Conference Coverage

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine picked up new support as secondary prevention in chronic coronary disease, cutting the risk of cardiovascular events by one-third when added to standard prevention therapies in the double-blind LoDoCo2 study.

Across a median follow up of 29 months in more than 5,000 patients, almost 1 in 10 patients assigned to placebo experienced the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. That risk was 31% lower and resulted in 77 fewer events in those assigned to colchicine (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83).

The beneficial effect of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily was seen early on and accrued over time, extending to five of the eight secondary end points, including a near 30% reduction in the composite of major adverse cardiac events, as well as reductions in the individual endpoints of MI and ischemia-driven revascularization.

“It did that with broadly consistent effects across a range of clinical subgroups, which together speak to the strength of the effect of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes in the sort of patients we routinely see in our clinics,” primary investigator Mark Nidorf, MD, MBBS, GenesisCare Western Australia, Perth, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2020 Aug 31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2021372).

“The totality of evidence from the big three double-blind placebo controlled trials – CANTOS, COLCOT, and LoDoCo2 – are highly consistent and should be practice changing,” Paul Ridker, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Massimo Imazio, MD, the formal discussant for the study and professor of cardiology at the University of Turin, Italy, also called for repurposing the inexpensive gout medication for cardiovascular patients.

“I would like to congratulate the authors for a well-designed, large, randomized trial that in my view provides convincing evidence that colchicine is safe and efficacious for secondary prevention in chronic coronary syndrome, of course if tolerated,” he said.

Dr. Imazio noted that colchicine demonstrated similar benefits in the smaller, open-label LoDoCo trial, but that 1 in 10 patients couldn’t tolerate the drug, largely because of gastrointestinal issues. The LoCoDo2 investigators very wisely opted for a 30-day run-in period for tolerance without a loading dose, and 90% of patients in each arm continued study medication while 3.4% stopped because of perceived effects.

Clinicians should bear in mind the potential for side effects and interactions with other medications, particularly statins, observed Dr. Imazio. “So monitoring of repeat blood tests is indicated, especially blood cell count, transaminase, and [creatine kinase] CK.”

Colchicine can be problematic in patients with chronic kidney disease because it is renally excreted, particularly if patients also take some common antibiotics such as clarithromycin, said Dr. Ridker, who led the landmark CANTOS trial. “So while these data are exciting and confirm the importance of inflammation inhibition in stable coronary disease, colchicine is not for all patients.”

During the discussion of the results, Dr. Nidorf said: “We were very concerned at the outset that there would be an interaction because there is certainly literature there, particularly in renal patients. But as the data showed, the incidence of myotoxicity was decidedly rare.”

Further, myotoxic episodes were independently assessed by a blinded reviewer, and although there was one case of mild rhabdomyolysis in the treatment group, it was considered not primarily caused by colchicine, he said. “So we’re fairly comfortable that you can use colchicine at a low dose quite comfortably with full-dose statins.”

Notably, 94% of patients in both groups were taking statins, and two-thirds were on moderate- or high-dose statins. About one-quarter were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 12% were on an anticoagulant.

In all, 5,522 patients aged 35-82 years (mean, 66 years) were randomly assigned to colchicine 0.5 mg once daily or placebo on top of proven secondary prevention therapies, and all but one was available for analysis.

Most were male (85%), one-half had hypertension, 18% had diabetes, and 84% had a history of acute coronary syndrome, with an equal number having undergone revascularization. Patients with advanced renal disease, severe heart failure, or severe valvular heart disease were excluded.

Colchicine, when compared with placebo, was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of the top five ranked secondary endpoints:

• Cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke (4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR, 0.72).
• MI or ischemia-driven revascularization (5.6% vs. 8.1%; HR, 0.67).
• Cardiovascular death or MI (3.6% vs. 5.0%; HR, 0.71).
• Ischemia-driven revascularization (4.9% vs. 6.4%; HR, 0.75).
• MI (3.0% vs. 4.2%; HR, 0.70).

The incidence rates were similar among the remaining three secondary outcomes: ischemic stroke (0.6% vs. 0.9%), all-cause death (2.6% vs. 2.2%), and CV death (0.7% vs. 0.9%), Dr. Nidorf reported.

The effect of colchicine was consistent in 13 subgroups, including those with and without hypertension, diabetes, or prior acute coronary syndrome. Patients in Australia appeared to do better with colchicine than did those in the Netherlands, which was a bit unexpected but likely caused by the play of chance, Dr. Nidorf said.

“Importantly, the effect when we looked at the predictors of outcome of our patients in this trial, they related to factors such as age and diabetes, which were included in both populations. So we believe the effect of therapy to be universal,” he added.

Session moderator Stephan Achenbach, MD, chair of cardiology at the University of Erlangen (Germany), however, noted that event rates were about 3% per year and many patients had undergone coronary revascularizations for acute coronary syndromes, suggesting this may be a preselected, somewhat higher-risk cohort. “Do you think we can transfer these findings to the just-average patient who comes in with chest pain and gets an elective [percutaneous coronary intervention]?” he asked.

Dr. Nidorf replied that, unlike the patients in COLCOT, who were randomized to colchicine within 30 days of an MI, acute events occurred more than 24 months before randomization in most (68.2%) patients. As such, patients were quite stable, and major adverse cardiac event and cardiovascular death rates were also exceedingly low.

“We did not see them as a particularly high-risk group, which I think is one of the beauties of this study,” Dr. Nidorf said. “It looks at people that are very similar to those who come and meet us in our clinics for regular review and follow-up.”

“And in that regard, I think the next time we’re faced with patients in our rooms, we have to ask the question: Are we doing enough for this patient beyond aspirin and statins? Should we be considering treating the inflammatory axis? And now we have an opportunity to do that,” he said.

Serious adverse effects were similar in the colchicine and placebo groups, including hospitalizations for infection (5.0% vs. 5.2%), pneumonia (1.7% vs. 2.0%), or gastrointestinal reasons (1.9% vs. 1.8%). Myotoxicity occurred in four and three patients, respectively.

Although the signal for increased risk of infection observed in CANTOS and COLCOT was not borne out, Dr. Nidorf observed that chest infections can occur frequently in these patients and echoed cautions about a potential unfavorable interaction between clarithromycin and colchicine.

“If we are to use this drug widely, clinicians will need to learn how to use this drug and what drugs to avoid, and that’s an important teaching point,” he said.

Limitations of the study are the small number of women and lack of routine measurement of C-reactive protein or other inflammatory markers at baseline.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia, a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee, the Withering Foundation the Netherlands, the Netherlands Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the article.
 

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

A significant proportion of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and dysautonomia may have potentially treatable underlying autoimmune-associated small-fiber polyneuropathy (aaSFPN), pilot data suggest.

The findings, from a single-site study of 61 patients with ME/CFS, were presented August 21 at the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis by Ryan Whelan, BS, a research assistant at Simmaron Research Institute, Incline Village, Nevada.

Recent evidence suggests an autoimmune etiology for some patients with ME/CFS, which is defined as experiencing for a period of at least 6 months profound, unexplained fatigue, postexertional malaise, and unrefreshing sleep, as well as cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance (OI).

OI is part of a spectrum of autonomic dysfunction commonly seen in ME/CFS patients, which may also include postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), peripheral temperature dysregulation and light sensitivity, neuropathic pain, and gastrointestinal complaints. Many of these symptoms overlap those reported by patients with aaSFPN, a common but underdiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of peripheral autonomic nerve fibers, Whelan explained.

Findings from the current study show that in more than half of ME/CFS patients, levels of at least one autoantibody were elevated. A majority had comorbid POTS or OI, and over a third had biopsy-confirmed aaSFPN.

“Given the overlap of symptoms and common etiological basis, it may be important to identify ME/CFS patients who present with comorbid aaSFPN, as it has been shown that immune modulatory agents, including intravenous gamma globulin [IVIG], reduce the autonomic symptom burden in aaSFPN patients,” Whelan said.

He noted that Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues previously linked aaSFPN with fibromyalgia. In addition, they’ve found a connection between small-fiber dysfunction and postexertional malaise, which is a hallmark ME/CFS symptom.

Asked to comment on Whelan’s presentation, IACFSME co-president Lily Chu, MD, told Medscape Medical News that the new findings are “valuable, because ME/CFS has always been looked upon as just subjective symptoms. When people have laboratory abnormalities, it can be due to a bunch of other causes, but...here’s pathology, here’s a biopsy of actual damage. It’s not just a transient finding. You can actually see it. ... It’s a solid concrete piece of evidence vs something that can fluctuate.”

Autoantibodies, Autonomic Dysfunction, and Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy

Whelan and colleagues conducted an extensive analysis of medical records of 364 patients with ME/CFS (72% female) to identify potential aaSFPN comorbidity. Such identifications were made on the basis of progress notes documenting autonomic dysfunction, laboratory results for serum autoantibodies, and questionnaire symptom self-reports.

They identified 61 patients as possibly having comorbid aaSFPN. Of those, 52% tested positive for at least 1 of 4 autoantibodies, including antimuscarinic cholinergic receptor 4 (47%), anti-beta-2 adrenergic (27%), antimuscarinic cholinergic 3 (25%), and anti-beta-1 adrenergic (13%). These autoantibodies were linked to ME/CFS in a recent Swedish cohort study.

“Evidence supports that these autoantibodies may bind to receptor sites, blocking ligands from reaching these receptors. Disturbances of adrenergic and cholinergic receptors by these autoantibodies may contribute to symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in ME/CFS,” Whelan said.

Although 22% of patients in the study group had POTS and 59% had OI, the authors found no correlation between autoantibody levels and either OI or POTS. However, 38% were confirmed to have small-fiber polyneuropathy on skin biopsy, and the vast majority of those patients (93%) had either POTS or OI.

IVIG May Be a Potential Treatment

Whelan notes that some data suggest that IVIG might help patients with small-fiber neuropathy, including those with autoimmunity.

In addition, he described anecdotal data from a single patient with ME/CFS who had neuropathic symptoms. The patient was treated at Simmaron. The 56-year-old received two IVIG infusions given 6 months apart. The patient experienced a dramatic reduction in levels of all four of the relevant autoantibodies and favorable symptom reduction, as shown in clinician follow-up records. “With the success of this case study, we intend to further evaluate IVIG as a potential treatment in ME/CFS patients. With this research, we hope to identify a subset of ME/CFS patients who will respond favorably to IVIG,” Whelan concluded.

Regarding use of IVIG, Chu commented, “We don’t know exactly how it works, but it seems to help certain conditions.” She pointed to another recent small study that reported clinical improvement in patients with ME/CFS through a different approach, immunoadsorption, for reducing the autoantibody levels.

Overall, Chu said, this line of research “is important because it shows there’s some type of abnormal biomarker for ME/CFS. And, it may lay a path toward understanding the pathophysiology of the disease and why people have certain symptoms, and could be used to target therapies. ... It’s intriguing.”

Whelan and Chu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant proportion of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and dysautonomia may have potentially treatable underlying autoimmune-associated small-fiber polyneuropathy (aaSFPN), pilot data suggest.

The findings, from a single-site study of 61 patients with ME/CFS, were presented August 21 at the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis by Ryan Whelan, BS, a research assistant at Simmaron Research Institute, Incline Village, Nevada.

Recent evidence suggests an autoimmune etiology for some patients with ME/CFS, which is defined as experiencing for a period of at least 6 months profound, unexplained fatigue, postexertional malaise, and unrefreshing sleep, as well as cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance (OI).

OI is part of a spectrum of autonomic dysfunction commonly seen in ME/CFS patients, which may also include postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), peripheral temperature dysregulation and light sensitivity, neuropathic pain, and gastrointestinal complaints. Many of these symptoms overlap those reported by patients with aaSFPN, a common but underdiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of peripheral autonomic nerve fibers, Whelan explained.

Findings from the current study show that in more than half of ME/CFS patients, levels of at least one autoantibody were elevated. A majority had comorbid POTS or OI, and over a third had biopsy-confirmed aaSFPN.

“Given the overlap of symptoms and common etiological basis, it may be important to identify ME/CFS patients who present with comorbid aaSFPN, as it has been shown that immune modulatory agents, including intravenous gamma globulin [IVIG], reduce the autonomic symptom burden in aaSFPN patients,” Whelan said.

He noted that Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues previously linked aaSFPN with fibromyalgia. In addition, they’ve found a connection between small-fiber dysfunction and postexertional malaise, which is a hallmark ME/CFS symptom.

Asked to comment on Whelan’s presentation, IACFSME co-president Lily Chu, MD, told Medscape Medical News that the new findings are “valuable, because ME/CFS has always been looked upon as just subjective symptoms. When people have laboratory abnormalities, it can be due to a bunch of other causes, but...here’s pathology, here’s a biopsy of actual damage. It’s not just a transient finding. You can actually see it. ... It’s a solid concrete piece of evidence vs something that can fluctuate.”

Autoantibodies, Autonomic Dysfunction, and Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy

Whelan and colleagues conducted an extensive analysis of medical records of 364 patients with ME/CFS (72% female) to identify potential aaSFPN comorbidity. Such identifications were made on the basis of progress notes documenting autonomic dysfunction, laboratory results for serum autoantibodies, and questionnaire symptom self-reports.

They identified 61 patients as possibly having comorbid aaSFPN. Of those, 52% tested positive for at least 1 of 4 autoantibodies, including antimuscarinic cholinergic receptor 4 (47%), anti-beta-2 adrenergic (27%), antimuscarinic cholinergic 3 (25%), and anti-beta-1 adrenergic (13%). These autoantibodies were linked to ME/CFS in a recent Swedish cohort study.

“Evidence supports that these autoantibodies may bind to receptor sites, blocking ligands from reaching these receptors. Disturbances of adrenergic and cholinergic receptors by these autoantibodies may contribute to symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in ME/CFS,” Whelan said.

Although 22% of patients in the study group had POTS and 59% had OI, the authors found no correlation between autoantibody levels and either OI or POTS. However, 38% were confirmed to have small-fiber polyneuropathy on skin biopsy, and the vast majority of those patients (93%) had either POTS or OI.

IVIG May Be a Potential Treatment

Whelan notes that some data suggest that IVIG might help patients with small-fiber neuropathy, including those with autoimmunity.

In addition, he described anecdotal data from a single patient with ME/CFS who had neuropathic symptoms. The patient was treated at Simmaron. The 56-year-old received two IVIG infusions given 6 months apart. The patient experienced a dramatic reduction in levels of all four of the relevant autoantibodies and favorable symptom reduction, as shown in clinician follow-up records. “With the success of this case study, we intend to further evaluate IVIG as a potential treatment in ME/CFS patients. With this research, we hope to identify a subset of ME/CFS patients who will respond favorably to IVIG,” Whelan concluded.

Regarding use of IVIG, Chu commented, “We don’t know exactly how it works, but it seems to help certain conditions.” She pointed to another recent small study that reported clinical improvement in patients with ME/CFS through a different approach, immunoadsorption, for reducing the autoantibody levels.

Overall, Chu said, this line of research “is important because it shows there’s some type of abnormal biomarker for ME/CFS. And, it may lay a path toward understanding the pathophysiology of the disease and why people have certain symptoms, and could be used to target therapies. ... It’s intriguing.”

Whelan and Chu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant proportion of patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and dysautonomia may have potentially treatable underlying autoimmune-associated small-fiber polyneuropathy (aaSFPN), pilot data suggest.

The findings, from a single-site study of 61 patients with ME/CFS, were presented August 21 at the virtual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis by Ryan Whelan, BS, a research assistant at Simmaron Research Institute, Incline Village, Nevada.

Recent evidence suggests an autoimmune etiology for some patients with ME/CFS, which is defined as experiencing for a period of at least 6 months profound, unexplained fatigue, postexertional malaise, and unrefreshing sleep, as well as cognitive dysfunction and/or orthostatic intolerance (OI).

OI is part of a spectrum of autonomic dysfunction commonly seen in ME/CFS patients, which may also include postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), peripheral temperature dysregulation and light sensitivity, neuropathic pain, and gastrointestinal complaints. Many of these symptoms overlap those reported by patients with aaSFPN, a common but underdiagnosed neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of peripheral autonomic nerve fibers, Whelan explained.

Findings from the current study show that in more than half of ME/CFS patients, levels of at least one autoantibody were elevated. A majority had comorbid POTS or OI, and over a third had biopsy-confirmed aaSFPN.

“Given the overlap of symptoms and common etiological basis, it may be important to identify ME/CFS patients who present with comorbid aaSFPN, as it has been shown that immune modulatory agents, including intravenous gamma globulin [IVIG], reduce the autonomic symptom burden in aaSFPN patients,” Whelan said.

He noted that Anne Louise Oaklander, MD, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues previously linked aaSFPN with fibromyalgia. In addition, they’ve found a connection between small-fiber dysfunction and postexertional malaise, which is a hallmark ME/CFS symptom.

Asked to comment on Whelan’s presentation, IACFSME co-president Lily Chu, MD, told Medscape Medical News that the new findings are “valuable, because ME/CFS has always been looked upon as just subjective symptoms. When people have laboratory abnormalities, it can be due to a bunch of other causes, but...here’s pathology, here’s a biopsy of actual damage. It’s not just a transient finding. You can actually see it. ... It’s a solid concrete piece of evidence vs something that can fluctuate.”

Autoantibodies, Autonomic Dysfunction, and Small-Fiber Polyneuropathy

Whelan and colleagues conducted an extensive analysis of medical records of 364 patients with ME/CFS (72% female) to identify potential aaSFPN comorbidity. Such identifications were made on the basis of progress notes documenting autonomic dysfunction, laboratory results for serum autoantibodies, and questionnaire symptom self-reports.

They identified 61 patients as possibly having comorbid aaSFPN. Of those, 52% tested positive for at least 1 of 4 autoantibodies, including antimuscarinic cholinergic receptor 4 (47%), anti-beta-2 adrenergic (27%), antimuscarinic cholinergic 3 (25%), and anti-beta-1 adrenergic (13%). These autoantibodies were linked to ME/CFS in a recent Swedish cohort study.

“Evidence supports that these autoantibodies may bind to receptor sites, blocking ligands from reaching these receptors. Disturbances of adrenergic and cholinergic receptors by these autoantibodies may contribute to symptoms of autonomic dysfunction in ME/CFS,” Whelan said.

Although 22% of patients in the study group had POTS and 59% had OI, the authors found no correlation between autoantibody levels and either OI or POTS. However, 38% were confirmed to have small-fiber polyneuropathy on skin biopsy, and the vast majority of those patients (93%) had either POTS or OI.

IVIG May Be a Potential Treatment

Whelan notes that some data suggest that IVIG might help patients with small-fiber neuropathy, including those with autoimmunity.

In addition, he described anecdotal data from a single patient with ME/CFS who had neuropathic symptoms. The patient was treated at Simmaron. The 56-year-old received two IVIG infusions given 6 months apart. The patient experienced a dramatic reduction in levels of all four of the relevant autoantibodies and favorable symptom reduction, as shown in clinician follow-up records. “With the success of this case study, we intend to further evaluate IVIG as a potential treatment in ME/CFS patients. With this research, we hope to identify a subset of ME/CFS patients who will respond favorably to IVIG,” Whelan concluded.

Regarding use of IVIG, Chu commented, “We don’t know exactly how it works, but it seems to help certain conditions.” She pointed to another recent small study that reported clinical improvement in patients with ME/CFS through a different approach, immunoadsorption, for reducing the autoantibody levels.

Overall, Chu said, this line of research “is important because it shows there’s some type of abnormal biomarker for ME/CFS. And, it may lay a path toward understanding the pathophysiology of the disease and why people have certain symptoms, and could be used to target therapies. ... It’s intriguing.”

Whelan and Chu have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Voiding trials after female pelvic floor surgery may detect similar rates of voiding dysfunction regardless of whether voiding occurs spontaneously or after the bladder is retrograde-filled with saline, according to a randomized study.

Nevertheless, patients may prefer the more common retrograde-fill approach.

In the study of 109 patients, those who underwent retrograde fill reported significantly greater satisfaction with their method of voiding evaluation, compared with patients whose voiding trials occurred spontaneously. The increased satisfaction could relate to the fact that retrograde-fill trials take less time, study investigator Patrick Popiel, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., suggested at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. The exact reasons are unclear, however.

Voiding trials help identify patients who cannot sufficiently empty their bladder after surgery. Prior research has indicated that the incidence of voiding dysfunction after pelvic floor surgery is about 25%-35%. “Patients with voiding dysfunction are generally managed with an indwelling Foley catheter or clean intermittent self-catheterization,” Dr. Popiel said. “Catheterization increases the risk of urinary tract infection, increases anxiety, and decreases patient satisfaction. A large proportion of patients who are discharged home with a Foley catheter state that the catheter was the worst aspect of their experience.”

Dr. Popiel and colleagues conducted a randomized, prospective study to examine the rate of failed voiding trials that necessitate discharge home with an indwelling Foley catheter using spontaneous and retrograde-fill approaches. The study included women who required a voiding trial after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Patients who required prolonged catheterization after surgery, such as those with a urinary tract infection, bowel injury, or large amount of blood loss, were excluded.

Researchers analyzed data from 55 patients who were randomly assigned to the retrograde-fill group and 54 patients who were randomly assigned to the spontaneous trial group.

In the spontaneous group, patients were required to void at least 150 mL at one time within 6 hours of catheter removal to successfully complete the voiding trial.

In the retrograde-fill group, the bladder was filled in the postanesthesia care unit with 300 mL of saline or until the maximum volume tolerated by the patient (not exceeding 300 mL ) was reached. Patients in this group had to void at least 150 mL or 50% of the instilled volume at one time within 60 minutes of catheter removal to pass the trial.

The researchers documented postvoid residual (PVR) but did not use this measure to determine voiding function.

The baseline demographics of the two groups were similar, although prior hysterectomy was more common in the retrograde-fill group than in the spontaneous group (32.7% vs. 14.8%). The average age was 58.5 years in the retrograde-fill group and 61 years in the spontaneous group.

“There was no significant difference in our primary outcome,” Dr. Popiel said. “There was a 12.7% rate of failed voiding trial in the retrograde group versus 7.7% in the spontaneous group.”

No patients had urinary retention after initially passing their voiding trial. Force of stream did not differ between groups, and about 15% in each group had a postoperative urinary tract infection.

The study demonstrates that voiding assessment based on a spontaneous minimum void of 150 mL is safe and has similar pass rates, compared with the more commonly performed retrograde void trial, Dr. Popiel said. “If the voided amount is at least 150 mL, PVR is not critical to obtain. The study adds to the body of literature that supports less stringent criteria for evaluating voiding function and can limit postoperative urinary recatheterization.”

The investigators allowed patients with PVRs as high as 575 mL to return home without an alternative way to empty the bladder, C. Sage Claydon, MD, a urogynecologist who was not involved in the study, noted during a discussion after the presentation. In all, 6 patients who met the passing criteria for the spontaneous voiding trial had a PVR greater than 200 mL, with volumes ranging from 205-575 mL.

The patients received standardized counseling about postoperative voiding problems, said Dr. Popiel. “This is similar to the work done by Ingber et al. from 2011, where patients who reached a certain force of stream, greater than 5 out of 10, were discharged home regardless of PVR.”

Dr. Popiel had no relevant disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to BlossomMed, Renovia, and ArmadaHealth.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Popiel P et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 14.

Voiding trials after female pelvic floor surgery may detect similar rates of voiding dysfunction regardless of whether voiding occurs spontaneously or after the bladder is retrograde-filled with saline, according to a randomized study.

Nevertheless, patients may prefer the more common retrograde-fill approach.

In the study of 109 patients, those who underwent retrograde fill reported significantly greater satisfaction with their method of voiding evaluation, compared with patients whose voiding trials occurred spontaneously. The increased satisfaction could relate to the fact that retrograde-fill trials take less time, study investigator Patrick Popiel, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., suggested at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. The exact reasons are unclear, however.

Voiding trials help identify patients who cannot sufficiently empty their bladder after surgery. Prior research has indicated that the incidence of voiding dysfunction after pelvic floor surgery is about 25%-35%. “Patients with voiding dysfunction are generally managed with an indwelling Foley catheter or clean intermittent self-catheterization,” Dr. Popiel said. “Catheterization increases the risk of urinary tract infection, increases anxiety, and decreases patient satisfaction. A large proportion of patients who are discharged home with a Foley catheter state that the catheter was the worst aspect of their experience.”

Dr. Popiel and colleagues conducted a randomized, prospective study to examine the rate of failed voiding trials that necessitate discharge home with an indwelling Foley catheter using spontaneous and retrograde-fill approaches. The study included women who required a voiding trial after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Patients who required prolonged catheterization after surgery, such as those with a urinary tract infection, bowel injury, or large amount of blood loss, were excluded.

Researchers analyzed data from 55 patients who were randomly assigned to the retrograde-fill group and 54 patients who were randomly assigned to the spontaneous trial group.

In the spontaneous group, patients were required to void at least 150 mL at one time within 6 hours of catheter removal to successfully complete the voiding trial.

In the retrograde-fill group, the bladder was filled in the postanesthesia care unit with 300 mL of saline or until the maximum volume tolerated by the patient (not exceeding 300 mL ) was reached. Patients in this group had to void at least 150 mL or 50% of the instilled volume at one time within 60 minutes of catheter removal to pass the trial.

The researchers documented postvoid residual (PVR) but did not use this measure to determine voiding function.

The baseline demographics of the two groups were similar, although prior hysterectomy was more common in the retrograde-fill group than in the spontaneous group (32.7% vs. 14.8%). The average age was 58.5 years in the retrograde-fill group and 61 years in the spontaneous group.

“There was no significant difference in our primary outcome,” Dr. Popiel said. “There was a 12.7% rate of failed voiding trial in the retrograde group versus 7.7% in the spontaneous group.”

No patients had urinary retention after initially passing their voiding trial. Force of stream did not differ between groups, and about 15% in each group had a postoperative urinary tract infection.

The study demonstrates that voiding assessment based on a spontaneous minimum void of 150 mL is safe and has similar pass rates, compared with the more commonly performed retrograde void trial, Dr. Popiel said. “If the voided amount is at least 150 mL, PVR is not critical to obtain. The study adds to the body of literature that supports less stringent criteria for evaluating voiding function and can limit postoperative urinary recatheterization.”

The investigators allowed patients with PVRs as high as 575 mL to return home without an alternative way to empty the bladder, C. Sage Claydon, MD, a urogynecologist who was not involved in the study, noted during a discussion after the presentation. In all, 6 patients who met the passing criteria for the spontaneous voiding trial had a PVR greater than 200 mL, with volumes ranging from 205-575 mL.

The patients received standardized counseling about postoperative voiding problems, said Dr. Popiel. “This is similar to the work done by Ingber et al. from 2011, where patients who reached a certain force of stream, greater than 5 out of 10, were discharged home regardless of PVR.”

Dr. Popiel had no relevant disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to BlossomMed, Renovia, and ArmadaHealth.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Popiel P et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 14.

Voiding trials after female pelvic floor surgery may detect similar rates of voiding dysfunction regardless of whether voiding occurs spontaneously or after the bladder is retrograde-filled with saline, according to a randomized study.

Nevertheless, patients may prefer the more common retrograde-fill approach.

In the study of 109 patients, those who underwent retrograde fill reported significantly greater satisfaction with their method of voiding evaluation, compared with patients whose voiding trials occurred spontaneously. The increased satisfaction could relate to the fact that retrograde-fill trials take less time, study investigator Patrick Popiel, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., suggested at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. The exact reasons are unclear, however.

Voiding trials help identify patients who cannot sufficiently empty their bladder after surgery. Prior research has indicated that the incidence of voiding dysfunction after pelvic floor surgery is about 25%-35%. “Patients with voiding dysfunction are generally managed with an indwelling Foley catheter or clean intermittent self-catheterization,” Dr. Popiel said. “Catheterization increases the risk of urinary tract infection, increases anxiety, and decreases patient satisfaction. A large proportion of patients who are discharged home with a Foley catheter state that the catheter was the worst aspect of their experience.”

Dr. Popiel and colleagues conducted a randomized, prospective study to examine the rate of failed voiding trials that necessitate discharge home with an indwelling Foley catheter using spontaneous and retrograde-fill approaches. The study included women who required a voiding trial after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Patients who required prolonged catheterization after surgery, such as those with a urinary tract infection, bowel injury, or large amount of blood loss, were excluded.

Researchers analyzed data from 55 patients who were randomly assigned to the retrograde-fill group and 54 patients who were randomly assigned to the spontaneous trial group.

In the spontaneous group, patients were required to void at least 150 mL at one time within 6 hours of catheter removal to successfully complete the voiding trial.

In the retrograde-fill group, the bladder was filled in the postanesthesia care unit with 300 mL of saline or until the maximum volume tolerated by the patient (not exceeding 300 mL ) was reached. Patients in this group had to void at least 150 mL or 50% of the instilled volume at one time within 60 minutes of catheter removal to pass the trial.

The researchers documented postvoid residual (PVR) but did not use this measure to determine voiding function.

The baseline demographics of the two groups were similar, although prior hysterectomy was more common in the retrograde-fill group than in the spontaneous group (32.7% vs. 14.8%). The average age was 58.5 years in the retrograde-fill group and 61 years in the spontaneous group.

“There was no significant difference in our primary outcome,” Dr. Popiel said. “There was a 12.7% rate of failed voiding trial in the retrograde group versus 7.7% in the spontaneous group.”

No patients had urinary retention after initially passing their voiding trial. Force of stream did not differ between groups, and about 15% in each group had a postoperative urinary tract infection.

The study demonstrates that voiding assessment based on a spontaneous minimum void of 150 mL is safe and has similar pass rates, compared with the more commonly performed retrograde void trial, Dr. Popiel said. “If the voided amount is at least 150 mL, PVR is not critical to obtain. The study adds to the body of literature that supports less stringent criteria for evaluating voiding function and can limit postoperative urinary recatheterization.”

The investigators allowed patients with PVRs as high as 575 mL to return home without an alternative way to empty the bladder, C. Sage Claydon, MD, a urogynecologist who was not involved in the study, noted during a discussion after the presentation. In all, 6 patients who met the passing criteria for the spontaneous voiding trial had a PVR greater than 200 mL, with volumes ranging from 205-575 mL.

The patients received standardized counseling about postoperative voiding problems, said Dr. Popiel. “This is similar to the work done by Ingber et al. from 2011, where patients who reached a certain force of stream, greater than 5 out of 10, were discharged home regardless of PVR.”

Dr. Popiel had no relevant disclosures. Two coinvestigators disclosed ties to BlossomMed, Renovia, and ArmadaHealth.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Popiel P et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 14.

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

An ultralow dose of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) may safely cut the risk for stroke in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) whose bleeding risk is considered too high for standard dosages, suggests a randomized trial conducted in Japan.

Many of the study’s 984 mostly octogenarian patients were objectively frail with poor renal function, low body weight, a history of serious bleeding, or other conditions that made them poor candidates for regular-dose oral anticoagulation. Yet those who took the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa) at the off-label dosage of 15 mg once daily showed a two-thirds drop in risk for stroke or systemic embolism (P < .001), compared with patients who received placebo. There were no fatal bleeds and virtually no intracranial hemorrhages.

For such high-risk patients with nonvalvular AFib who otherwise would not be given an OAC, edoxaban 15 mg “can be an acceptable treatment option in decreasing the risk of devastating stroke”; however, “it may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, so care should be given in every patient,” said Ken Okumura, MD, PhD. Indeed, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding tripled among the patients who received edoxaban, compared with those given placebo, at about 2.3% per year versus 0.8% per year.

Although their 87% increased risk for major bleeding did not reach significance, it hit close, with a P value of .09 in the trial, called Edoxaban Low-Dose for Elder Care Atrial Fibrillation Patients (ELDERCARE-AF).

Dr. Okumura, of Saiseikai Kumamoto (Japan) Hospital, presented the study August 30 during the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. He is lead author of an article describing the study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Many patients with AFib suffer strokes if they are not given oral anticoagulation because of “fear of major bleeding caused by standard OAC therapy,” Dr. Okumura noted. Others are inappropriately administered antiplatelets or anticoagulants at conventional dosages. “There is no standard of practice in Japan for patients like those in the present trial,” Dr. Okumura said. “However, I believe the present study opens a new possible path of thromboprophylaxis in such high-risk patients.”

Even with its relatively few bleeding events, ELDERCARE-AF “does suggest that the risk of the worst types of bleeds is not that high,” said Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Gastrointestinal bleeding is annoying, and it will probably stop people from taking their edoxaban, but for the most part it doesn’t kill people.”

Moreover, he added, the trial suggests that low-dose edoxaban, in exchange for a steep reduction in thromboembolic risk, “doesn’t add to your risk of intracranial hemorrhage!”

ELDERCARE-AF may give practitioners “yet another reason to rethink” whether a low-dose DOAC such as edoxaban 15 mg/day may well be a good approach for such patients with AFib who are not receiving standard-dose OAC because of a perceived high risk for serious bleeding, said Dr. Singer, who was not involved in the study.

The trial randomly and evenly assigned 984 patients with AF in Japan to take either edoxaban 15 mg/day or placebo. The patients, who were at least 80 years old and had a CHADS2 score of 2 or higher, were judged inappropriate candidates for OAC at dosages approved for stroke prevention.

The mean age of the patients was 86.6, more than a decade older than patients “in the previous landmark clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants,” and were 5-10 years older than the general AFib population, reported Dr. Okumura and colleagues.

Their mean weight was 52 kg, and mean creatinine clearance was 36.3 mL/min; 41% were classified as frail according to validated assessment tools.

Of the 303 patients who did not complete the trial, 158 voluntarily withdrew for various reasons. The withdrawal rate was similar in the two treatment arms. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat, the report noted.

The annualized rate of stroke or systemic embolism, the primary efficacy endpoint, was 2.3% for those who received edoxaban and 6.7% for the control group. Corresponding rates for the primary safety endpoint, major bleeding as determined by International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria, were 3.3% and 1.8%, respectively.

“The question is, can the Food and Drug Administration act on this information? I doubt it can. What will be needed is to reproduce the study in a U.S. population to see if it holds,” Dr. Singer proposed.

“Edoxaban isn’t used much in the U.S. This could heighten interest. And who knows, there may be a gold rush,” he said, if the strategy were to pan out for the other DOACs, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), apixaban (Eliquis), and dabigatran (Pradaxa).

ELDERCARE-AF was funded by Daiichi Sankyo, from which Dr. Okumura reported receiving grants and personal fees; he also disclosed personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fecal microbiota transplantation results in a short-term reduction in alcohol craving in patients with alcohol-induced cirrhosis who can’t stop drinking, results from a new study show.

And that reduction could lead to a better psychosocial quality of life for patients with cirrhosis and alcohol use disorder, said investigator Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“This is the most common addiction disorder worldwide, but we have nothing to treat these patients with,” he said.

Cirrhosis is associated with an altered gut-brain axis. It leads to organ damage in several parts of the body, including the brain, gut, pancreas, and liver. This makes changing the gut microbes “an attractive target,” Dr. Bajaj said at the Digital International Liver Congress 2020.

For their phase 1, double-blind study, he and his colleagues assessed 20 men from a Virginia veteran’s hospital with untreatable alcohol use disorder who were not eligible for liver transplantation.

All had failed behavioral or pharmacologic therapy and were unwilling to try again. “That’s what made them good candidates to try something new,” Dr. Bajaj said during a press briefing.

Mean age in the study cohort was 65 years, mean Model for End-Stage Liver disease score was 8.9, and demographic characteristics were similar between the 10 men randomly assigned to fecal transplantation and the 10 assigned to placebo. One man in each group dropped out of the study.

The investigators evaluated cravings, microbiota, and quality of life during the 30-day study period.

At day 15, significantly more men in the transplant group than in the placebo group experienced a reduction in alcohol cravings (90% vs. 30%).

At 30 days, levels of creatinine, serum interleukin-6, and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein were lower in the transplant group than in the placebo group. In addition, levels of butyrate and isobutyrate increased, as did cognition and quality of life scores.

There was also a decrease in urinary ethyl glucuronide in the transplant group, which “is the objective criteria for alcohol intake,” Dr. Bajaj reported, noting that there was no change in ethyl glucuronide in the placebo group.

The increase in microbiota diversity was significant in the transplant group but not in the placebo group. Alistipes, Odoribacter, and Roseburia were more abundant in the transplant group than in the placebo group.

During the 30-day study period, two men in the placebo group required medical attention, one for hyponatremia and the other for atrial fibrillation. However, no adverse events were seen in any men in the transplant group. “This was the No. 1 result,” Dr. Bajaj said.
 

Liver disease and the microbiome

“Understanding of interactions between the human and microbiome genome [metagenome] in health and disease has represented one of the major areas of progress in the last few years,” said Luca Valenti, MD, from the University of Milan, who is a member of the scientific committee of the European Association the Study of the Liver, which organized the congress.

“These studies lay the groundwork for the exploitation of this new knowledge for the treatment of liver disease,” he said.

“We are [now] diagnosing liver disease and the stages of liver disease based on microbiome changes,” said Jonel Trebicka, MD, PhD, from University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany), who chaired a session at the congress on the role of the microbiome in liver disease.

“This and other studies have shown us that the microbiome itself may influence liver disease,” he added.

Dr. Bajaj is considered one of the world’s experts on cirrhosis and the microbiome, Dr. Trebicka explained. Last year, Dr. Bajaj and his team demonstrated that fecal microbiota transplantation can reduce the incidence of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The current study also “shows clearly that the microbiome plays a role in craving. FMT reduces the desire for alcohol,” said Dr. Trebicka.

“The way to the brain is through the gut,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Dr. Bajaj, Dr. Trebicka, and Dr. Valenti disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fecal microbiota transplantation results in a short-term reduction in alcohol craving in patients with alcohol-induced cirrhosis who can’t stop drinking, results from a new study show.

And that reduction could lead to a better psychosocial quality of life for patients with cirrhosis and alcohol use disorder, said investigator Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“This is the most common addiction disorder worldwide, but we have nothing to treat these patients with,” he said.

Cirrhosis is associated with an altered gut-brain axis. It leads to organ damage in several parts of the body, including the brain, gut, pancreas, and liver. This makes changing the gut microbes “an attractive target,” Dr. Bajaj said at the Digital International Liver Congress 2020.

For their phase 1, double-blind study, he and his colleagues assessed 20 men from a Virginia veteran’s hospital with untreatable alcohol use disorder who were not eligible for liver transplantation.

All had failed behavioral or pharmacologic therapy and were unwilling to try again. “That’s what made them good candidates to try something new,” Dr. Bajaj said during a press briefing.

Mean age in the study cohort was 65 years, mean Model for End-Stage Liver disease score was 8.9, and demographic characteristics were similar between the 10 men randomly assigned to fecal transplantation and the 10 assigned to placebo. One man in each group dropped out of the study.

The investigators evaluated cravings, microbiota, and quality of life during the 30-day study period.

At day 15, significantly more men in the transplant group than in the placebo group experienced a reduction in alcohol cravings (90% vs. 30%).

At 30 days, levels of creatinine, serum interleukin-6, and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein were lower in the transplant group than in the placebo group. In addition, levels of butyrate and isobutyrate increased, as did cognition and quality of life scores.

There was also a decrease in urinary ethyl glucuronide in the transplant group, which “is the objective criteria for alcohol intake,” Dr. Bajaj reported, noting that there was no change in ethyl glucuronide in the placebo group.

The increase in microbiota diversity was significant in the transplant group but not in the placebo group. Alistipes, Odoribacter, and Roseburia were more abundant in the transplant group than in the placebo group.

During the 30-day study period, two men in the placebo group required medical attention, one for hyponatremia and the other for atrial fibrillation. However, no adverse events were seen in any men in the transplant group. “This was the No. 1 result,” Dr. Bajaj said.
 

Liver disease and the microbiome

“Understanding of interactions between the human and microbiome genome [metagenome] in health and disease has represented one of the major areas of progress in the last few years,” said Luca Valenti, MD, from the University of Milan, who is a member of the scientific committee of the European Association the Study of the Liver, which organized the congress.

“These studies lay the groundwork for the exploitation of this new knowledge for the treatment of liver disease,” he said.

“We are [now] diagnosing liver disease and the stages of liver disease based on microbiome changes,” said Jonel Trebicka, MD, PhD, from University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany), who chaired a session at the congress on the role of the microbiome in liver disease.

“This and other studies have shown us that the microbiome itself may influence liver disease,” he added.

Dr. Bajaj is considered one of the world’s experts on cirrhosis and the microbiome, Dr. Trebicka explained. Last year, Dr. Bajaj and his team demonstrated that fecal microbiota transplantation can reduce the incidence of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The current study also “shows clearly that the microbiome plays a role in craving. FMT reduces the desire for alcohol,” said Dr. Trebicka.

“The way to the brain is through the gut,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Dr. Bajaj, Dr. Trebicka, and Dr. Valenti disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fecal microbiota transplantation results in a short-term reduction in alcohol craving in patients with alcohol-induced cirrhosis who can’t stop drinking, results from a new study show.

And that reduction could lead to a better psychosocial quality of life for patients with cirrhosis and alcohol use disorder, said investigator Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“This is the most common addiction disorder worldwide, but we have nothing to treat these patients with,” he said.

Cirrhosis is associated with an altered gut-brain axis. It leads to organ damage in several parts of the body, including the brain, gut, pancreas, and liver. This makes changing the gut microbes “an attractive target,” Dr. Bajaj said at the Digital International Liver Congress 2020.

For their phase 1, double-blind study, he and his colleagues assessed 20 men from a Virginia veteran’s hospital with untreatable alcohol use disorder who were not eligible for liver transplantation.

All had failed behavioral or pharmacologic therapy and were unwilling to try again. “That’s what made them good candidates to try something new,” Dr. Bajaj said during a press briefing.

Mean age in the study cohort was 65 years, mean Model for End-Stage Liver disease score was 8.9, and demographic characteristics were similar between the 10 men randomly assigned to fecal transplantation and the 10 assigned to placebo. One man in each group dropped out of the study.

The investigators evaluated cravings, microbiota, and quality of life during the 30-day study period.

At day 15, significantly more men in the transplant group than in the placebo group experienced a reduction in alcohol cravings (90% vs. 30%).

At 30 days, levels of creatinine, serum interleukin-6, and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein were lower in the transplant group than in the placebo group. In addition, levels of butyrate and isobutyrate increased, as did cognition and quality of life scores.

There was also a decrease in urinary ethyl glucuronide in the transplant group, which “is the objective criteria for alcohol intake,” Dr. Bajaj reported, noting that there was no change in ethyl glucuronide in the placebo group.

The increase in microbiota diversity was significant in the transplant group but not in the placebo group. Alistipes, Odoribacter, and Roseburia were more abundant in the transplant group than in the placebo group.

During the 30-day study period, two men in the placebo group required medical attention, one for hyponatremia and the other for atrial fibrillation. However, no adverse events were seen in any men in the transplant group. “This was the No. 1 result,” Dr. Bajaj said.
 

Liver disease and the microbiome

“Understanding of interactions between the human and microbiome genome [metagenome] in health and disease has represented one of the major areas of progress in the last few years,” said Luca Valenti, MD, from the University of Milan, who is a member of the scientific committee of the European Association the Study of the Liver, which organized the congress.

“These studies lay the groundwork for the exploitation of this new knowledge for the treatment of liver disease,” he said.

“We are [now] diagnosing liver disease and the stages of liver disease based on microbiome changes,” said Jonel Trebicka, MD, PhD, from University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany), who chaired a session at the congress on the role of the microbiome in liver disease.

“This and other studies have shown us that the microbiome itself may influence liver disease,” he added.

Dr. Bajaj is considered one of the world’s experts on cirrhosis and the microbiome, Dr. Trebicka explained. Last year, Dr. Bajaj and his team demonstrated that fecal microbiota transplantation can reduce the incidence of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The current study also “shows clearly that the microbiome plays a role in craving. FMT reduces the desire for alcohol,” said Dr. Trebicka.

“The way to the brain is through the gut,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Dr. Bajaj, Dr. Trebicka, and Dr. Valenti disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A single educational mailing sent by several U.S. health plans to their patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for oral anticoagulation, but had not yet started a regimen, failed to boost them over their prescription hurdle and facilitate starting an antithrombotic regimen.

By 1 year following the intervention, a mere 10% of patients in both the intervention and a control arm of the randomized trial had begun treatment, with no signal of incremental uptake because of the mailing, Sean D. Pokorney, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Included in the mailing was an educational letter citing the patient’s atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis, a statement regarding their suitability for oral anticoagulation, some information about the treatment, and a suggestion that recipients discuss this with their personal physician.

Dr. Pokorney acknowledged that the single mailing to patients may not have been adequate to capture patients’ attention and trigger an action, and that repeated messaging via multiple platforms and in coordination with interventions aimed at their health care providers may be what’s needed.

“It will take repeated interventions and engagements. We will need different methods to move the needle,” said Dr. Pokorney, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The goal is to “empower patients to talk with their health care providers, and to become agents of change” in their care, he explained, but the single, mailed prod wasn’t enough.

An earlier study run by Dr. Pokorney and several of his colleagues used a broader panel of interventions aimed at both patients and clinicians to encourage increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants in five middle income countries, and documented successfully increasing the uptake rate by threefold compared with control patients (Lancet. 2017 Oct 14;390[10104]:1737-46). The current study tested the efficacy of a “much lower-impact intervention,” he admitted.

“The data are “sobering and eye-opening,” said Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We’re stuck with this big challenge,” the gap between “what medicine can do and what it actually does” when evidence-based interventions fail to gain traction in everyday practice, he said in an interview.

The numbers collected during the new study highlighted the treatment gap. The IMPACT-AFib study randomized 23,546 patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, denoting a stroke risk that warrants oral anticoagulation, to the intervention group, and 23,787 patients to the control arm. The patient selection process began with nearly 200,000 patients who met these criteria, but the researchers excluded 67% because they were already on an oral anticoagulant regimen, an uptake level that roughly matched the 50%-60% level usually seen among U.S. patients, Dr. Pokorney noted. That number coupled with the incremental uptake rate of only 10% of the enrolled patients during the trial, despite their uniform suitability for treatment, underscored how low uptake rates tend to remain stuck over time.

Enrolled patients averaged 78 years of age, with nearly two-thirds at least 75 years old, and with an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.5.

The trial featured a novel design as the first clinical trial to take advantage of the Sentinel program for phase 4 data collection and study devised by the Food and Drug Administration, said Dr. Pokorney. The Sentinel program relies on data partners to provide information; for the IMPACT-AFib study, data came from five large U.S. health systems: Aetna, HealthCore, Humana, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Optum. Each of these systems sent the mailing to their targeted member patients.

In addition to sending just a single, mailed intervention, the study may have also been limited by the mailing’s content. The educational text, presented by Dr. Pokorney during his talk, focused largely on the potential risks of oral anticoagulation, the limited availability of antidote agents, potential drug and food interactions, and a brief entry about the risk for stroke associated with AFib along with a chart that a patient could use to hand calculate their CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. What the mailing lacked was discussion of the benefits of oral anticoagulation, noted study discussant Christophe LeClercq, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of cardiology at the University of Rennes, France.

IMPACT-AFib received no commercial funding, and Dr. Pokorney and Dr. Shivkumar had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq has received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Livanova, and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A single educational mailing sent by several U.S. health plans to their patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for oral anticoagulation, but had not yet started a regimen, failed to boost them over their prescription hurdle and facilitate starting an antithrombotic regimen.

By 1 year following the intervention, a mere 10% of patients in both the intervention and a control arm of the randomized trial had begun treatment, with no signal of incremental uptake because of the mailing, Sean D. Pokorney, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Included in the mailing was an educational letter citing the patient’s atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis, a statement regarding their suitability for oral anticoagulation, some information about the treatment, and a suggestion that recipients discuss this with their personal physician.

Dr. Pokorney acknowledged that the single mailing to patients may not have been adequate to capture patients’ attention and trigger an action, and that repeated messaging via multiple platforms and in coordination with interventions aimed at their health care providers may be what’s needed.

“It will take repeated interventions and engagements. We will need different methods to move the needle,” said Dr. Pokorney, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The goal is to “empower patients to talk with their health care providers, and to become agents of change” in their care, he explained, but the single, mailed prod wasn’t enough.

An earlier study run by Dr. Pokorney and several of his colleagues used a broader panel of interventions aimed at both patients and clinicians to encourage increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants in five middle income countries, and documented successfully increasing the uptake rate by threefold compared with control patients (Lancet. 2017 Oct 14;390[10104]:1737-46). The current study tested the efficacy of a “much lower-impact intervention,” he admitted.

“The data are “sobering and eye-opening,” said Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We’re stuck with this big challenge,” the gap between “what medicine can do and what it actually does” when evidence-based interventions fail to gain traction in everyday practice, he said in an interview.

The numbers collected during the new study highlighted the treatment gap. The IMPACT-AFib study randomized 23,546 patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, denoting a stroke risk that warrants oral anticoagulation, to the intervention group, and 23,787 patients to the control arm. The patient selection process began with nearly 200,000 patients who met these criteria, but the researchers excluded 67% because they were already on an oral anticoagulant regimen, an uptake level that roughly matched the 50%-60% level usually seen among U.S. patients, Dr. Pokorney noted. That number coupled with the incremental uptake rate of only 10% of the enrolled patients during the trial, despite their uniform suitability for treatment, underscored how low uptake rates tend to remain stuck over time.

Enrolled patients averaged 78 years of age, with nearly two-thirds at least 75 years old, and with an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.5.

The trial featured a novel design as the first clinical trial to take advantage of the Sentinel program for phase 4 data collection and study devised by the Food and Drug Administration, said Dr. Pokorney. The Sentinel program relies on data partners to provide information; for the IMPACT-AFib study, data came from five large U.S. health systems: Aetna, HealthCore, Humana, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Optum. Each of these systems sent the mailing to their targeted member patients.

In addition to sending just a single, mailed intervention, the study may have also been limited by the mailing’s content. The educational text, presented by Dr. Pokorney during his talk, focused largely on the potential risks of oral anticoagulation, the limited availability of antidote agents, potential drug and food interactions, and a brief entry about the risk for stroke associated with AFib along with a chart that a patient could use to hand calculate their CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. What the mailing lacked was discussion of the benefits of oral anticoagulation, noted study discussant Christophe LeClercq, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of cardiology at the University of Rennes, France.

IMPACT-AFib received no commercial funding, and Dr. Pokorney and Dr. Shivkumar had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq has received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Livanova, and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A single educational mailing sent by several U.S. health plans to their patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for oral anticoagulation, but had not yet started a regimen, failed to boost them over their prescription hurdle and facilitate starting an antithrombotic regimen.

By 1 year following the intervention, a mere 10% of patients in both the intervention and a control arm of the randomized trial had begun treatment, with no signal of incremental uptake because of the mailing, Sean D. Pokorney, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Included in the mailing was an educational letter citing the patient’s atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis, a statement regarding their suitability for oral anticoagulation, some information about the treatment, and a suggestion that recipients discuss this with their personal physician.

Dr. Pokorney acknowledged that the single mailing to patients may not have been adequate to capture patients’ attention and trigger an action, and that repeated messaging via multiple platforms and in coordination with interventions aimed at their health care providers may be what’s needed.

“It will take repeated interventions and engagements. We will need different methods to move the needle,” said Dr. Pokorney, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The goal is to “empower patients to talk with their health care providers, and to become agents of change” in their care, he explained, but the single, mailed prod wasn’t enough.

An earlier study run by Dr. Pokorney and several of his colleagues used a broader panel of interventions aimed at both patients and clinicians to encourage increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants in five middle income countries, and documented successfully increasing the uptake rate by threefold compared with control patients (Lancet. 2017 Oct 14;390[10104]:1737-46). The current study tested the efficacy of a “much lower-impact intervention,” he admitted.

“The data are “sobering and eye-opening,” said Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We’re stuck with this big challenge,” the gap between “what medicine can do and what it actually does” when evidence-based interventions fail to gain traction in everyday practice, he said in an interview.

The numbers collected during the new study highlighted the treatment gap. The IMPACT-AFib study randomized 23,546 patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, denoting a stroke risk that warrants oral anticoagulation, to the intervention group, and 23,787 patients to the control arm. The patient selection process began with nearly 200,000 patients who met these criteria, but the researchers excluded 67% because they were already on an oral anticoagulant regimen, an uptake level that roughly matched the 50%-60% level usually seen among U.S. patients, Dr. Pokorney noted. That number coupled with the incremental uptake rate of only 10% of the enrolled patients during the trial, despite their uniform suitability for treatment, underscored how low uptake rates tend to remain stuck over time.

Enrolled patients averaged 78 years of age, with nearly two-thirds at least 75 years old, and with an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.5.

The trial featured a novel design as the first clinical trial to take advantage of the Sentinel program for phase 4 data collection and study devised by the Food and Drug Administration, said Dr. Pokorney. The Sentinel program relies on data partners to provide information; for the IMPACT-AFib study, data came from five large U.S. health systems: Aetna, HealthCore, Humana, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Optum. Each of these systems sent the mailing to their targeted member patients.

In addition to sending just a single, mailed intervention, the study may have also been limited by the mailing’s content. The educational text, presented by Dr. Pokorney during his talk, focused largely on the potential risks of oral anticoagulation, the limited availability of antidote agents, potential drug and food interactions, and a brief entry about the risk for stroke associated with AFib along with a chart that a patient could use to hand calculate their CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. What the mailing lacked was discussion of the benefits of oral anticoagulation, noted study discussant Christophe LeClercq, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of cardiology at the University of Rennes, France.

IMPACT-AFib received no commercial funding, and Dr. Pokorney and Dr. Shivkumar had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq has received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Livanova, and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A restrictive blood transfusion strategy in myocardial infarction patients with anemia proved safe, significantly less costly, and at least as effective as the standard liberal transfusion strategy in the landmark REALITY trial.

Randomized trial data already support a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery, as well as in other settings. Those trials deliberately excluded patients with acute myocardial ischemia.

Cardiologists have been loath to adopt a restrictive strategy in the absence of persuasive supporting evidence because of a theoretic concern that low hemoglobin might be particularly harmful to ischemic myocardium. Anemia occurs in 5%-10% patients with MI, and clinicians have been eager for evidence-based guidance on how to best manage it.

“Blood is a precious resource and transfusion is costly, logistically cumbersome, and has side effects,” Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chair of the REALITY trial, noted in presenting the study results at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

REALITY was the first-ever large randomized trial of a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in acute MI. The study, which featured a noninferiority design, included 668 stable patients with acute MI and anemia with a hemoglobin of 7-10 g/dL at 35 hospitals in France and Spain. Participants were randomized to a restrictive strategy in which transfusion was withheld unless the hemoglobin dropped to 8 g/dL or less, or to a conventional liberal strategy triggered by a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or lower. The transfusion target was a hemoglobin level of 8-10 g/dL in the restrictive strategy group and greater than 11 g/dL in the liberal transfusion group. In the restrictive transfusion group, 36% received at least one RBC transfusion, as did 87% in the liberal transfusion study arm. The restrictive strategy group used 414 fewer units of blood.

The two coprimary endpoints were 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events and cost-effectiveness. The 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction, stroke, and emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial ischemia occurred in 11% of the restrictive transfusion group and 14% of the liberal transfusion group. The resultant 21% relative risk reduction established that the restrictive strategy was noninferior. Of note, all of the individual components of the composite endpoint numerically favored the restrictive approach.

In terms of safety, patients in the restrictive transfusion group were significantly less likely to develop an infection, by a margin of 0% versus 1.5%. The rate of acute lung injury was also significantly lower in the restrictive group: 0.3%, compared with 2.2%. The median hospital length of stay was identical at 7 days in both groups.

The cost-effectiveness analysis concluded that the restrictive transfusion strategy had an 84% probability of being both less expensive and more effective.

Patients were enrolled in REALITY regardless of whether they had active bleeding, as long as the bleeding wasn’t deemed massive and life-threatening. Notably, there was no difference in the results of restrictive versus liberal transfusion regardless of whether active bleeding was present, nor did baseline hemoglobin or the presence or absence of preexisting anemia affect the results.

Dr. Steg noted that a much larger randomized trial of restrictive versus liberal transfusion in the setting of acute MI with anemia is underway in the United States and Canada. The 3,000-patient MINT trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, is testing the superiority of restrictive transfusion, rather than its noninferiority, as in REALITY. Results are a couple of years away.

“I think that will be an important piece of additional evidence,” he said.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, didn’t mince words.

“I really love the REALITY trial,” declared Dr. Roffi, professor and vice chairman of the cardiology department and director of the interventional cardiology unit at University Hospital of Geneva.

He ticked off a series of reasons: The trial addressed a common clinical dilemma about which there has been essentially no prior high-quality evidence, it provided convincing results, and it carried important implications for responsible stewardship of the blood supply.

“REALITY allows clinicians to comfortably refrain from transfusing anemic patients presenting with myocardial infarction, and this should lead to a reduction in the consumption of blood products,” Dr. Roffi said.

He applauded the investigators for their success in obtaining public funding for a study lacking a commercial hook. And as a clinical investigator, he was particularly impressed by one of the technical details about the REALITY trial: “I was amazed by the fact that the observed event rates virtually corresponded to the estimated ones used for the power calculations. This is rarely the case in such a trial.”

Dr. Roffi said the REALITY findings should have an immediate impact on clinical practice, as well as on the brand new 2020 ESC guidelines on the management of non–ST-elevation ACS issued during the ESC virtual congress.

The freshly inked guidelines state: “Based on inconsistent study results and the lack of adequately powered randomized, controlled trials, a restrictive policy of transfusion in anemic patients with MI may be considered.” As of today, Dr. Roffi argued, the phrase “may be considered” ought to be replaced by the stronger phrase “should be considered.”

During the discussion period, he was asked if it’s appropriate to extrapolate the REALITY results to patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, among whom anemia is highly prevalent.

“I think this is a different patient population. Nevertheless, the concept of being restrictive is one that in my opinion now remains until proven otherwise. So we are being very restrictive in these patients,” he replied.

Asked about possible mechanisms by which liberal transfusion might have detrimental effects in acute MI patients, Dr. Steg cited several, including evidence that transfusion may not improve oxygen delivery to as great an extent as traditionally thought. There is also the risk of volume overload, increased blood viscosity, and enhanced platelet aggregation and activation, which could promote myocardial ischemia.

The REALITY trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness with no commercial support. Outside the scope of the trial, Dr. Steg reported receiving research grants from Bayer, Merck, Servier, and Sanofi as well as serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first randomized study to compare continuing versus stopping ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with COVID-19 has shown no difference in key outcomes between the two approaches.

European Society of Cardiology

The BRACE CORONA trial – conducted in patients had been taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB on a long-term basis and who were subsequently hospitalized with COVID-19 – showed no difference in the primary endpoint of number of days alive and out of hospital among those whose medication was suspended for 30 days and those who continued undergoing treatment with these agents.

“Because these data indicate that there is no clinical benefit from routinely interrupting these medications in hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, they should generally be continued for those with an indication,” principal investigator Renato Lopes, MD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., concluded.

The BRACE CORONA trial was presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2020 on Sept. 1.

Dr. Lopes explained that there are two conflicting hypotheses about the role of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in COVID-19.

One hypothesis suggests that use of these drugs could be harmful by increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors (which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells), thus potentially enhancing viral binding and viral entry. The other suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be protective by reducing production of angiotensin II and enhancing the generation of angiotensin 1-7, which attenuates inflammation and fibrosis and therefore could attenuate lung injury.

The BRACE CORONA trial was an academic-led randomized study that tested two strategies: temporarily stopping the ACE inhibitor/ARB for 30 days or continuing these drugs for patients who had been taking these medications on a long-term basis and were hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Patients who were using more than three antihypertensive drugs or sacubitril/valsartan or who were hemodynamically unstable at presentation were excluded from the study.

The trial enrolled 659 patients from 29 sites in Brazil. The mean age of patients was 56 years, 40% were women, and 52% were obese. ACE inhibitors were being taken by 15% of the trial participants; ARBs were being taken by 85%. The median duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment was 5 years.

Patients were a median of 6 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. For 30% of the patients, oxygen saturation was below 94% at entry. In terms of COVID-19 symptoms, 57% were classified as mild, and 43% as moderate.

Those with severe COVID-19 symptoms who needed intubation or vasoactive drugs were excluded. Antihypertensive therapy would generally be discontinued in these patients anyway, Dr. Lopes said.

Results showed that the average number of days alive and out of hospital was 21.9 days for patients who stopped taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 22.9 days for patients who continued taking these medications. The average difference between groups was –1.1 days.

The average ratio of days alive and out of hospital between the suspending and continuing groups was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01; P = .09).

The proportion of patients alive and out of hospital by the end of 30 days in the suspending ACE inhibitor/ARB group was 91.8% versus 95% in the continuing group.

A similar 30-day mortality rate was seen for patients who continued and those who suspended ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy, at 2.8% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97). The median number of days that patients were alive and out of hospital was 25 in both groups.

Dr. Lopes said that there was no difference between the two groups with regard to many other secondary outcomes. These included COVID-19 disease progression (need for intubation, ventilation, need for vasoactive drugs, or imaging results) and cardiovascular endpoints (MI, stroke, thromboembolic events, worsening heart failure, myocarditis, or hypertensive crisis).

“Our results endorse with reliable and more definitive data what most medical and cardiovascular societies are recommending – that patients do not stop ACE inhibitor or ARB medication. This has been based on observational data so far, but BRACE CORONA now provides randomized data to support this recommendation,” Dr. Lopes concluded.

Dr. Lopes noted that several subgroups had been prespecified for analysis. Factors included age, obesity, difference between ACE inhibitors/ARBs, difference in oxygen saturation at presentation, time since COVID-19 symptom onset, degree of lung involvement on CT, and symptom severity on presentation.

“We saw very consistent effects of our main findings across all these subgroups, and we plan to report more details of these in the near future,” he said.
 

Protective for older patients?

The discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Gianfranco Parati, MD, University of Milan-Bicocca and San Luca Hospital, Milan, congratulated Lopes and his team for conducting this important trial at such a difficult time.

He pointed out that patients in the BRACE CORONA trial were quite young (average age, 56 years) and that observational data so far suggest that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have a stronger protective effect in older COVID-19 patients.

He also noted that the percentage of patients alive and out of hospital at 30 days was higher for the patients who continued on treatment in this study (95% vs. 91.8%), which suggested an advantage in maintaining the medication.

Dr. Lopes replied that one-quarter of the population in the BRACE CORONA trial was older than 65 years, which he said was a “reasonable number.”

“Subgroup analysis by age did not show a significant interaction, but the effect of continuing treatment does seem to be more favorable in older patients and also in those who were sicker and had more comorbidities,” he added.

Dr. Parati also suggested that it would have been difficult to discern differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in the BRACE CORONA trial, because so few patents were taking ACE inhibitors; the follow-up period of 30 days was relatively short, inasmuch as these drugs may have long-term effects; and it would have been difficult to show differences in the main outcomes used in the study – mortality and time out of hospital – in these patients with mild to moderate disease.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, and Christoph Gräni, MD, University of Bern (Switzerland), said in a joint statement: “The BRACE CORONA trial provides answers to what we know from retrospective studies: if you have already COVID, don’t stop renin-angiotensin system blocker medication.”

But they added that the study does not answer the question about the risk/benefit of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with regard to possible enhanced viral entry through the ACE2 receptor. “What about all those on these drugs who are not infected with COVID? Do they need to stop them? We simply don’t know yet,” they said.

Dr. Messerli and Dr. Gräni added that they would like to see a study that compared patients before SARS-CoV-2 infection who were without hypertension, patients with hypertension who were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and patients with hypertension taking other antihypertensive drugs.

The BRACE CORONA trial was sponsored by D’Or Institute for Research and Education and the Brazilian Clinical Research Institute. Dr. Lopes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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