistically significant. “The nonsignificant finding might be due to early termination or the modest difference in blood pressure level [between groups],” said Dr. Kitagawa.
Subgroup analyses did not indicate any interaction between treatment group and age, sex, qualifying event, mean systolic blood pressure at baseline, or diabetes. The rate of ischemic stroke was similar between the two groups, but the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage was lower in the intensive treatment group than in the standard treatment group. The rate of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups.
When Dr. Kitagawa and colleagues pooled their data with those examined in the 2018 meta-analysis, they found that intensive treatment significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 0.68), compared with standard treatment.
This study was sponsored by Biomedis International.
SOURCE: Kitagawa K et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB10.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2019
Study Provides Insight Into Alcohol’s Effects on the Brain
The findings could lead the way to understanding the brain’s intake and output of energy in good health and bad and the part that alcohol plays.
In previous studies, the researchers have shown that alcohol significantly affects brain glucose metabolism, a measure of energy use, as well as regional brain activity, assessed through changes in blood oxygenation. But regional differences in glucose metabolism are hard to interpret, they say. In a study with healthy volunteers, they used brain imaging techniques to help quantify “match and mismatch” in energy consumption and expenditure across the brain—what they termed power and cost.
The researchers assessed power by observing to what extent brain regions are active and use energy, and cost by observing how brain regions expended energy. They found that different brain regions that serve distinct functions have “notably different power and different cost.”
Next, they tested a group of light drinkers and heavy drinkers and found both acute and chronic exposure to alcohol affected power and cost. In heavy drinkers, the researchers say, they saw less regional power, for example, in the thalamus, the sensory gateway, and frontal cortex. The researchers interpreted the decreases in power as reflecting the toxic effects of long-term exposure to alcohol on the brain cells.
They also found power dropped in the visual regions during acute alcohol exposure, which was related to disruption of visual processing. Visual regions also had the most significant drops in cost of activity during intoxication. That is consistent with the reliance of those regions on alternative energy sources, such as acetate (a byproduct of alcohol metabolism), the researchers say.
Their approach for characterizing brain energetic patterns related to alcohol use could be useful in other ways, the researchers say. “Studying energetic signatures of brain regions in different neuropsychiatric diseases is an important future direction,” said co-lead investigator Dr. Ehsan Schokri-Kojori. “The measures of power and cost may provide new multimodal biomarkers.”
The findings could lead the way to understanding the brain’s intake and output of energy in good health and bad and the part that alcohol plays.
In previous studies, the researchers have shown that alcohol significantly affects brain glucose metabolism, a measure of energy use, as well as regional brain activity, assessed through changes in blood oxygenation. But regional differences in glucose metabolism are hard to interpret, they say. In a study with healthy volunteers, they used brain imaging techniques to help quantify “match and mismatch” in energy consumption and expenditure across the brain—what they termed power and cost.
The researchers assessed power by observing to what extent brain regions are active and use energy, and cost by observing how brain regions expended energy. They found that different brain regions that serve distinct functions have “notably different power and different cost.”
Next, they tested a group of light drinkers and heavy drinkers and found both acute and chronic exposure to alcohol affected power and cost. In heavy drinkers, the researchers say, they saw less regional power, for example, in the thalamus, the sensory gateway, and frontal cortex. The researchers interpreted the decreases in power as reflecting the toxic effects of long-term exposure to alcohol on the brain cells.
They also found power dropped in the visual regions during acute alcohol exposure, which was related to disruption of visual processing. Visual regions also had the most significant drops in cost of activity during intoxication. That is consistent with the reliance of those regions on alternative energy sources, such as acetate (a byproduct of alcohol metabolism), the researchers say.
Their approach for characterizing brain energetic patterns related to alcohol use could be useful in other ways, the researchers say. “Studying energetic signatures of brain regions in different neuropsychiatric diseases is an important future direction,” said co-lead investigator Dr. Ehsan Schokri-Kojori. “The measures of power and cost may provide new multimodal biomarkers.”
The findings could lead the way to understanding the brain’s intake and output of energy in good health and bad and the part that alcohol plays.
In previous studies, the researchers have shown that alcohol significantly affects brain glucose metabolism, a measure of energy use, as well as regional brain activity, assessed through changes in blood oxygenation. But regional differences in glucose metabolism are hard to interpret, they say. In a study with healthy volunteers, they used brain imaging techniques to help quantify “match and mismatch” in energy consumption and expenditure across the brain—what they termed power and cost.
The researchers assessed power by observing to what extent brain regions are active and use energy, and cost by observing how brain regions expended energy. They found that different brain regions that serve distinct functions have “notably different power and different cost.”
Next, they tested a group of light drinkers and heavy drinkers and found both acute and chronic exposure to alcohol affected power and cost. In heavy drinkers, the researchers say, they saw less regional power, for example, in the thalamus, the sensory gateway, and frontal cortex. The researchers interpreted the decreases in power as reflecting the toxic effects of long-term exposure to alcohol on the brain cells.
They also found power dropped in the visual regions during acute alcohol exposure, which was related to disruption of visual processing. Visual regions also had the most significant drops in cost of activity during intoxication. That is consistent with the reliance of those regions on alternative energy sources, such as acetate (a byproduct of alcohol metabolism), the researchers say.
Their approach for characterizing brain energetic patterns related to alcohol use could be useful in other ways, the researchers say. “Studying energetic signatures of brain regions in different neuropsychiatric diseases is an important future direction,” said co-lead investigator Dr. Ehsan Schokri-Kojori. “The measures of power and cost may provide new multimodal biomarkers.”
New data bolster latitude’s association with MS prevalence
DALLAS – Latitude continues to be associated with the prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an updated meta-analysis presented at ACTRIMS Forum 2019, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
After integrating data from 94 new studies, “the latitudinal gradient in MS prevalence ... significantly enhanced in magnitude,” said presenting author Steve Simpson Jr., PhD, and his colleagues. Dr. Simpson is a researcher at the Melbourne School of Population & Global Health at the University of Melbourne and the Menzies Institute for Medical Research at the University of Tasmania.
The researchers’ original study, published in 2011, found a slope of 2.68.
Latitudinal variations in MS prevalence have given credence to the theory that sun exposure and vitamin D may play a role in MS onset. The researchers’ original meta-analysis – based on 650 prevalence estimates from 321 studies – “confirmed the existence of a robust latitudinal gradient,” they said. To examine whether the gradient has changed, the researchers identified relevant studies published between 2010 and 2018.
They included complete, peer-reviewed articles in their analysis and extracted data about the study area, prevalence year, MS diagnostic criteria used, sample size, source population, crude prevalence, and age-specific prevalence. They combined the new prevalence estimates with those from their original study. The estimates were log-transformed and weighted with the inverse of the variance. In addition, the researchers used random-effects meta-regression models that adjusted for prevalence year and method of case ascertainment.
Their literature review identified 126 new studies, 94 of which met inclusion criteria. The new studies yielded 230 additional prevalence points, predominantly in Scandinavia, France, and the Middle East.
“Latitude was consistently and significantly associated with MS prevalence in all analyses, increasing in magnitude on adjustment and persisting on age-standardization,” Dr. Simpson and his colleagues reported.
By region, strong and significant positive gradients continue to exist in Australasia, the United Kingdom/Ireland, and North America. Meanwhile, a significant inverse gradient continues to exist in the Italian region, which the researchers have said relates to the frequency of an MS-related HLA-DRB1 allele there. A negative gradient in the Scandinavian/North Atlantic region in the original meta-analysis, considered potentially related to dietary differences, was “markedly reduced” and no longer statistically significant in the updated meta-analysis.
“While there are potential intra-regional effects contributing to the latitudinal variation in MS prevalence, these results and the relative consistency across the whole of the globe continue to provide indirect evidence in support of the role of sun and vitamin D in MS etiology,” Dr. Simpson and his colleagues concluded.
The researchers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Simpson S Jr et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2019, Abstract 126.
DALLAS – Latitude continues to be associated with the prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an updated meta-analysis presented at ACTRIMS Forum 2019, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
After integrating data from 94 new studies, “the latitudinal gradient in MS prevalence ... significantly enhanced in magnitude,” said presenting author Steve Simpson Jr., PhD, and his colleagues. Dr. Simpson is a researcher at the Melbourne School of Population & Global Health at the University of Melbourne and the Menzies Institute for Medical Research at the University of Tasmania.
The researchers’ original study, published in 2011, found a slope of 2.68.
Latitudinal variations in MS prevalence have given credence to the theory that sun exposure and vitamin D may play a role in MS onset. The researchers’ original meta-analysis – based on 650 prevalence estimates from 321 studies – “confirmed the existence of a robust latitudinal gradient,” they said. To examine whether the gradient has changed, the researchers identified relevant studies published between 2010 and 2018.
They included complete, peer-reviewed articles in their analysis and extracted data about the study area, prevalence year, MS diagnostic criteria used, sample size, source population, crude prevalence, and age-specific prevalence. They combined the new prevalence estimates with those from their original study. The estimates were log-transformed and weighted with the inverse of the variance. In addition, the researchers used random-effects meta-regression models that adjusted for prevalence year and method of case ascertainment.
Their literature review identified 126 new studies, 94 of which met inclusion criteria. The new studies yielded 230 additional prevalence points, predominantly in Scandinavia, France, and the Middle East.
“Latitude was consistently and significantly associated with MS prevalence in all analyses, increasing in magnitude on adjustment and persisting on age-standardization,” Dr. Simpson and his colleagues reported.
By region, strong and significant positive gradients continue to exist in Australasia, the United Kingdom/Ireland, and North America. Meanwhile, a significant inverse gradient continues to exist in the Italian region, which the researchers have said relates to the frequency of an MS-related HLA-DRB1 allele there. A negative gradient in the Scandinavian/North Atlantic region in the original meta-analysis, considered potentially related to dietary differences, was “markedly reduced” and no longer statistically significant in the updated meta-analysis.
“While there are potential intra-regional effects contributing to the latitudinal variation in MS prevalence, these results and the relative consistency across the whole of the globe continue to provide indirect evidence in support of the role of sun and vitamin D in MS etiology,” Dr. Simpson and his colleagues concluded.
The researchers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Simpson S Jr et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2019, Abstract 126.
DALLAS – Latitude continues to be associated with the prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS), according to an updated meta-analysis presented at ACTRIMS Forum 2019, held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
After integrating data from 94 new studies, “the latitudinal gradient in MS prevalence ... significantly enhanced in magnitude,” said presenting author Steve Simpson Jr., PhD, and his colleagues. Dr. Simpson is a researcher at the Melbourne School of Population & Global Health at the University of Melbourne and the Menzies Institute for Medical Research at the University of Tasmania.
The researchers’ original study, published in 2011, found a slope of 2.68.
Latitudinal variations in MS prevalence have given credence to the theory that sun exposure and vitamin D may play a role in MS onset. The researchers’ original meta-analysis – based on 650 prevalence estimates from 321 studies – “confirmed the existence of a robust latitudinal gradient,” they said. To examine whether the gradient has changed, the researchers identified relevant studies published between 2010 and 2018.
They included complete, peer-reviewed articles in their analysis and extracted data about the study area, prevalence year, MS diagnostic criteria used, sample size, source population, crude prevalence, and age-specific prevalence. They combined the new prevalence estimates with those from their original study. The estimates were log-transformed and weighted with the inverse of the variance. In addition, the researchers used random-effects meta-regression models that adjusted for prevalence year and method of case ascertainment.
Their literature review identified 126 new studies, 94 of which met inclusion criteria. The new studies yielded 230 additional prevalence points, predominantly in Scandinavia, France, and the Middle East.
“Latitude was consistently and significantly associated with MS prevalence in all analyses, increasing in magnitude on adjustment and persisting on age-standardization,” Dr. Simpson and his colleagues reported.
By region, strong and significant positive gradients continue to exist in Australasia, the United Kingdom/Ireland, and North America. Meanwhile, a significant inverse gradient continues to exist in the Italian region, which the researchers have said relates to the frequency of an MS-related HLA-DRB1 allele there. A negative gradient in the Scandinavian/North Atlantic region in the original meta-analysis, considered potentially related to dietary differences, was “markedly reduced” and no longer statistically significant in the updated meta-analysis.
“While there are potential intra-regional effects contributing to the latitudinal variation in MS prevalence, these results and the relative consistency across the whole of the globe continue to provide indirect evidence in support of the role of sun and vitamin D in MS etiology,” Dr. Simpson and his colleagues concluded.
The researchers had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Simpson S Jr et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2019, Abstract 126.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2019
Key clinical point: Latitude continues to be associated with the prevalence of multiple sclerosis (MS).
Major finding: For every degree of latitude increase, prevalence of MS per 100,000 people increased by 3.64 in a fully adjusted, age-standardized model.
Study details: A meta-analysis of data from more than 400 studies.
Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures.
Source: Simpson S Jr et al. ACTRIMS Forum 2019, Abstract 126.
Sex differences in MS: It’s the chromosomes, not just the hormones
DALLAS – Hormonal differences are not the only reason that multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression and severity differ between the sexes, according to Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, who delivered the Kenneth P. Johnson Memorial Lecture at a meeting of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“Sex differences in disease are widely prevalent across immunological and neurological diseases. For example, lupus affects women 9:1 more frequently, rheumatoid arthritis is about 3:1, and MS is 3:1,” said Dr. Voskuhl, director of the MS program and Jack H. Skirball Chair of Multiple Sclerosis Research at the University of California, Los Angeles.
However, although women are more likely to experience these diseases, men are often more severely affected by them, Dr. Voskuhl said. “Sometimes in neurodegenerative diseases like MS, we’re seeing that the men, although they get it less frequently, they do worse. ... So these are actually two very important sex differences in disease, one affecting susceptibility and frequency, and the other affecting how they do over the long run with respect to their progression and severity.”
This clinically apparent observation, known for decades, prompted Dr. Voskuhl and others to parse why sex differences exist in this gamut of diseases.
A novel animal model – the four-core genotype mouse model – has allowed Dr. Voskuhl and others to discern the contributions of hormonal versus chromosomal influences on disease susceptibility and progression. The model separates the sex chromosome complement (XX or XY) from gonadal influences, and it’s been extremely helpful in revealing the surprising influence that sex chromosomes play in MS and similar diseases, said Dr. Voskuhl in an interview.
Dr. Voskuhl is also the president-elect of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences.
DALLAS – Hormonal differences are not the only reason that multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression and severity differ between the sexes, according to Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, who delivered the Kenneth P. Johnson Memorial Lecture at a meeting of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“Sex differences in disease are widely prevalent across immunological and neurological diseases. For example, lupus affects women 9:1 more frequently, rheumatoid arthritis is about 3:1, and MS is 3:1,” said Dr. Voskuhl, director of the MS program and Jack H. Skirball Chair of Multiple Sclerosis Research at the University of California, Los Angeles.
However, although women are more likely to experience these diseases, men are often more severely affected by them, Dr. Voskuhl said. “Sometimes in neurodegenerative diseases like MS, we’re seeing that the men, although they get it less frequently, they do worse. ... So these are actually two very important sex differences in disease, one affecting susceptibility and frequency, and the other affecting how they do over the long run with respect to their progression and severity.”
This clinically apparent observation, known for decades, prompted Dr. Voskuhl and others to parse why sex differences exist in this gamut of diseases.
A novel animal model – the four-core genotype mouse model – has allowed Dr. Voskuhl and others to discern the contributions of hormonal versus chromosomal influences on disease susceptibility and progression. The model separates the sex chromosome complement (XX or XY) from gonadal influences, and it’s been extremely helpful in revealing the surprising influence that sex chromosomes play in MS and similar diseases, said Dr. Voskuhl in an interview.
Dr. Voskuhl is also the president-elect of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences.
DALLAS – Hormonal differences are not the only reason that multiple sclerosis (MS) disease progression and severity differ between the sexes, according to Rhonda Voskuhl, MD, who delivered the Kenneth P. Johnson Memorial Lecture at a meeting of the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“Sex differences in disease are widely prevalent across immunological and neurological diseases. For example, lupus affects women 9:1 more frequently, rheumatoid arthritis is about 3:1, and MS is 3:1,” said Dr. Voskuhl, director of the MS program and Jack H. Skirball Chair of Multiple Sclerosis Research at the University of California, Los Angeles.
However, although women are more likely to experience these diseases, men are often more severely affected by them, Dr. Voskuhl said. “Sometimes in neurodegenerative diseases like MS, we’re seeing that the men, although they get it less frequently, they do worse. ... So these are actually two very important sex differences in disease, one affecting susceptibility and frequency, and the other affecting how they do over the long run with respect to their progression and severity.”
This clinically apparent observation, known for decades, prompted Dr. Voskuhl and others to parse why sex differences exist in this gamut of diseases.
A novel animal model – the four-core genotype mouse model – has allowed Dr. Voskuhl and others to discern the contributions of hormonal versus chromosomal influences on disease susceptibility and progression. The model separates the sex chromosome complement (XX or XY) from gonadal influences, and it’s been extremely helpful in revealing the surprising influence that sex chromosomes play in MS and similar diseases, said Dr. Voskuhl in an interview.
Dr. Voskuhl is also the president-elect of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2019
Genetic signature helps identify those at risk of MS
DALLAS – in a precision medicine–focused session at the meeting of the Americas Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“MS remains a diagnosis of exclusion ... But we’re now beginning to understand a lot more about the earliest stages of the disease, and we’re constantly redefining the disease in terms of when it starts, and what it consists of,” said Dr. De Jager, professor of neurology and chief of neuroimmunology at Columbia University, New York, in an interview.
For example, physicians are now starting to treat asymptomatic individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome, he said. “Is that part of the disease? Well, a lot of us think so, and we’re currently doing the studies to see whether treating them has an impact on long-term disability.”
“In this effort to redefine this disease and when it starts, these molecular and cellular studies are becoming very important,” Dr. De Jager said. Both individuals in the general population and high-risk individuals, such as family members of people with MS, will benefit from these research approaches, he said.
Right now, it’s hard to know who could benefit most from future preventive therapies, or who should have the most rigorous surveillance.
Dr. De Jager pointed to a presentation by his collaborator, Nikolaos Patsopoulos, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who reported on the activities of the International MS Genetics Consortium. The consortium has collected and is nearing publication of data from more than 45,000 people with MS and 65,000 control participants to identify the genetic architecture of MS onset.
“We’re going to be reporting that there are over 234 genetic variations” that contribute to the onset of MS, Dr. De Jager said. “There are more to be found, but that’s a large number,” he said. The data point toward a genetic fingerprint that’s close to lupus, type 1 diabetes, and other inflammatory diseases. This shared genetic architecture means that there’s overlapping susceptibility for many diseases in this spectrum.
DALLAS – in a precision medicine–focused session at the meeting of the Americas Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“MS remains a diagnosis of exclusion ... But we’re now beginning to understand a lot more about the earliest stages of the disease, and we’re constantly redefining the disease in terms of when it starts, and what it consists of,” said Dr. De Jager, professor of neurology and chief of neuroimmunology at Columbia University, New York, in an interview.
For example, physicians are now starting to treat asymptomatic individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome, he said. “Is that part of the disease? Well, a lot of us think so, and we’re currently doing the studies to see whether treating them has an impact on long-term disability.”
“In this effort to redefine this disease and when it starts, these molecular and cellular studies are becoming very important,” Dr. De Jager said. Both individuals in the general population and high-risk individuals, such as family members of people with MS, will benefit from these research approaches, he said.
Right now, it’s hard to know who could benefit most from future preventive therapies, or who should have the most rigorous surveillance.
Dr. De Jager pointed to a presentation by his collaborator, Nikolaos Patsopoulos, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who reported on the activities of the International MS Genetics Consortium. The consortium has collected and is nearing publication of data from more than 45,000 people with MS and 65,000 control participants to identify the genetic architecture of MS onset.
“We’re going to be reporting that there are over 234 genetic variations” that contribute to the onset of MS, Dr. De Jager said. “There are more to be found, but that’s a large number,” he said. The data point toward a genetic fingerprint that’s close to lupus, type 1 diabetes, and other inflammatory diseases. This shared genetic architecture means that there’s overlapping susceptibility for many diseases in this spectrum.
DALLAS – in a precision medicine–focused session at the meeting of the Americas Committee on Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“MS remains a diagnosis of exclusion ... But we’re now beginning to understand a lot more about the earliest stages of the disease, and we’re constantly redefining the disease in terms of when it starts, and what it consists of,” said Dr. De Jager, professor of neurology and chief of neuroimmunology at Columbia University, New York, in an interview.
For example, physicians are now starting to treat asymptomatic individuals with radiologically isolated syndrome, he said. “Is that part of the disease? Well, a lot of us think so, and we’re currently doing the studies to see whether treating them has an impact on long-term disability.”
“In this effort to redefine this disease and when it starts, these molecular and cellular studies are becoming very important,” Dr. De Jager said. Both individuals in the general population and high-risk individuals, such as family members of people with MS, will benefit from these research approaches, he said.
Right now, it’s hard to know who could benefit most from future preventive therapies, or who should have the most rigorous surveillance.
Dr. De Jager pointed to a presentation by his collaborator, Nikolaos Patsopoulos, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who reported on the activities of the International MS Genetics Consortium. The consortium has collected and is nearing publication of data from more than 45,000 people with MS and 65,000 control participants to identify the genetic architecture of MS onset.
“We’re going to be reporting that there are over 234 genetic variations” that contribute to the onset of MS, Dr. De Jager said. “There are more to be found, but that’s a large number,” he said. The data point toward a genetic fingerprint that’s close to lupus, type 1 diabetes, and other inflammatory diseases. This shared genetic architecture means that there’s overlapping susceptibility for many diseases in this spectrum.
REPORTING FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2019
Andexanet alfa effectively reverses factor Xa inhibition
HONOLULU – according to a study presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The medication is associated with a low rate of mortality resulting from intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), compared with the general population of patients with ICH receiving anticoagulation.
Factor Xa inhibitors such as apixaban and rivaroxaban effectively prevent thromboembolic events but may cause or exacerbate acute major bleeding. Andexanet alfa, a modified, recombinant, inactive form of human factor Xa, was developed and approved as a reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors. In a 2015 study, andexanet rapidly and safely reversed anti–factor Xa activity in large cohorts of patients without bleeding.
A single-cohort study
Truman John Milling Jr., MD, an emergency medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center at the University of Texas in Austin, and his colleagues conducted the Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors (ANNEXA-4) study to evaluate the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients with acute major bleeding associated with treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor. For participants to be eligible, their bleeding had to be life threatening with signs of hemodynamic compromise, be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 2 g/dL, or occur in a critical organ such as the brain. An independent academic committee determined whether patients met these criteria.
The trial’s primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in anti–factor Xa activity and the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours. The primary safety endpoints were death, thrombotic events, and the development of neutralizing antibodies to andexanet or to native factor X and factor Xa. The efficacy population included patients with major bleeding and baseline anti–factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng/mL. The safety population included all patients who received a dose of andexanet. The independent committee adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes.
Hemostasis was sustained for 12 hours
The investigators enrolled 352 participants into the study, all of whom received andexanet and were followed for at least 30 days or until death. The population’s mean age was 77 years. “These were older and sicker patients with a significant amount of comorbid disease,” said Dr. Milling. The primary indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation in 80% of patients. The primary site of bleeding was intracranial in 64% of patients and gastrointestinal in 26% of patients. The remaining 10% of patients had bleeding affecting other areas (such as pericardial or intramuscular bleeding).
The investigators included 254 patients in the efficacy population. At the end of the administration of the andexanet bolus, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity decreased by 92% among participants receiving apixaban, 92% among participants receiving rivaroxaban, and 75% among patients receiving enoxaparin. Among patients receiving apixaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 32% at 4 hours, 34% at 8 hours, and 38% at 12 hours. Among patients receiving rivaroxaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 42% at 4 hours, 48% at 8 hours, and 62% at 12 hours.
Dr. Milling and his colleagues assessed hemostatic efficacy in 249 patients. Of this group, 82% achieved good or excellent hemostasis. Among participants with good or excellent hemostasis, 84% had excellent results, and 16% had good results. Subanalysis by factor Xa inhibitor, type of bleed, age, and dose of andexanet did not alter the findings significantly.
To determine whether hemostasis had been sustained sufficiently to prevent clinical deterioration, the investigators examined 71 patients with ICH and a single-compartment bleed. From 1 hour to 12 hours, one patient’s outcome changed from excellent/good to poor/none, and one patient’s outcome changed from excellent to good. For the majority of these patients, however, good hemostasis was sustained from 1 to 12 hours.
The rate of thromboembolic events was 9.7%, which is in the expected range for this population, said Dr. Milling. These events were distributed evenly among the 4 weeks of the study. Stroke and deep vein thrombosis accounted for most of these events, and pulmonary emboli and heart attacks occurred as well. “Once we restarted oral anticoagulation ... there were no more thrombotic events,” said Dr. Milling. No patient developed neutralizing antibodies to factor X or factor Xa, nor did any patient develop neutralizing antibodies to andexanet.
The overall mortality rate was 13.9%. The rate of mortality resulting from ICH was 15%, and the rate of mortality resulting from gastrointestinal bleeding was 11%. These results are impressive, considering that patients had received anticoagulants, said Dr. Milling.
Portola Pharmaceuticals, the maker of andexanet alfa, funded the study. Dr. Milling reported receiving funding and honoraria from the Population Health Research Institute at McMasters University, Janssen, CSL Behring, and Octapharma. He also received a small research payment from Portola Pharmaceuticals. Several of the investigators reported receiving funding from Portola Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Milling TJ et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB7.
HONOLULU – according to a study presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The medication is associated with a low rate of mortality resulting from intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), compared with the general population of patients with ICH receiving anticoagulation.
Factor Xa inhibitors such as apixaban and rivaroxaban effectively prevent thromboembolic events but may cause or exacerbate acute major bleeding. Andexanet alfa, a modified, recombinant, inactive form of human factor Xa, was developed and approved as a reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors. In a 2015 study, andexanet rapidly and safely reversed anti–factor Xa activity in large cohorts of patients without bleeding.
A single-cohort study
Truman John Milling Jr., MD, an emergency medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center at the University of Texas in Austin, and his colleagues conducted the Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors (ANNEXA-4) study to evaluate the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients with acute major bleeding associated with treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor. For participants to be eligible, their bleeding had to be life threatening with signs of hemodynamic compromise, be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 2 g/dL, or occur in a critical organ such as the brain. An independent academic committee determined whether patients met these criteria.
The trial’s primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in anti–factor Xa activity and the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours. The primary safety endpoints were death, thrombotic events, and the development of neutralizing antibodies to andexanet or to native factor X and factor Xa. The efficacy population included patients with major bleeding and baseline anti–factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng/mL. The safety population included all patients who received a dose of andexanet. The independent committee adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes.
Hemostasis was sustained for 12 hours
The investigators enrolled 352 participants into the study, all of whom received andexanet and were followed for at least 30 days or until death. The population’s mean age was 77 years. “These were older and sicker patients with a significant amount of comorbid disease,” said Dr. Milling. The primary indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation in 80% of patients. The primary site of bleeding was intracranial in 64% of patients and gastrointestinal in 26% of patients. The remaining 10% of patients had bleeding affecting other areas (such as pericardial or intramuscular bleeding).
The investigators included 254 patients in the efficacy population. At the end of the administration of the andexanet bolus, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity decreased by 92% among participants receiving apixaban, 92% among participants receiving rivaroxaban, and 75% among patients receiving enoxaparin. Among patients receiving apixaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 32% at 4 hours, 34% at 8 hours, and 38% at 12 hours. Among patients receiving rivaroxaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 42% at 4 hours, 48% at 8 hours, and 62% at 12 hours.
Dr. Milling and his colleagues assessed hemostatic efficacy in 249 patients. Of this group, 82% achieved good or excellent hemostasis. Among participants with good or excellent hemostasis, 84% had excellent results, and 16% had good results. Subanalysis by factor Xa inhibitor, type of bleed, age, and dose of andexanet did not alter the findings significantly.
To determine whether hemostasis had been sustained sufficiently to prevent clinical deterioration, the investigators examined 71 patients with ICH and a single-compartment bleed. From 1 hour to 12 hours, one patient’s outcome changed from excellent/good to poor/none, and one patient’s outcome changed from excellent to good. For the majority of these patients, however, good hemostasis was sustained from 1 to 12 hours.
The rate of thromboembolic events was 9.7%, which is in the expected range for this population, said Dr. Milling. These events were distributed evenly among the 4 weeks of the study. Stroke and deep vein thrombosis accounted for most of these events, and pulmonary emboli and heart attacks occurred as well. “Once we restarted oral anticoagulation ... there were no more thrombotic events,” said Dr. Milling. No patient developed neutralizing antibodies to factor X or factor Xa, nor did any patient develop neutralizing antibodies to andexanet.
The overall mortality rate was 13.9%. The rate of mortality resulting from ICH was 15%, and the rate of mortality resulting from gastrointestinal bleeding was 11%. These results are impressive, considering that patients had received anticoagulants, said Dr. Milling.
Portola Pharmaceuticals, the maker of andexanet alfa, funded the study. Dr. Milling reported receiving funding and honoraria from the Population Health Research Institute at McMasters University, Janssen, CSL Behring, and Octapharma. He also received a small research payment from Portola Pharmaceuticals. Several of the investigators reported receiving funding from Portola Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Milling TJ et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB7.
HONOLULU – according to a study presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The medication is associated with a low rate of mortality resulting from intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), compared with the general population of patients with ICH receiving anticoagulation.
Factor Xa inhibitors such as apixaban and rivaroxaban effectively prevent thromboembolic events but may cause or exacerbate acute major bleeding. Andexanet alfa, a modified, recombinant, inactive form of human factor Xa, was developed and approved as a reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors. In a 2015 study, andexanet rapidly and safely reversed anti–factor Xa activity in large cohorts of patients without bleeding.
A single-cohort study
Truman John Milling Jr., MD, an emergency medicine physician at Dell Seton Medical Center at the University of Texas in Austin, and his colleagues conducted the Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors (ANNEXA-4) study to evaluate the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients with acute major bleeding associated with treatment with a factor Xa inhibitor. For participants to be eligible, their bleeding had to be life threatening with signs of hemodynamic compromise, be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 2 g/dL, or occur in a critical organ such as the brain. An independent academic committee determined whether patients met these criteria.
The trial’s primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline in anti–factor Xa activity and the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostatic efficacy at 12 hours. The primary safety endpoints were death, thrombotic events, and the development of neutralizing antibodies to andexanet or to native factor X and factor Xa. The efficacy population included patients with major bleeding and baseline anti–factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng/mL. The safety population included all patients who received a dose of andexanet. The independent committee adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes.
Hemostasis was sustained for 12 hours
The investigators enrolled 352 participants into the study, all of whom received andexanet and were followed for at least 30 days or until death. The population’s mean age was 77 years. “These were older and sicker patients with a significant amount of comorbid disease,” said Dr. Milling. The primary indication for anticoagulation was atrial fibrillation in 80% of patients. The primary site of bleeding was intracranial in 64% of patients and gastrointestinal in 26% of patients. The remaining 10% of patients had bleeding affecting other areas (such as pericardial or intramuscular bleeding).
The investigators included 254 patients in the efficacy population. At the end of the administration of the andexanet bolus, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity decreased by 92% among participants receiving apixaban, 92% among participants receiving rivaroxaban, and 75% among patients receiving enoxaparin. Among patients receiving apixaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 32% at 4 hours, 34% at 8 hours, and 38% at 12 hours. Among patients receiving rivaroxaban, the median value for anti–factor Xa activity was decreased by 42% at 4 hours, 48% at 8 hours, and 62% at 12 hours.
Dr. Milling and his colleagues assessed hemostatic efficacy in 249 patients. Of this group, 82% achieved good or excellent hemostasis. Among participants with good or excellent hemostasis, 84% had excellent results, and 16% had good results. Subanalysis by factor Xa inhibitor, type of bleed, age, and dose of andexanet did not alter the findings significantly.
To determine whether hemostasis had been sustained sufficiently to prevent clinical deterioration, the investigators examined 71 patients with ICH and a single-compartment bleed. From 1 hour to 12 hours, one patient’s outcome changed from excellent/good to poor/none, and one patient’s outcome changed from excellent to good. For the majority of these patients, however, good hemostasis was sustained from 1 to 12 hours.
The rate of thromboembolic events was 9.7%, which is in the expected range for this population, said Dr. Milling. These events were distributed evenly among the 4 weeks of the study. Stroke and deep vein thrombosis accounted for most of these events, and pulmonary emboli and heart attacks occurred as well. “Once we restarted oral anticoagulation ... there were no more thrombotic events,” said Dr. Milling. No patient developed neutralizing antibodies to factor X or factor Xa, nor did any patient develop neutralizing antibodies to andexanet.
The overall mortality rate was 13.9%. The rate of mortality resulting from ICH was 15%, and the rate of mortality resulting from gastrointestinal bleeding was 11%. These results are impressive, considering that patients had received anticoagulants, said Dr. Milling.
Portola Pharmaceuticals, the maker of andexanet alfa, funded the study. Dr. Milling reported receiving funding and honoraria from the Population Health Research Institute at McMasters University, Janssen, CSL Behring, and Octapharma. He also received a small research payment from Portola Pharmaceuticals. Several of the investigators reported receiving funding from Portola Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Milling TJ et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB7.
REPORTING FROM ISC 2019