Cardiology

CHICAGO – An investigational aldosterone synthase inhibitor could be an effective new treatment to reduce blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, reslts of a phase 2 study suggest.

The BrigHTN trial showed systolic blood pressure fell by an average of 20.3 mm Hg, 17.5 mm Hg, and 12.1 mm Hg with baxdrostat 2 mg, 1 mg, and 0.5 mg after 12 weeks follow-up in 248 patients unable to achieve target blood pressure on stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic.

After adjustment for the –9.4 mm Hg change observed in the placebo group, there was a statistically significant difference of 11.0 mm Hg in the 2-mg baxdrostat group (P = .0001) and of 8.1 mm Hg in the 1-mg baxdrostat group (P = .003).

The adjusted change in diastolic blood pressure was significant only for the 2-mg dose (–5.2 mm Hg; P = .004).

Once-daily oral baxdrostat had an acceptable side-effect profile and no patients died.

The study, which was stopped early after meeting criteria for overwhelming efficacy, was presented in the final late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Threading the needle

For at least 20 years, researchers have tried to create a drug that would lower aldosterone levels directly by inhibiting hormone synthesis rather than blocking the mineralocorticoid receptor.

What’s made this extraordinarily difficult is that the enzyme that makes aldosterone synthase and the enzyme required for cortisol synthase, 11-beta-hydroxylase, are 93% sequence similar. Baxdrostat, however, is able to selectively block aldosterone synthase, and thus the production of aldosterone, without also blocking the production of cortisol, explained Mason W. Freeman, MD, lead author of the study and executive vice president of clinical development at CinCor Pharma, which is developing the agent.

“We have beautiful biomarker evidence of not only blood pressure lowering but the mechanism by which that blood pressure reduction is occurring,” he said.

Over 12 weeks of follow-up in the new study, the use of baxdrostat led to decreases in serum aldosterone levels ranging from 3.0 ng/dL with the 0.5-mg dose to 4.9 ng/dL with the 2-mg dose. The 24-hour urinary aldosterone levels decreased with all three doses tested.

Baxdrostat increased plasma renin activity by 3.6, 5.0, and 13.8 mg/mL per hr with the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg doses, respectively, an indicator of its effect on lowering salt and fluid retention, Dr. Freeman said. Serum cortisol levels were not reduced in any of the baxdrostat groups throughout the study.
 

‘A bright future’

“It seems to have a bright future in the area of resistant hypertension, particularly in patients who are producing too much aldosterone,” said Suzanne Oparil, MD, invited discussant for the study and director of the Vascular Biology and Hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

She noted that aldosterone is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension, which afflicts about 20% of the hypertensive population. Aldosterone antagonists are considered by many to be the best add-on treatment for resistant hypertension and do lower blood pressure.

“But they have major problems,” Dr. Oparil added. “Spironolactone, for example, causes hyperkalemia in many patients and adverse effects such as gynecomastia, erectile dysfunction, and feminization.”

Baxdrostat was well tolerated with no serious adverse events deemed related to treatment, Dr. Freeman reported. A total of 18 serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients, 6 of which were in a patient with urosepsis.

Ten adverse events of special interest occurred in eight patients, including one case of hypotension, three cases of hyponatremia, and six cases of hyperkalemia.

Potassium levels ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 mmol/L (6.0-6.3 mEq/L) in three patients and between 5.5 and 5.9 mmol/L (5.5-5.9 mEq/L) on at least two consecutive occasions in three others. Four of the patients were able to resume baxdrostat and complete the trial, whereas two patients discontinued treatment, one of whom was the patient with urosepsis.

Dr. Freeman pointed out that the study population was relatively diverse, with 33%-48% of participants of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity and 23%-32% being Black.

At baseline, all patients had a seated blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg (average 147.8/87.9 mm Hg) on a background therapy that included a diuretic in 100%, an agent targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in 91%-96%, a beta-blocker in 52%-68%, and a calcium channel blocker in 64%-70%.

The study was not designed to test the benefits and risks of aldosterone synthase inhibition beyond 12 weeks and baxdrostat was not compared to alternative antihypertensives, he said. Additional limitations are that medication adherence was based on pill counts rather than drug analysis and enrolling only patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate over 45 mL/min per 1.73m² reduced the likelihood of hyperkalemia and other adverse events.

Nevertheless, “we think that these data suggest that baxdrostat has the potential to treat disorders associated with aldosterone excess, including hypertension and primary hyperaldosteronism,” Dr. Freeman said.

The intention is to carry the drug forward into additional phase 2 studies in chronic kidney disease and to begin a phase 3 study in hypertension in 2023, he noted.

The study was funded by CinCor Pharma. Dr. Freeman and three coauthors are employees of CinCor and receive stock-based compensation. The remaining authors have a financial relationship with CinRx Pharma, which has an equity stake in CinCor. Dr. Oparil reports grant/research support from Bayer, Higi, and Novartis; and serving on the scientific advisory board/expert committee for CinCor Pharma and Preventric Diagnostics.

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

CHICAGO – An investigational aldosterone synthase inhibitor could be an effective new treatment to reduce blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, reslts of a phase 2 study suggest.

The BrigHTN trial showed systolic blood pressure fell by an average of 20.3 mm Hg, 17.5 mm Hg, and 12.1 mm Hg with baxdrostat 2 mg, 1 mg, and 0.5 mg after 12 weeks follow-up in 248 patients unable to achieve target blood pressure on stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic.

After adjustment for the –9.4 mm Hg change observed in the placebo group, there was a statistically significant difference of 11.0 mm Hg in the 2-mg baxdrostat group (P = .0001) and of 8.1 mm Hg in the 1-mg baxdrostat group (P = .003).

The adjusted change in diastolic blood pressure was significant only for the 2-mg dose (–5.2 mm Hg; P = .004).

Once-daily oral baxdrostat had an acceptable side-effect profile and no patients died.

The study, which was stopped early after meeting criteria for overwhelming efficacy, was presented in the final late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Threading the needle

For at least 20 years, researchers have tried to create a drug that would lower aldosterone levels directly by inhibiting hormone synthesis rather than blocking the mineralocorticoid receptor.

What’s made this extraordinarily difficult is that the enzyme that makes aldosterone synthase and the enzyme required for cortisol synthase, 11-beta-hydroxylase, are 93% sequence similar. Baxdrostat, however, is able to selectively block aldosterone synthase, and thus the production of aldosterone, without also blocking the production of cortisol, explained Mason W. Freeman, MD, lead author of the study and executive vice president of clinical development at CinCor Pharma, which is developing the agent.

“We have beautiful biomarker evidence of not only blood pressure lowering but the mechanism by which that blood pressure reduction is occurring,” he said.

Over 12 weeks of follow-up in the new study, the use of baxdrostat led to decreases in serum aldosterone levels ranging from 3.0 ng/dL with the 0.5-mg dose to 4.9 ng/dL with the 2-mg dose. The 24-hour urinary aldosterone levels decreased with all three doses tested.

Baxdrostat increased plasma renin activity by 3.6, 5.0, and 13.8 mg/mL per hr with the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg doses, respectively, an indicator of its effect on lowering salt and fluid retention, Dr. Freeman said. Serum cortisol levels were not reduced in any of the baxdrostat groups throughout the study.
 

‘A bright future’

“It seems to have a bright future in the area of resistant hypertension, particularly in patients who are producing too much aldosterone,” said Suzanne Oparil, MD, invited discussant for the study and director of the Vascular Biology and Hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

She noted that aldosterone is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension, which afflicts about 20% of the hypertensive population. Aldosterone antagonists are considered by many to be the best add-on treatment for resistant hypertension and do lower blood pressure.

“But they have major problems,” Dr. Oparil added. “Spironolactone, for example, causes hyperkalemia in many patients and adverse effects such as gynecomastia, erectile dysfunction, and feminization.”

Baxdrostat was well tolerated with no serious adverse events deemed related to treatment, Dr. Freeman reported. A total of 18 serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients, 6 of which were in a patient with urosepsis.

Ten adverse events of special interest occurred in eight patients, including one case of hypotension, three cases of hyponatremia, and six cases of hyperkalemia.

Potassium levels ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 mmol/L (6.0-6.3 mEq/L) in three patients and between 5.5 and 5.9 mmol/L (5.5-5.9 mEq/L) on at least two consecutive occasions in three others. Four of the patients were able to resume baxdrostat and complete the trial, whereas two patients discontinued treatment, one of whom was the patient with urosepsis.

Dr. Freeman pointed out that the study population was relatively diverse, with 33%-48% of participants of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity and 23%-32% being Black.

At baseline, all patients had a seated blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg (average 147.8/87.9 mm Hg) on a background therapy that included a diuretic in 100%, an agent targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in 91%-96%, a beta-blocker in 52%-68%, and a calcium channel blocker in 64%-70%.

The study was not designed to test the benefits and risks of aldosterone synthase inhibition beyond 12 weeks and baxdrostat was not compared to alternative antihypertensives, he said. Additional limitations are that medication adherence was based on pill counts rather than drug analysis and enrolling only patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate over 45 mL/min per 1.73m² reduced the likelihood of hyperkalemia and other adverse events.

Nevertheless, “we think that these data suggest that baxdrostat has the potential to treat disorders associated with aldosterone excess, including hypertension and primary hyperaldosteronism,” Dr. Freeman said.

The intention is to carry the drug forward into additional phase 2 studies in chronic kidney disease and to begin a phase 3 study in hypertension in 2023, he noted.

The study was funded by CinCor Pharma. Dr. Freeman and three coauthors are employees of CinCor and receive stock-based compensation. The remaining authors have a financial relationship with CinRx Pharma, which has an equity stake in CinCor. Dr. Oparil reports grant/research support from Bayer, Higi, and Novartis; and serving on the scientific advisory board/expert committee for CinCor Pharma and Preventric Diagnostics.

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

CHICAGO – An investigational aldosterone synthase inhibitor could be an effective new treatment to reduce blood pressure in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, reslts of a phase 2 study suggest.

The BrigHTN trial showed systolic blood pressure fell by an average of 20.3 mm Hg, 17.5 mm Hg, and 12.1 mm Hg with baxdrostat 2 mg, 1 mg, and 0.5 mg after 12 weeks follow-up in 248 patients unable to achieve target blood pressure on stable doses of at least three antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic.

After adjustment for the –9.4 mm Hg change observed in the placebo group, there was a statistically significant difference of 11.0 mm Hg in the 2-mg baxdrostat group (P = .0001) and of 8.1 mm Hg in the 1-mg baxdrostat group (P = .003).

The adjusted change in diastolic blood pressure was significant only for the 2-mg dose (–5.2 mm Hg; P = .004).

Once-daily oral baxdrostat had an acceptable side-effect profile and no patients died.

The study, which was stopped early after meeting criteria for overwhelming efficacy, was presented in the final late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Threading the needle

For at least 20 years, researchers have tried to create a drug that would lower aldosterone levels directly by inhibiting hormone synthesis rather than blocking the mineralocorticoid receptor.

What’s made this extraordinarily difficult is that the enzyme that makes aldosterone synthase and the enzyme required for cortisol synthase, 11-beta-hydroxylase, are 93% sequence similar. Baxdrostat, however, is able to selectively block aldosterone synthase, and thus the production of aldosterone, without also blocking the production of cortisol, explained Mason W. Freeman, MD, lead author of the study and executive vice president of clinical development at CinCor Pharma, which is developing the agent.

“We have beautiful biomarker evidence of not only blood pressure lowering but the mechanism by which that blood pressure reduction is occurring,” he said.

Over 12 weeks of follow-up in the new study, the use of baxdrostat led to decreases in serum aldosterone levels ranging from 3.0 ng/dL with the 0.5-mg dose to 4.9 ng/dL with the 2-mg dose. The 24-hour urinary aldosterone levels decreased with all three doses tested.

Baxdrostat increased plasma renin activity by 3.6, 5.0, and 13.8 mg/mL per hr with the 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mg doses, respectively, an indicator of its effect on lowering salt and fluid retention, Dr. Freeman said. Serum cortisol levels were not reduced in any of the baxdrostat groups throughout the study.
 

‘A bright future’

“It seems to have a bright future in the area of resistant hypertension, particularly in patients who are producing too much aldosterone,” said Suzanne Oparil, MD, invited discussant for the study and director of the Vascular Biology and Hypertension program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

She noted that aldosterone is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of resistant hypertension, which afflicts about 20% of the hypertensive population. Aldosterone antagonists are considered by many to be the best add-on treatment for resistant hypertension and do lower blood pressure.

“But they have major problems,” Dr. Oparil added. “Spironolactone, for example, causes hyperkalemia in many patients and adverse effects such as gynecomastia, erectile dysfunction, and feminization.”

Baxdrostat was well tolerated with no serious adverse events deemed related to treatment, Dr. Freeman reported. A total of 18 serious adverse events occurred in 10 patients, 6 of which were in a patient with urosepsis.

Ten adverse events of special interest occurred in eight patients, including one case of hypotension, three cases of hyponatremia, and six cases of hyperkalemia.

Potassium levels ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 mmol/L (6.0-6.3 mEq/L) in three patients and between 5.5 and 5.9 mmol/L (5.5-5.9 mEq/L) on at least two consecutive occasions in three others. Four of the patients were able to resume baxdrostat and complete the trial, whereas two patients discontinued treatment, one of whom was the patient with urosepsis.

Dr. Freeman pointed out that the study population was relatively diverse, with 33%-48% of participants of Hispanic or Latinx ethnicity and 23%-32% being Black.

At baseline, all patients had a seated blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg (average 147.8/87.9 mm Hg) on a background therapy that included a diuretic in 100%, an agent targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in 91%-96%, a beta-blocker in 52%-68%, and a calcium channel blocker in 64%-70%.

The study was not designed to test the benefits and risks of aldosterone synthase inhibition beyond 12 weeks and baxdrostat was not compared to alternative antihypertensives, he said. Additional limitations are that medication adherence was based on pill counts rather than drug analysis and enrolling only patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate over 45 mL/min per 1.73m² reduced the likelihood of hyperkalemia and other adverse events.

Nevertheless, “we think that these data suggest that baxdrostat has the potential to treat disorders associated with aldosterone excess, including hypertension and primary hyperaldosteronism,” Dr. Freeman said.

The intention is to carry the drug forward into additional phase 2 studies in chronic kidney disease and to begin a phase 3 study in hypertension in 2023, he noted.

The study was funded by CinCor Pharma. Dr. Freeman and three coauthors are employees of CinCor and receive stock-based compensation. The remaining authors have a financial relationship with CinRx Pharma, which has an equity stake in CinCor. Dr. Oparil reports grant/research support from Bayer, Higi, and Novartis; and serving on the scientific advisory board/expert committee for CinCor Pharma and Preventric Diagnostics.

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

Study 1 Overview (STICHES Investigators)

Objective: To assess the survival benefit of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) added to guideline-directed medical therapy, compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone, in patients with coronary artery disease, heart failure, and severe left ventricular dysfunction. Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective study with extended follow-up (median duration of 9.8 years).

Setting and participants: A total of 1212 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and coronary artery disease were randomized to medical therapy plus CABG or OMT alone at 127 clinical sites in 26 countries.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was death from any cause. Main secondary endpoints were death from cardiovascular causes and a composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.

Main results: There were 359 primary outcome all-cause deaths (58.9%) in the CABG group and 398 (66.1%) in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02). Death from cardiovascular causes was reported in 247 patients (40.5%) in the CABG group and 297 patients (49.3%) in the medical therapy group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P < .01). The composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 467 patients (76.6%) in the CABG group and 467 patients (87.0%) in the medical therapy group (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82; P < .01).

Conclusion: Over a median follow-up of 9.8 years in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with severely reduced ejection fraction, the rates of death from any cause, death from cardiovascular causes, and the composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes were significantly lower in patients undergoing CABG than in patients receiving medical therapy alone.

Study 2 Overview (REVIVED BCIS Trial Group)

Objective: To assess whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction as compared to OMT alone.

Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 700 patients with LVEF <35% with severe coronary artery disease amendable to PCI and demonstrable myocardial viability were randomly assigned to either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or OMT alone (OMT group).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. The main secondary outcomes were LVEF at 6 and 12 months and quality of life (QOL) scores.

Main results: Over a median follow-up of 41 months, the primary outcome was reported in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the OMT group (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.27; P = .96). The LVEF was similar in the 2 groups at 6 months (mean difference, –1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, –3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.7 to 3.4). QOL scores at 6 and 12 months favored the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months.

Conclusion: In patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy, revascularization by PCI in addition to OMT did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization from heart failure.

Commentary

Coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and an important cause of mortality.¹ Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction are often considered for revascularization in addition to OMT and device therapies. Although there have been multiple retrospective studies and registries suggesting that cardiac outcomes and LVEF improve with revascularization, the number of large-scale prospective studies that assessed this clinical question and randomized patients to revascularization plus OMT compared to OMT alone has been limited.

In the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) study,^2,3 eligible patients had coronary artery disease amendable to CABG and a LVEF of 35% or less. Patients (N = 1212) were randomly assigned to CABG plus OMT or OMT alone between July 2002 and May 2007. The original study, with a median follow-up of 5 years, did not show survival benefit, but the investigators reported that the primary outcome of death from any cause was significantly lower in the CABG group compared to OMT alone when follow-up of the same study population was extended to 9.8 years (58.9% vs 66.1%, P = .02). The findings from this study led to a class I guideline recommendation of CABG over medical therapy in patients with multivessel disease and low ejection fraction.⁴

Since the STICH trial was designed, there have been significant improvements in devices and techniques used for PCI, and the procedure is now widely performed in patients with multivessel disease.⁵ The advantages of PCI over CABG include shorter recovery times and lower risk of immediate complications. In this context, the recently reported Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED) study assessed clinical outcomes in patients with severe coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction by randomizing patients to either PCI with OMT or OMT alone.⁶ At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the investigators found no difference in the primary outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure (37.2% vs 38.0%; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .96). Moreover, the degree of LVEF improvement, assessed by follow-up echocardiogram read by the core lab, showed no difference in the degree of LVEF improvement between groups at 6 and 12 months. Finally, although results of the QOL assessment using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated, patient-reported, heart-failure-specific QOL scale, favored the PCI group at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, the difference had diminished at 24 months.

The main strength of the REVIVED study was that it targeted a patient population with severe coronary artery disease, including left main disease and severely reduced ejection fraction, that historically have been excluded from large-scale randomized controlled studies evaluating PCI with OMT compared to OMT alone.⁷ However, there are several points to consider when interpreting the results of this study. First, further details of the PCI procedures are necessary. The REVIVED study recommended revascularization of all territories with viable myocardium; the anatomical revascularization index utilizing the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Jeopardy Score was 71%. It is important to note that this jeopardy score was operator-reported and the core-lab adjudicated anatomical revascularization rate may be lower. Although viability testing primarily utilizing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed in most patients, correlation between the revascularization territory and the viable segments has yet to be reported. Moreover, procedural details such as use of intravascular ultrasound and physiological testing, known to improve clinical outcome, need to be reported.^8,9

Second, there is a high prevalence of ischemic cardiomyopathy, and it is important to note that the patients included in this study were highly selected from daily clinical practice, as evidenced by the prolonged enrollment period (8 years). Individuals were largely stable patients with less complex coronary anatomy as evidenced by the median interval from angiography to randomization of 80 days. Taking into consideration the degree of left ventricular dysfunction for patients included in the trial, only 14% of the patients had left main disease and half of the patients only had 2-vessel disease. The severity of the left main disease also needs to be clarified as it is likely that patients the operator determined to be critical were not enrolled in the study. Furthermore, the standard of care based on the STICH trial is to refer patients with severe multivessel coronary artery disease to CABG, making it more likely that patients with more severe and complex disease were not included in this trial. It is also important to note that this study enrolled patients with stable ischemic heart disease, and the data do not apply to patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome.

Third, although the primary outcome was similar between the groups, the secondary outcome of unplanned revascularization was lower in the PCI group. In addition, the rate of acute myocardial infarction (MI) was similar between the 2 groups, but the rate of spontaneous MI was lower in the PCI group compared to the OMT group (5.2% vs 9.3%) as 40% of MI cases in the PCI group were periprocedural MIs. The correlation between periprocedural MI and long-term outcomes has been modest compared to spontaneous MI. Moreover, with the longer follow-up, the number of spontaneous MI cases is expected to rise while the number of periprocedural MI cases is not. Extending the follow-up period is also important, as the STICH extension trial showed a statistically significant difference at 10-year follow up despite negative results at the time of the original publication.

Fourth, the REVIVED trial randomized a significantly lower number of patients compared to the STICH trial, and the authors reported fewer primary-outcome events than the estimated number needed to achieve the power to assess the primary hypothesis. In addition, significant improvements in medical treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction since the STICH trial make comparison of PCI vs CABG in this patient population unfeasible.

Finally, although severe angina was not an exclusion criterion, two-thirds of the patients enrolled had no angina, and only 2% of the patients had baseline severe angina. This is important to consider when interpreting the results of the patient-reported health status as previous studies have shown that patients with worse angina at baseline derive the largest improvement in their QOL,^10,11 and symptom improvement is the main indication for PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction and multivessel stable ischemic heart disease who are well compensated and have little or no angina at baseline, OMT alone as an initial strategy may be considered against the addition of PCI after careful risk and benefit discussion. Further details about revascularization and extended follow-up data from the REVIVED trial are necessary.

Practice Points

• Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction have been an understudied population in previous studies.
• Further studies are necessary to understand the benefits of revascularization and the role of viability testing in this population.

– Taishi Hirai MD, and Ziad Sayed Ahmad, MD
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Study 1 Overview (STICHES Investigators)

Objective: To assess the survival benefit of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) added to guideline-directed medical therapy, compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone, in patients with coronary artery disease, heart failure, and severe left ventricular dysfunction. Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective study with extended follow-up (median duration of 9.8 years).

Setting and participants: A total of 1212 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and coronary artery disease were randomized to medical therapy plus CABG or OMT alone at 127 clinical sites in 26 countries.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was death from any cause. Main secondary endpoints were death from cardiovascular causes and a composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.

Main results: There were 359 primary outcome all-cause deaths (58.9%) in the CABG group and 398 (66.1%) in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02). Death from cardiovascular causes was reported in 247 patients (40.5%) in the CABG group and 297 patients (49.3%) in the medical therapy group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P < .01). The composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 467 patients (76.6%) in the CABG group and 467 patients (87.0%) in the medical therapy group (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82; P < .01).

Conclusion: Over a median follow-up of 9.8 years in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with severely reduced ejection fraction, the rates of death from any cause, death from cardiovascular causes, and the composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes were significantly lower in patients undergoing CABG than in patients receiving medical therapy alone.

Study 2 Overview (REVIVED BCIS Trial Group)

Objective: To assess whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction as compared to OMT alone.

Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 700 patients with LVEF <35% with severe coronary artery disease amendable to PCI and demonstrable myocardial viability were randomly assigned to either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or OMT alone (OMT group).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. The main secondary outcomes were LVEF at 6 and 12 months and quality of life (QOL) scores.

Main results: Over a median follow-up of 41 months, the primary outcome was reported in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the OMT group (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.27; P = .96). The LVEF was similar in the 2 groups at 6 months (mean difference, –1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, –3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.7 to 3.4). QOL scores at 6 and 12 months favored the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months.

Conclusion: In patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy, revascularization by PCI in addition to OMT did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization from heart failure.

Commentary

Coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and an important cause of mortality.¹ Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction are often considered for revascularization in addition to OMT and device therapies. Although there have been multiple retrospective studies and registries suggesting that cardiac outcomes and LVEF improve with revascularization, the number of large-scale prospective studies that assessed this clinical question and randomized patients to revascularization plus OMT compared to OMT alone has been limited.

In the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) study,^2,3 eligible patients had coronary artery disease amendable to CABG and a LVEF of 35% or less. Patients (N = 1212) were randomly assigned to CABG plus OMT or OMT alone between July 2002 and May 2007. The original study, with a median follow-up of 5 years, did not show survival benefit, but the investigators reported that the primary outcome of death from any cause was significantly lower in the CABG group compared to OMT alone when follow-up of the same study population was extended to 9.8 years (58.9% vs 66.1%, P = .02). The findings from this study led to a class I guideline recommendation of CABG over medical therapy in patients with multivessel disease and low ejection fraction.⁴

Since the STICH trial was designed, there have been significant improvements in devices and techniques used for PCI, and the procedure is now widely performed in patients with multivessel disease.⁵ The advantages of PCI over CABG include shorter recovery times and lower risk of immediate complications. In this context, the recently reported Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED) study assessed clinical outcomes in patients with severe coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction by randomizing patients to either PCI with OMT or OMT alone.⁶ At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the investigators found no difference in the primary outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure (37.2% vs 38.0%; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .96). Moreover, the degree of LVEF improvement, assessed by follow-up echocardiogram read by the core lab, showed no difference in the degree of LVEF improvement between groups at 6 and 12 months. Finally, although results of the QOL assessment using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated, patient-reported, heart-failure-specific QOL scale, favored the PCI group at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, the difference had diminished at 24 months.

The main strength of the REVIVED study was that it targeted a patient population with severe coronary artery disease, including left main disease and severely reduced ejection fraction, that historically have been excluded from large-scale randomized controlled studies evaluating PCI with OMT compared to OMT alone.⁷ However, there are several points to consider when interpreting the results of this study. First, further details of the PCI procedures are necessary. The REVIVED study recommended revascularization of all territories with viable myocardium; the anatomical revascularization index utilizing the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Jeopardy Score was 71%. It is important to note that this jeopardy score was operator-reported and the core-lab adjudicated anatomical revascularization rate may be lower. Although viability testing primarily utilizing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed in most patients, correlation between the revascularization territory and the viable segments has yet to be reported. Moreover, procedural details such as use of intravascular ultrasound and physiological testing, known to improve clinical outcome, need to be reported.^8,9

Second, there is a high prevalence of ischemic cardiomyopathy, and it is important to note that the patients included in this study were highly selected from daily clinical practice, as evidenced by the prolonged enrollment period (8 years). Individuals were largely stable patients with less complex coronary anatomy as evidenced by the median interval from angiography to randomization of 80 days. Taking into consideration the degree of left ventricular dysfunction for patients included in the trial, only 14% of the patients had left main disease and half of the patients only had 2-vessel disease. The severity of the left main disease also needs to be clarified as it is likely that patients the operator determined to be critical were not enrolled in the study. Furthermore, the standard of care based on the STICH trial is to refer patients with severe multivessel coronary artery disease to CABG, making it more likely that patients with more severe and complex disease were not included in this trial. It is also important to note that this study enrolled patients with stable ischemic heart disease, and the data do not apply to patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome.

Third, although the primary outcome was similar between the groups, the secondary outcome of unplanned revascularization was lower in the PCI group. In addition, the rate of acute myocardial infarction (MI) was similar between the 2 groups, but the rate of spontaneous MI was lower in the PCI group compared to the OMT group (5.2% vs 9.3%) as 40% of MI cases in the PCI group were periprocedural MIs. The correlation between periprocedural MI and long-term outcomes has been modest compared to spontaneous MI. Moreover, with the longer follow-up, the number of spontaneous MI cases is expected to rise while the number of periprocedural MI cases is not. Extending the follow-up period is also important, as the STICH extension trial showed a statistically significant difference at 10-year follow up despite negative results at the time of the original publication.

Fourth, the REVIVED trial randomized a significantly lower number of patients compared to the STICH trial, and the authors reported fewer primary-outcome events than the estimated number needed to achieve the power to assess the primary hypothesis. In addition, significant improvements in medical treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction since the STICH trial make comparison of PCI vs CABG in this patient population unfeasible.

Finally, although severe angina was not an exclusion criterion, two-thirds of the patients enrolled had no angina, and only 2% of the patients had baseline severe angina. This is important to consider when interpreting the results of the patient-reported health status as previous studies have shown that patients with worse angina at baseline derive the largest improvement in their QOL,^10,11 and symptom improvement is the main indication for PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction and multivessel stable ischemic heart disease who are well compensated and have little or no angina at baseline, OMT alone as an initial strategy may be considered against the addition of PCI after careful risk and benefit discussion. Further details about revascularization and extended follow-up data from the REVIVED trial are necessary.

Practice Points

• Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction have been an understudied population in previous studies.
• Further studies are necessary to understand the benefits of revascularization and the role of viability testing in this population.

– Taishi Hirai MD, and Ziad Sayed Ahmad, MD
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Study 1 Overview (STICHES Investigators)

Objective: To assess the survival benefit of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) added to guideline-directed medical therapy, compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone, in patients with coronary artery disease, heart failure, and severe left ventricular dysfunction. Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective study with extended follow-up (median duration of 9.8 years).

Setting and participants: A total of 1212 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and coronary artery disease were randomized to medical therapy plus CABG or OMT alone at 127 clinical sites in 26 countries.

Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was death from any cause. Main secondary endpoints were death from cardiovascular causes and a composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.

Main results: There were 359 primary outcome all-cause deaths (58.9%) in the CABG group and 398 (66.1%) in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02). Death from cardiovascular causes was reported in 247 patients (40.5%) in the CABG group and 297 patients (49.3%) in the medical therapy group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P < .01). The composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 467 patients (76.6%) in the CABG group and 467 patients (87.0%) in the medical therapy group (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82; P < .01).

Conclusion: Over a median follow-up of 9.8 years in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with severely reduced ejection fraction, the rates of death from any cause, death from cardiovascular causes, and the composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes were significantly lower in patients undergoing CABG than in patients receiving medical therapy alone.

Study 2 Overview (REVIVED BCIS Trial Group)

Objective: To assess whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction as compared to OMT alone.

Design: Multicenter, randomized, prospective study.

Setting and participants: A total of 700 patients with LVEF <35% with severe coronary artery disease amendable to PCI and demonstrable myocardial viability were randomly assigned to either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or OMT alone (OMT group).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. The main secondary outcomes were LVEF at 6 and 12 months and quality of life (QOL) scores.

Main results: Over a median follow-up of 41 months, the primary outcome was reported in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the OMT group (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78-1.27; P = .96). The LVEF was similar in the 2 groups at 6 months (mean difference, –1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, –3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.7 to 3.4). QOL scores at 6 and 12 months favored the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months.

Conclusion: In patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy, revascularization by PCI in addition to OMT did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization from heart failure.

Commentary

Coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and an important cause of mortality.¹ Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction are often considered for revascularization in addition to OMT and device therapies. Although there have been multiple retrospective studies and registries suggesting that cardiac outcomes and LVEF improve with revascularization, the number of large-scale prospective studies that assessed this clinical question and randomized patients to revascularization plus OMT compared to OMT alone has been limited.

In the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) study,^2,3 eligible patients had coronary artery disease amendable to CABG and a LVEF of 35% or less. Patients (N = 1212) were randomly assigned to CABG plus OMT or OMT alone between July 2002 and May 2007. The original study, with a median follow-up of 5 years, did not show survival benefit, but the investigators reported that the primary outcome of death from any cause was significantly lower in the CABG group compared to OMT alone when follow-up of the same study population was extended to 9.8 years (58.9% vs 66.1%, P = .02). The findings from this study led to a class I guideline recommendation of CABG over medical therapy in patients with multivessel disease and low ejection fraction.⁴

Since the STICH trial was designed, there have been significant improvements in devices and techniques used for PCI, and the procedure is now widely performed in patients with multivessel disease.⁵ The advantages of PCI over CABG include shorter recovery times and lower risk of immediate complications. In this context, the recently reported Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED) study assessed clinical outcomes in patients with severe coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction by randomizing patients to either PCI with OMT or OMT alone.⁶ At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the investigators found no difference in the primary outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure (37.2% vs 38.0%; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .96). Moreover, the degree of LVEF improvement, assessed by follow-up echocardiogram read by the core lab, showed no difference in the degree of LVEF improvement between groups at 6 and 12 months. Finally, although results of the QOL assessment using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated, patient-reported, heart-failure-specific QOL scale, favored the PCI group at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, the difference had diminished at 24 months.

The main strength of the REVIVED study was that it targeted a patient population with severe coronary artery disease, including left main disease and severely reduced ejection fraction, that historically have been excluded from large-scale randomized controlled studies evaluating PCI with OMT compared to OMT alone.⁷ However, there are several points to consider when interpreting the results of this study. First, further details of the PCI procedures are necessary. The REVIVED study recommended revascularization of all territories with viable myocardium; the anatomical revascularization index utilizing the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) Jeopardy Score was 71%. It is important to note that this jeopardy score was operator-reported and the core-lab adjudicated anatomical revascularization rate may be lower. Although viability testing primarily utilizing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed in most patients, correlation between the revascularization territory and the viable segments has yet to be reported. Moreover, procedural details such as use of intravascular ultrasound and physiological testing, known to improve clinical outcome, need to be reported.^8,9

Second, there is a high prevalence of ischemic cardiomyopathy, and it is important to note that the patients included in this study were highly selected from daily clinical practice, as evidenced by the prolonged enrollment period (8 years). Individuals were largely stable patients with less complex coronary anatomy as evidenced by the median interval from angiography to randomization of 80 days. Taking into consideration the degree of left ventricular dysfunction for patients included in the trial, only 14% of the patients had left main disease and half of the patients only had 2-vessel disease. The severity of the left main disease also needs to be clarified as it is likely that patients the operator determined to be critical were not enrolled in the study. Furthermore, the standard of care based on the STICH trial is to refer patients with severe multivessel coronary artery disease to CABG, making it more likely that patients with more severe and complex disease were not included in this trial. It is also important to note that this study enrolled patients with stable ischemic heart disease, and the data do not apply to patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome.

Third, although the primary outcome was similar between the groups, the secondary outcome of unplanned revascularization was lower in the PCI group. In addition, the rate of acute myocardial infarction (MI) was similar between the 2 groups, but the rate of spontaneous MI was lower in the PCI group compared to the OMT group (5.2% vs 9.3%) as 40% of MI cases in the PCI group were periprocedural MIs. The correlation between periprocedural MI and long-term outcomes has been modest compared to spontaneous MI. Moreover, with the longer follow-up, the number of spontaneous MI cases is expected to rise while the number of periprocedural MI cases is not. Extending the follow-up period is also important, as the STICH extension trial showed a statistically significant difference at 10-year follow up despite negative results at the time of the original publication.

Fourth, the REVIVED trial randomized a significantly lower number of patients compared to the STICH trial, and the authors reported fewer primary-outcome events than the estimated number needed to achieve the power to assess the primary hypothesis. In addition, significant improvements in medical treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction since the STICH trial make comparison of PCI vs CABG in this patient population unfeasible.

Finally, although severe angina was not an exclusion criterion, two-thirds of the patients enrolled had no angina, and only 2% of the patients had baseline severe angina. This is important to consider when interpreting the results of the patient-reported health status as previous studies have shown that patients with worse angina at baseline derive the largest improvement in their QOL,^10,11 and symptom improvement is the main indication for PCI in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

In patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction and multivessel stable ischemic heart disease who are well compensated and have little or no angina at baseline, OMT alone as an initial strategy may be considered against the addition of PCI after careful risk and benefit discussion. Further details about revascularization and extended follow-up data from the REVIVED trial are necessary.

Practice Points

• Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction have been an understudied population in previous studies.
• Further studies are necessary to understand the benefits of revascularization and the role of viability testing in this population.

– Taishi Hirai MD, and Ziad Sayed Ahmad, MD
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Clinicians who prescribe heart failure meds are holding the best hand they’ve ever had, but with so much underuse and suboptimal dosing in actual practice, it seems many may not appreciate the value of their cards. But a major randomized trial that has captured the field’s attention may embolden them to go all in.

Results showed that a strategy of early, rapid up-titration of multiple guideline-directed meds in patients hospitalized with heart failure, compared with a usual-care approach, cut their 6-month risk for death or HF readmission by a steep 34% (P = .002).

The drugs had been started and partly up-titrated in the hospital with the goal of full up-titration within 2 weeks after discharge.

Patients well tolerated the high-intensity approach, researchers said. Their quality-of-life scores improved (P < .0001) compared with the usual-care group, and adverse events were considered few and manageable in the international trial with more than 1,000 patients.

Safety on the high-intensity strategy depended on close patient monitoring at frequently planned clinic visits along with guidance for the up-titrations from clinical signs and natriuretic peptide levels, observed Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, University of Paris and Public Hospitals of Paris.

Dr. Mebazaa is principal investigator on the trial, called STRONG-HF, which he presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, held in Chicago and virtually. He is also lead author on the study’s same-day publication in the Lancet.

The high-intensity strategy’s superiority emerged early in the trial, which was halted early on the data safety monitoring board’s recommendation, with about 90% of follow-ups completed. The board “felt it was unethical to keep patients in usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said at a press conference.
 

A dramatic change

The next step, he said, will be to educate the heart failure community on the high-intensity care technique so it can swiftly enter clinical practice. Currently in acute heart failure, “very few patients are monitored after discharge and treated with full doses of heart failure therapies.”

Adoption of the strategy “would be a dramatic change from what’s currently being done,” said Martin B. Leon, MD, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, who moderated the press conference.

Only an estimated 5% of patients with HF in the United States receive full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Leon said, “so the generalizability of this strategy, with careful follow-up that has safety involved in it, is absolutely crucial.”

But the potential impact of this high-intensity approach on resource use is unknown, raising questions about how widely and consistently it could be implemented, said Dr. Leon, who is not connected with STRONG-HF.

The trial called for in-hospital initiation of the three distinct drug classes that, at the time, were the core of guideline-directed HF therapy, with up-titration to 50% of recommended dosage by hospital discharge, and then to 100% within 2 weeks later.

The meds included a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI). The latter could be an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).
 

How about a fourth drug?

Conspicuously absent from the list, for contemporary practice, was an SGLT2 inhibitor, a class that entered the HF guidelines well after STRONG-HF was designed. They would undoubtedly join the other three agents were the high-intensity strategy to enter practice, potentially changing its complexity and safety profile.

But Dr. Mebazaa and other experts don’t see that as a big challenge and would expect a smooth transition to a high-intensity approach that also includes the SGLT2 inhibitors.

STRONG-HF was necessary in part because many clinicians have been “reluctant” to take full advantage of three agents that had been the basis of guideline-directed therapy, he told this news organization.

That reluctance stemmed from concerns that beta-blockers might worsen the heart failure, ACE inhibitors could hurt the kidneys, or MRAs might cause hyperkalemia, Dr. Mebazaa said. The STRONG-HF high-intensity regimen, therefore, demanded multiple clinic visits for close follow-up.

But the SGLT2 inhibitors “are known to be rather safe drugs, at least much safer than the three others,” he said. So, it seems unlikely that their addition to a beta-blocker, RASI, and MRA in patients with HF would worsen the risk of adverse events.

John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, agrees. With addition of the fourth agent, “You may need to be a little bit more careful with renal function, just in that first couple of weeks,” he told this news organization. “But I think it would be easy to add an SGLT2 inhibitor into this regimen. And in general, there’s no titration with an SGLT2 inhibitor, so they’ll all be on full dose predischarge.”

Given the drugs’ diuretic-like action, moreover, some patients might be able to pull back on their loop diuretics, speculated Dr. Cleland, from the University of Glasgow’s School of Health and Wellbeing.

The prospect of a high-intensity strategy’s wide implementation in practice presents both “challenges and opportunities,” Amanda R. Vest, MBBS, MPH, Tufts University, Boston, told this news organization.

“There may be additional challenges in terms of ensuring we avoid hypotension or acute kidney injury in the up-titration phase,” said Dr. Vest, who is medical director of her center’s cardiac transplantation program but not connected with STRONG-HF.

“But it also gives us opportunities,” she added, “because there are some patients, especially in that vulnerable postdischarge phase, who are actually much more able to tolerate introduction of an SGLT2 inhibitor than, for example, an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI – or maybe a beta-blocker if they’ve been in a low cardiac-output state.” Effective dosing would depend on “the personalization and skill of the clinician in optimizing the medications in their correct sequence,” Dr. Vest said.

“It’s challenging to think that we would ever get to 100% up-titration,” she added, “and even in this excellent study, they didn’t get to 100%.” But as clinicians gain experience with the high-intensity strategy, especially as the SGLT2 inhibitors are included, “I think we can reasonably expect more progress to be made in these up-titration skills.”
 

No restrictions on LVEF

The researchers entered 1,078 patients hospitalized with acute HF in 14 countries across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and South America, and randomly assigned them to the high-intensity management strategy or usual care.

About 60% of the patients were male and 77% were White. There were no entry restrictions based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which exceeded 40% in almost a third of cases.

In the high-intensity care group’s 542 patients, the three agents were up-titrated to 50% of the maximum guideline-recommended dosage prior to hospital discharge, and to 100% within 2 weeks after discharge. Symptoms and laboratory biomarkers, including natriuretic peptides, were monitored closely at four planned clinical visits over the following 6 weeks.

The 536 patients assigned to usual care were discharged and managed according to local standards, with their meds handled by their own primary care doctors or cardiologists, the published report notes. They were reevaluated by STRONG-HF clinicians 90 days after discharge.

The number of clinic visits in the first 90 postdischarge days averaged 4.8 in the high-intensity care group and 1.0 for those receiving usual care. Full up-titration was far more likely in the high-intensity care group: 55% vs. 2% for RASI agents, 49% vs. 4% for beta-blockers, and 84% vs. 46% for MRAs.

They also fared significantly better on all measured parameters associated with decongestion, including weight, prevalence of peripheral edema, jugular venous pressure, NYHA functional class, and natriuretic peptide levels, the researchers said.

The primary endpoint of 180-day death from any cause or HF readmission was met by 15.2% of the high-intensity care group and 23.3% of usual-care patients, for an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = .0021).

Subgroup analyses saw no significant interactions by age, sex, race, geography, or baseline blood pressure, renal function, or LVEF. Patients with higher vs. lower baseline natriuretic peptide levels trend toward better responses to high-intensity care (P = .08)
 

The COVID effect

The group performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded deaths attributed to COVID-19 in STRONG-HF, which launched prior to the pandemic. The high-intensity strategy’s benefit for the primary endpoint grew, with an adjusted RR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.46-0.82; P = .0005). There was no corresponding effect on death from any cause (P = .15).

Treatment-related adverse effects in the overall trial were seen in 41.1% of the high-intensity care group and in 29.5% of those assigned to usual care.

The higher rate in the high-intensity care arm “may be related to their higher number of [clinic] visits compared to usual care,” Dr. Mebazaa said. “However, serious adverse events and fatal adverse events were similar in both arms.”

Cardiac failure was the most common adverse event, developing in about 15% in both groups. It was followed by hypotension, hyperkalemia, and renal impairment, according to the published report.

Dr. Cleland cautioned that the risk of adverse events would potentially be higher should the high-intensity strategy become common clinical practice. The median age in STRONG-HF was 63, which is “10-15 years younger, on average, than the population with recently admitted heart failure that we see. There’s no doubt that older people have more multimorbidity.”

STRONG-HF was funded by Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Mebazaa discloses receiving grants from Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Laboratories, 4TEEN4, and Windtree Therapeutics; honoraria for lectures from Roche Diagnostics, Bayer, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme; and consulting for Corteria Pharmaceuticals, S-form Pharma, FIRE-1, Implicity, 4TEEN4, and Adrenomed; and to being a co-inventor on a patent involving combination therapy for patients having acute or persistent dyspnea.

Dr. Vest reports modest relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia, and CareDx; and receiving research grants from the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cleland discloses receiving honoraria from Idorsia; and research grants from Vifor Pharma, Medtronic, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Leon had no disclosures.

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

In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 showed that a medical emergency occurred in 1 per 604 flights, as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.

The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.

The in-flight medical bag

Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.

The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.

An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.

Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
 

How to handle an in-flight emergency

Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.

Legal lessons

Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.

The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”

Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 showed that a medical emergency occurred in 1 per 604 flights, as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.

The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.

The in-flight medical bag

Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.

The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.

An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.

Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
 

How to handle an in-flight emergency

Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.

Legal lessons

Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.

The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”

Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In most cases, passengers on an airline flight are representative of the general population, which means that anyone could have an emergency at any time.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2013 showed that a medical emergency occurred in 1 per 604 flights, as determined on the basis of in-flight medical emergencies that resulted in calls to a physician-directed medical communications center, said Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH of Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas–Fort Worth, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

The study authors reviewed records of 11,920 in-flight medical emergencies between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 31, 2010. The data showed that physician passengers provided medical assistance in nearly half of in-flight emergencies (48.1%) and that flights were diverted because of the emergency in 7.3% of cases.

The majority of the in-flight emergencies involved syncope or presyncope (37.4% of cases), followed by respiratory symptoms (12.1%) and nausea or vomiting (9.5%), according to the study.

The in-flight medical bag

Tools in a physician’s in-flight toolbox start with the first-aid kit. Airplanes also have an emergency medical kit (EMK), an oxygen tank, and an AED.

The minimum EMK contents are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, said Dr. Ho. The standard equipment includes a stethoscope, a sphygmomanometer, and three sizes of oropharyngeal airways. Other items include self-inflating manual resuscitation devices and CPR masks in thee sizes, alcohol sponges, gloves, adhesive tape, scissors, a tourniquet, as well as saline solution, needles, syringes, and an intravenous administration set consisting of tubing and two Y connectors.

An EMK also should contain the following medications: nonnarcotic analgesic tablets, antihistamine tablets, an injectable antihistamine, atropine, aspirin tablets, a bronchodilator, and epinephrine (both 1:1000; 1 injectable cc and 1:10,000; two injectable cc). Nitroglycerin tablets and 5 cc of 20 mg/mL injectable cardiac lidocaine are part of the mandated kit as well, according to Dr. Ho.

Some airlines carry additional supplies on all their flights, said Dr. Ho. Notably, American Airlines and British Airways carry EpiPens for adults and children, as well as opioid reversal medication (naloxone) and glucose for managing low blood sugar. American Airlines and Delta stock antiemetics, and Delta also carries naloxone. British Airways is unique in stocking additional cardiac medications, both oral and injectable.
 

How to handle an in-flight emergency

Physicians should always carry a copy of their medical license when traveling for documentation by the airline if they assist in a medical emergency during a flight, Dr. Ho emphasized. “Staff” personnel should be used. These include the flight attendants, medical ground control, and other passengers who might have useful skills, such as nursing, the ability to perform CPR, or therapy/counseling to calm a frightened patient. If needed, “crowdsource additional supplies from passengers,” such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter.

Legal lessons

Physicians are not obligated to assist during an in-flight medical emergency, said Dr. Ho. Legal jurisdiction can vary. In the United States, a bystander who assists in an emergency is generally protected by Good Samaritan laws; for international airlines, the laws may vary; those where the airline is based usually apply.

The Aviation Medical Assistance Act, passed in 1998, protects individuals from being sued for negligence while providing medical assistance, “unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence of willful misconduct,” Dr. Ho noted. The Aviation Medical Assistance Act also protects the airline itself “if the carrier in good faith believes that the passenger is a medically qualified individual.”

Dr. Ho disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation, these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation, these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation, these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) was significantly more common among adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), compared with controls, based on data from 303 individuals.

OSA has become a common chronic disease, and cardiovascular diseases including AFib also are known independent risk factors associated with OSA, Anna Hojager, MD, of Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have shown a significant increase in AFib risk in OSA patients with severe disease, but the prevalence of undiagnosed AFib in OSA patients has not been explored.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers enrolled 238 adults with severe OSA (based on apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or higher) and 65 with mild or no OSA (based on an AHI of less than 15). The mean AHI across all participants was 34.2, and ranged from 0.2 to 115.8.

Participants underwent heart rhythm monitoring using a home system or standard ECG for 7 days; they were instructed to carry the device at all times except when showering or sweating heavily. The primary outcome was the detection of AFib, defined as at least one period of 30 seconds or longer with an irregular heart rhythm but without detectable evidence of another diagnosis. Sleep was assessed for one night using a portable sleep monitoring device. All participants were examined at baseline and measured for blood pressure, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and ECG.

Overall, AFib occurred in 21 patients with moderate to severe OSA and 1 patient with mild/no OSA (8.8% vs. 1.5%, P = .045). The majority of patients across both groups had hypertension (66%) and dyslipidemia (77.6%), but the severe OSA group was more likely to be dysregulated and to have unknown prediabetes. Participants who were deemed candidates for anticoagulation therapy were referred for additional treatment. None of the 22 total patients with AFib had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 68.2% had normal ejection fraction and ventricle function.

The researchers noted that no guidelines currently exist for systematic opportunistic screening for comorbidities in OSA patients, although the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends patient education as part of a multidisciplinary chronic disease management strategy. The high prevalence of AFib in OSA patients, as seen in the current study, “might warrant a recommendation of screening for paroxysmal [AFib] and could be valuable in the management of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with OSA,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and absence of polysomnography to assess OSA, the researchers noted. However, the study has the highest known prevalence of silent AFib in patients with moderate to severe OSA, and supports the value of screening and management for known comorbidities of OSA.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) was significantly more common among adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), compared with controls, based on data from 303 individuals.

OSA has become a common chronic disease, and cardiovascular diseases including AFib also are known independent risk factors associated with OSA, Anna Hojager, MD, of Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have shown a significant increase in AFib risk in OSA patients with severe disease, but the prevalence of undiagnosed AFib in OSA patients has not been explored.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers enrolled 238 adults with severe OSA (based on apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or higher) and 65 with mild or no OSA (based on an AHI of less than 15). The mean AHI across all participants was 34.2, and ranged from 0.2 to 115.8.

Participants underwent heart rhythm monitoring using a home system or standard ECG for 7 days; they were instructed to carry the device at all times except when showering or sweating heavily. The primary outcome was the detection of AFib, defined as at least one period of 30 seconds or longer with an irregular heart rhythm but without detectable evidence of another diagnosis. Sleep was assessed for one night using a portable sleep monitoring device. All participants were examined at baseline and measured for blood pressure, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and ECG.

Overall, AFib occurred in 21 patients with moderate to severe OSA and 1 patient with mild/no OSA (8.8% vs. 1.5%, P = .045). The majority of patients across both groups had hypertension (66%) and dyslipidemia (77.6%), but the severe OSA group was more likely to be dysregulated and to have unknown prediabetes. Participants who were deemed candidates for anticoagulation therapy were referred for additional treatment. None of the 22 total patients with AFib had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 68.2% had normal ejection fraction and ventricle function.

The researchers noted that no guidelines currently exist for systematic opportunistic screening for comorbidities in OSA patients, although the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends patient education as part of a multidisciplinary chronic disease management strategy. The high prevalence of AFib in OSA patients, as seen in the current study, “might warrant a recommendation of screening for paroxysmal [AFib] and could be valuable in the management of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with OSA,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and absence of polysomnography to assess OSA, the researchers noted. However, the study has the highest known prevalence of silent AFib in patients with moderate to severe OSA, and supports the value of screening and management for known comorbidities of OSA.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) was significantly more common among adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), compared with controls, based on data from 303 individuals.

OSA has become a common chronic disease, and cardiovascular diseases including AFib also are known independent risk factors associated with OSA, Anna Hojager, MD, of Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have shown a significant increase in AFib risk in OSA patients with severe disease, but the prevalence of undiagnosed AFib in OSA patients has not been explored.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers enrolled 238 adults with severe OSA (based on apnea-hypopnea index of 15 or higher) and 65 with mild or no OSA (based on an AHI of less than 15). The mean AHI across all participants was 34.2, and ranged from 0.2 to 115.8.

Participants underwent heart rhythm monitoring using a home system or standard ECG for 7 days; they were instructed to carry the device at all times except when showering or sweating heavily. The primary outcome was the detection of AFib, defined as at least one period of 30 seconds or longer with an irregular heart rhythm but without detectable evidence of another diagnosis. Sleep was assessed for one night using a portable sleep monitoring device. All participants were examined at baseline and measured for blood pressure, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and ECG.

Overall, AFib occurred in 21 patients with moderate to severe OSA and 1 patient with mild/no OSA (8.8% vs. 1.5%, P = .045). The majority of patients across both groups had hypertension (66%) and dyslipidemia (77.6%), but the severe OSA group was more likely to be dysregulated and to have unknown prediabetes. Participants who were deemed candidates for anticoagulation therapy were referred for additional treatment. None of the 22 total patients with AFib had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 68.2% had normal ejection fraction and ventricle function.

The researchers noted that no guidelines currently exist for systematic opportunistic screening for comorbidities in OSA patients, although the American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends patient education as part of a multidisciplinary chronic disease management strategy. The high prevalence of AFib in OSA patients, as seen in the current study, “might warrant a recommendation of screening for paroxysmal [AFib] and could be valuable in the management of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with OSA,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and absence of polysomnography to assess OSA, the researchers noted. However, the study has the highest known prevalence of silent AFib in patients with moderate to severe OSA, and supports the value of screening and management for known comorbidities of OSA.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

CHICAGO – Renal denervation, relative to a sham procedure, was linked with statistically significant reductions in blood pressure in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial, but several factors are likely to have worked in concert to prevent the study from meeting its primary endpoint.

Of these differences, probably none was more important than the substantially higher proportion of patients in the sham group that received additional BP-lowering medications over the course of the study, David E. Kandzari, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pivotal trial followed the previously completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pilot study, which did show a significant BP-lowering effect on antihypertensive medications followed radiofrequency denervation. In a recent update of the pilot study, the effect was persistent out to 3 years.

In the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED program, patients on their second screening visit were required to have a systolic pressure of between 140 and 170 mm Hg on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) while taking up to three antihypertensive medications. Patients who entered the study were randomized to renal denervation or sham control while maintaining their baseline antihypertensive therapies.

The previously reported pilot study comprised 80 patients. The expansion pivotal trial added 257 more patients for a total cohort of 337 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on a Bayesian analysis of change in 24-hour systolic ABPM at 6 months for those in the experimental arm versus those on medications alone. Participants from both the pilot and pivotal trials were included.

The prespecified definition of success for renal denervation was a 97.5% threshold for probability of superiority on the basis of this Bayesian analysis. However, the Bayesian analysis was distorted by differences in the pilot and expansion cohorts, which complicated the superiority calculation. As a result, the analysis only yielded a 51% probability of superiority, a level substantially below the predefined threshold.

Despite differences seen in BP control in favor of renal denervation, several factors were identified that likely contributed to the missed primary endpoint. One stood out.

“Significant differences in medication prescriptions were disproportionate in favor of the sham group,” reported Dr. Kandzari, chief of Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta. He said these differences, which were a violation of the protocol mandate, led to a “bias toward the null” for the primary outcome.

The failure to meet the primary outcome was particularly disappointing in the wake of the favorable pilot study and the SPYRAL HTN–OFF MED pivotal trial, which were both positive.

In the pilot study, which did not have a medication imbalance, a 7.3–mm Hg reduction (P = .004) in 24-hour ABPM was seen at 6 months. Relative reductions in office-based systolic pressure reductions for renal denervation versus sham were 6.6 mm Hg (P = .03) and 4.0 mm Hg (P = .03) for the pilot and expansions groups, respectively.

On the basis of a Win ratio derived from a hierarchical analysis of ABMP and medication burden reduction, the 1.50 advantage (P = .005) for the renal denervation arm in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was also compelling.

At study entry, the median number of medications was 1.9 in both the renal denervation and sham arms. At the end of 6 months, the median number of medications was unchanged in the experimental arm but rose to 2.1 (P = .01) in the sham group. Similarly, there was little change in the medication burden from the start to the end of the trial in the denervation group (2.8 vs. 3.0), but a statistically significant change in the sham group (2.9 vs. 3.5; P = .04).

Furthermore, the net percentage change of patients receiving medications favoring BP reduction over the course of the study did not differ between the experimental and control arms of the pilot cohort, but was more than 10 times higher among controls in the expansion group (1.9% vs. 21.8%; P < .0001).

Medication changes over the course of the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial were even greater in some specific subgroups. Among Black participants, for example, 14.2% of those randomized to renal denervation and 54.6% of those randomized to the sham group increased their antihypertensive therapies over the course of the study.

The COVID-19 epidemic is suspected of playing another role in the negative results, according to Dr. Kandzari. After a brief pause in enrollment, the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was resumed, but approximately 80% of the expansion cohort data were collected during this period. When compared, variances in office and 24-hour ABPM were observed for participants who were or were not evaluated during COVID.

“Significant differences in 24-hour ABPM patterns pre- and during COVID may reflect changes in patient behavior and lifestyle,” Dr. Kandzari speculated.

The data from this study differ from essentially all of the other studies in the SPYRAL HTN program as well as several other sham-controlled studies with renal denervation, according to Dr. Kandzari.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The AHA-invited discussant, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, largely agreed that several variables appeared to conspire against a positive result in this trial, but he zeroed in on the imbalance of antihypertensive medications.

“Any trial that attempts to show a difference between renal denervation and a sham procedure must insure that antihypertensive medications are the same in the two arms. They cannot be different,” he said.

As an active investigator in the field of renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane thinks the evidence does support a benefit from renal denervation, but he believes data are still needed to determine which patients are candidates.

“Renal denervation is not going to be a replacement for previous established therapies, but it will be an adjunct,” he predicted. The preponderance of evidence supports clinically meaningful reductions in BP with this approach, “but we need to determine who to consider [for this therapy] and to have realistic expectations about the degree of benefit.”

Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ablative Solutions, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic Cardiovascular, OrbusNeich, and Teleflex. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Cathworks, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opens, Philipps, Regeneron, ReCor Medical, Siemens, Spectranetics, and Zoll.
 

CHICAGO – Renal denervation, relative to a sham procedure, was linked with statistically significant reductions in blood pressure in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial, but several factors are likely to have worked in concert to prevent the study from meeting its primary endpoint.

Of these differences, probably none was more important than the substantially higher proportion of patients in the sham group that received additional BP-lowering medications over the course of the study, David E. Kandzari, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pivotal trial followed the previously completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pilot study, which did show a significant BP-lowering effect on antihypertensive medications followed radiofrequency denervation. In a recent update of the pilot study, the effect was persistent out to 3 years.

In the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED program, patients on their second screening visit were required to have a systolic pressure of between 140 and 170 mm Hg on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) while taking up to three antihypertensive medications. Patients who entered the study were randomized to renal denervation or sham control while maintaining their baseline antihypertensive therapies.

The previously reported pilot study comprised 80 patients. The expansion pivotal trial added 257 more patients for a total cohort of 337 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on a Bayesian analysis of change in 24-hour systolic ABPM at 6 months for those in the experimental arm versus those on medications alone. Participants from both the pilot and pivotal trials were included.

The prespecified definition of success for renal denervation was a 97.5% threshold for probability of superiority on the basis of this Bayesian analysis. However, the Bayesian analysis was distorted by differences in the pilot and expansion cohorts, which complicated the superiority calculation. As a result, the analysis only yielded a 51% probability of superiority, a level substantially below the predefined threshold.

Despite differences seen in BP control in favor of renal denervation, several factors were identified that likely contributed to the missed primary endpoint. One stood out.

“Significant differences in medication prescriptions were disproportionate in favor of the sham group,” reported Dr. Kandzari, chief of Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta. He said these differences, which were a violation of the protocol mandate, led to a “bias toward the null” for the primary outcome.

The failure to meet the primary outcome was particularly disappointing in the wake of the favorable pilot study and the SPYRAL HTN–OFF MED pivotal trial, which were both positive.

In the pilot study, which did not have a medication imbalance, a 7.3–mm Hg reduction (P = .004) in 24-hour ABPM was seen at 6 months. Relative reductions in office-based systolic pressure reductions for renal denervation versus sham were 6.6 mm Hg (P = .03) and 4.0 mm Hg (P = .03) for the pilot and expansions groups, respectively.

On the basis of a Win ratio derived from a hierarchical analysis of ABMP and medication burden reduction, the 1.50 advantage (P = .005) for the renal denervation arm in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was also compelling.

At study entry, the median number of medications was 1.9 in both the renal denervation and sham arms. At the end of 6 months, the median number of medications was unchanged in the experimental arm but rose to 2.1 (P = .01) in the sham group. Similarly, there was little change in the medication burden from the start to the end of the trial in the denervation group (2.8 vs. 3.0), but a statistically significant change in the sham group (2.9 vs. 3.5; P = .04).

Furthermore, the net percentage change of patients receiving medications favoring BP reduction over the course of the study did not differ between the experimental and control arms of the pilot cohort, but was more than 10 times higher among controls in the expansion group (1.9% vs. 21.8%; P < .0001).

Medication changes over the course of the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial were even greater in some specific subgroups. Among Black participants, for example, 14.2% of those randomized to renal denervation and 54.6% of those randomized to the sham group increased their antihypertensive therapies over the course of the study.

The COVID-19 epidemic is suspected of playing another role in the negative results, according to Dr. Kandzari. After a brief pause in enrollment, the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was resumed, but approximately 80% of the expansion cohort data were collected during this period. When compared, variances in office and 24-hour ABPM were observed for participants who were or were not evaluated during COVID.

“Significant differences in 24-hour ABPM patterns pre- and during COVID may reflect changes in patient behavior and lifestyle,” Dr. Kandzari speculated.

The data from this study differ from essentially all of the other studies in the SPYRAL HTN program as well as several other sham-controlled studies with renal denervation, according to Dr. Kandzari.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The AHA-invited discussant, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, largely agreed that several variables appeared to conspire against a positive result in this trial, but he zeroed in on the imbalance of antihypertensive medications.

“Any trial that attempts to show a difference between renal denervation and a sham procedure must insure that antihypertensive medications are the same in the two arms. They cannot be different,” he said.

As an active investigator in the field of renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane thinks the evidence does support a benefit from renal denervation, but he believes data are still needed to determine which patients are candidates.

“Renal denervation is not going to be a replacement for previous established therapies, but it will be an adjunct,” he predicted. The preponderance of evidence supports clinically meaningful reductions in BP with this approach, “but we need to determine who to consider [for this therapy] and to have realistic expectations about the degree of benefit.”

Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ablative Solutions, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic Cardiovascular, OrbusNeich, and Teleflex. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Cathworks, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opens, Philipps, Regeneron, ReCor Medical, Siemens, Spectranetics, and Zoll.
 

CHICAGO – Renal denervation, relative to a sham procedure, was linked with statistically significant reductions in blood pressure in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial, but several factors are likely to have worked in concert to prevent the study from meeting its primary endpoint.

Of these differences, probably none was more important than the substantially higher proportion of patients in the sham group that received additional BP-lowering medications over the course of the study, David E. Kandzari, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pivotal trial followed the previously completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED pilot study, which did show a significant BP-lowering effect on antihypertensive medications followed radiofrequency denervation. In a recent update of the pilot study, the effect was persistent out to 3 years.

In the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED program, patients on their second screening visit were required to have a systolic pressure of between 140 and 170 mm Hg on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) while taking up to three antihypertensive medications. Patients who entered the study were randomized to renal denervation or sham control while maintaining their baseline antihypertensive therapies.

The previously reported pilot study comprised 80 patients. The expansion pivotal trial added 257 more patients for a total cohort of 337 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was based on a Bayesian analysis of change in 24-hour systolic ABPM at 6 months for those in the experimental arm versus those on medications alone. Participants from both the pilot and pivotal trials were included.

The prespecified definition of success for renal denervation was a 97.5% threshold for probability of superiority on the basis of this Bayesian analysis. However, the Bayesian analysis was distorted by differences in the pilot and expansion cohorts, which complicated the superiority calculation. As a result, the analysis only yielded a 51% probability of superiority, a level substantially below the predefined threshold.

Despite differences seen in BP control in favor of renal denervation, several factors were identified that likely contributed to the missed primary endpoint. One stood out.

“Significant differences in medication prescriptions were disproportionate in favor of the sham group,” reported Dr. Kandzari, chief of Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta. He said these differences, which were a violation of the protocol mandate, led to a “bias toward the null” for the primary outcome.

The failure to meet the primary outcome was particularly disappointing in the wake of the favorable pilot study and the SPYRAL HTN–OFF MED pivotal trial, which were both positive.

In the pilot study, which did not have a medication imbalance, a 7.3–mm Hg reduction (P = .004) in 24-hour ABPM was seen at 6 months. Relative reductions in office-based systolic pressure reductions for renal denervation versus sham were 6.6 mm Hg (P = .03) and 4.0 mm Hg (P = .03) for the pilot and expansions groups, respectively.

On the basis of a Win ratio derived from a hierarchical analysis of ABMP and medication burden reduction, the 1.50 advantage (P = .005) for the renal denervation arm in the newly completed SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was also compelling.

At study entry, the median number of medications was 1.9 in both the renal denervation and sham arms. At the end of 6 months, the median number of medications was unchanged in the experimental arm but rose to 2.1 (P = .01) in the sham group. Similarly, there was little change in the medication burden from the start to the end of the trial in the denervation group (2.8 vs. 3.0), but a statistically significant change in the sham group (2.9 vs. 3.5; P = .04).

Furthermore, the net percentage change of patients receiving medications favoring BP reduction over the course of the study did not differ between the experimental and control arms of the pilot cohort, but was more than 10 times higher among controls in the expansion group (1.9% vs. 21.8%; P < .0001).

Medication changes over the course of the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial were even greater in some specific subgroups. Among Black participants, for example, 14.2% of those randomized to renal denervation and 54.6% of those randomized to the sham group increased their antihypertensive therapies over the course of the study.

The COVID-19 epidemic is suspected of playing another role in the negative results, according to Dr. Kandzari. After a brief pause in enrollment, the SPYRAL HTN–ON MED trial was resumed, but approximately 80% of the expansion cohort data were collected during this period. When compared, variances in office and 24-hour ABPM were observed for participants who were or were not evaluated during COVID.

“Significant differences in 24-hour ABPM patterns pre- and during COVID may reflect changes in patient behavior and lifestyle,” Dr. Kandzari speculated.

The data from this study differ from essentially all of the other studies in the SPYRAL HTN program as well as several other sham-controlled studies with renal denervation, according to Dr. Kandzari.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The AHA-invited discussant, Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, largely agreed that several variables appeared to conspire against a positive result in this trial, but he zeroed in on the imbalance of antihypertensive medications.

“Any trial that attempts to show a difference between renal denervation and a sham procedure must insure that antihypertensive medications are the same in the two arms. They cannot be different,” he said.

As an active investigator in the field of renal denervation, Dr. Kirtane thinks the evidence does support a benefit from renal denervation, but he believes data are still needed to determine which patients are candidates.

“Renal denervation is not going to be a replacement for previous established therapies, but it will be an adjunct,” he predicted. The preponderance of evidence supports clinically meaningful reductions in BP with this approach, “but we need to determine who to consider [for this therapy] and to have realistic expectations about the degree of benefit.”

Dr. Kandzari reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ablative Solutions, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic Cardiovascular, OrbusNeich, and Teleflex. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Cathworks, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opens, Philipps, Regeneron, ReCor Medical, Siemens, Spectranetics, and Zoll.
 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 795,000 strokes occur in the United States yearly and are the fifth leading cause of death.¹ The CDC also states that about 43 million Americans who could benefit from cholesterol medication are currently taking them.² As of 2019, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky are 3 states with the highest rates of heart disease mortality.³

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) accumulates on the walls of blood vessels, which can lead to coronary heart disease. However, some LDL-C is necessary to maintain proper brain function. Guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) recommend LDL-C goal levels < 70 mg/dL.⁴ Yet, there is no consensus on how low LDL-C levels should be. According to clinical practice guidelines for dyslipidemia, developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense, statin medications are first-line agents for lowering LDL-C. The intensity of the statin medication is based on primary or secondary prevention, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, and current LDL-C levels prior to treatment.⁵

Statin medications are used for primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD. In addition, statin medications decrease total cholesterol, LDL-C, and triglycerides while causing a mild increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Although statin medications are first-line therapy for LDL-C lowering, other medications can be used to assist in decreasing LDL-C. Ezetimibe, fenofibrates, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can also be used.⁵ Statin medications do pose a risk of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as rhabdomyolysis and myopathy.⁶

One prospective cohort study looked at 27,937 women and analyzed total cholesterol, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and strokes. The study noted a mean 19.3-year follow-up and within that follow-up, 137 hemorrhagic strokes occurred. Based on the study’s results, LDL-C levels < 70 mg/dL had 2.17 times the risk of experiencing a hemorrhagic stroke.⁷ A meta-analysis of prospective studies analyzed 476,173 patients and 7487 hemorrhagic stroke cases. This review concluded that a 10 mg/dL increase in LDL-C was associated with a 3% lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.⁸

An observational study conducted in Asia of Chinese adults found that 22% of all strokes were hemorrhagic. The incidence of the hemorrhagic strokes was higher for patients who had an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L than those who had an LDL-C between 1.8 and 2.6 mmol/L. This study also showed that if hypertension was inadequately treated, the risk of hemorrhagic stroke increased. This study concluded that the benefit of reducing ASCVD outweighs the small risk of hemorrhagic strokes.⁹

Another prospective cohort study included 96,043 stroke-free participants and analyzed LDL-C concentrations and incidence of intracranial hemorrhage. The average LDL-C concentrations were calculated from data collected in 4 separate reporting years, and incidence of intracranial hemorrhage was confirmed through review of medication records. Over a 9-year follow-up period, the study concluded that participants with an LDL-C level of < 70 mg/dL had a significantly higher risk of developing intracranial hemorrhage than participants with LDL-C levels 70 to 99 mg/dL.¹⁰

The safety and effects of prolonged very low LDL-C levels are currently unknown. The current study sought to gather information to determine the risks of very low LDL-C levels in a veteran population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients aged 18 to 90 years receiving care at the Hershel “Woody” Williams Veterans Affairs Medical Center (HWW VAMC) in Huntington, West Virginia, between January 1, 2010, and September 1, 2020. Approval of the current study was obtained through the Marshall University Institutional Review Board, HWW VAMC Research and Development Committee, and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) DATA Access Request Tracker (DART)/VA Informatic and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI). Data were obtained via the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) for the HWW VAMC using Microsoft Structured Query Language (SQL) server available in VINCI. Analysis of the data was conducted using STATA v. 15.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of hyperlipidemia/dyslipidemia, received treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors or PCSK9 medications, and had an LDL-C level ≤ 40 mg/dL. The primary outcome was the rate of intracranial hemorrhage that could be caused by very low LDL-C levels. The secondary outcomes included actions taken by clinicians to address LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL, ADRs, duration of therapy, and medication adherence. Patients were excluded if they were aged < 18 or > 90 years, were pregnant during the study period, had hypothyroidism, received chronic anticoagulation medications, or had a triglyceride level > 300 mg/dL.

Results

The study included 3027 patients. Of those patients, 78 patients were female while 2949 were male, and the mean (SD) age was 68.3 (9.4) years. A subsample of 32 patients was analyzed to determine whether an ADR was noted or low LDL-C level was addressed in the chart. The subsample size was determined through chart review and included patients who had a documented intracranial hemorrhage. None of the 32 patients had an ADR documented, and 6 (19%) had the low LDL-C level addressed in the chart by monitoring levels, reducing statin doses, or discontinuing the medication. Of the total population analyzed, 8 patients (0.3%) had a documented intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year following the low LDL-C level.

We also analyzed the intensity of statin related to the low LDL-C level (Table 1).

Eight patients of the total sample analyzed had an intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year of having a recorded LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL. Secondarily, 32 patients had clinicians address an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL through documentation or modifying the medication therapy. The most common ADRs among all medications analyzed were leg and joint pain, rash, and cramps. Of all medications included in this study, the mean duration of therapy was > 1 year, which would allow them to affect LDL-C levels and have those levels monitored and recorded in patients’ charts.

Discussion

When comparing our primary outcome of risk of intracranial hemorrhage with previous literature, the results are consistent with previous outcomes. Previous literature had a smaller sample size but analyzed LDL-C levels < 50 mg/dL and had an outcome of 48 patients experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year of an LDL-C level < 50 mg/dL. Due to this study having stricter parameters of LDL-C levels < 40 mg/dL, there were fewer patients with documented intracranial hemorrhages. With there being a risk of intracranial hemorrhage with low LDL-C levels, the results demonstrate the need to monitor and address LDL-C levels.

Limitations

There were several notable limitations to this study. The retrospective, single-center nature coupled with the predominately male study population may affect the generalizability of the study results to patients outside of the facility in which the study was performed. Additionally, the study only included statin medications and PCSK9 inhibitors. With future studies, all lipid-lowering medications could be analyzed. The study was largely reliant on the proper documentation of International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes exclusive to the HWW VAMC, which may exclude patients who first present to outside facilities. Due to time restraints, the incidence of hemorrhage was only analyzed 1 year following an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL. For considerations for future investigation, the length of time to analyze incidence of hemorrhage could be expanded to be similar to previous studies, and the study could be expanded across the local Veterans Integrated Service Network or VA system. Additionally, the study could have analyzed the percentage of time a patient had an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL in their lifetime.

Conclusions

These results show there is a risk that patients with an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL may experience an intracranial hemorrhage. As seen by the results, there is a clinical need for practitioners to routinely monitor and address LDL-C levels. With various guidelines that recommend starting statin medication to reduce risk of ASCVD, it is necessary that practitioners routinely monitor cholesterol levels and adjust the medications according to laboratory results.¹¹

Within 1 year of an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL, 0.3% of patients had an intracranial hemorrhage. There was no statistical significance between the rate of ADRs among the medications analyzed. High-intensity statin medications were statistically significant in resulting in an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL compared with moderate- and low-intensity statin medications. Of the 32 subsample of patients, LDL-C levels < 40 mg/mL are not routinely being addressed in the chart by the clinician.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 795,000 strokes occur in the United States yearly and are the fifth leading cause of death.¹ The CDC also states that about 43 million Americans who could benefit from cholesterol medication are currently taking them.² As of 2019, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky are 3 states with the highest rates of heart disease mortality.³

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) accumulates on the walls of blood vessels, which can lead to coronary heart disease. However, some LDL-C is necessary to maintain proper brain function. Guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) recommend LDL-C goal levels < 70 mg/dL.⁴ Yet, there is no consensus on how low LDL-C levels should be. According to clinical practice guidelines for dyslipidemia, developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense, statin medications are first-line agents for lowering LDL-C. The intensity of the statin medication is based on primary or secondary prevention, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, and current LDL-C levels prior to treatment.⁵

Statin medications are used for primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD. In addition, statin medications decrease total cholesterol, LDL-C, and triglycerides while causing a mild increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Although statin medications are first-line therapy for LDL-C lowering, other medications can be used to assist in decreasing LDL-C. Ezetimibe, fenofibrates, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can also be used.⁵ Statin medications do pose a risk of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as rhabdomyolysis and myopathy.⁶

One prospective cohort study looked at 27,937 women and analyzed total cholesterol, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and strokes. The study noted a mean 19.3-year follow-up and within that follow-up, 137 hemorrhagic strokes occurred. Based on the study’s results, LDL-C levels < 70 mg/dL had 2.17 times the risk of experiencing a hemorrhagic stroke.⁷ A meta-analysis of prospective studies analyzed 476,173 patients and 7487 hemorrhagic stroke cases. This review concluded that a 10 mg/dL increase in LDL-C was associated with a 3% lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.⁸

An observational study conducted in Asia of Chinese adults found that 22% of all strokes were hemorrhagic. The incidence of the hemorrhagic strokes was higher for patients who had an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L than those who had an LDL-C between 1.8 and 2.6 mmol/L. This study also showed that if hypertension was inadequately treated, the risk of hemorrhagic stroke increased. This study concluded that the benefit of reducing ASCVD outweighs the small risk of hemorrhagic strokes.⁹

Another prospective cohort study included 96,043 stroke-free participants and analyzed LDL-C concentrations and incidence of intracranial hemorrhage. The average LDL-C concentrations were calculated from data collected in 4 separate reporting years, and incidence of intracranial hemorrhage was confirmed through review of medication records. Over a 9-year follow-up period, the study concluded that participants with an LDL-C level of < 70 mg/dL had a significantly higher risk of developing intracranial hemorrhage than participants with LDL-C levels 70 to 99 mg/dL.¹⁰

The safety and effects of prolonged very low LDL-C levels are currently unknown. The current study sought to gather information to determine the risks of very low LDL-C levels in a veteran population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients aged 18 to 90 years receiving care at the Hershel “Woody” Williams Veterans Affairs Medical Center (HWW VAMC) in Huntington, West Virginia, between January 1, 2010, and September 1, 2020. Approval of the current study was obtained through the Marshall University Institutional Review Board, HWW VAMC Research and Development Committee, and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) DATA Access Request Tracker (DART)/VA Informatic and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI). Data were obtained via the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) for the HWW VAMC using Microsoft Structured Query Language (SQL) server available in VINCI. Analysis of the data was conducted using STATA v. 15.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of hyperlipidemia/dyslipidemia, received treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors or PCSK9 medications, and had an LDL-C level ≤ 40 mg/dL. The primary outcome was the rate of intracranial hemorrhage that could be caused by very low LDL-C levels. The secondary outcomes included actions taken by clinicians to address LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL, ADRs, duration of therapy, and medication adherence. Patients were excluded if they were aged < 18 or > 90 years, were pregnant during the study period, had hypothyroidism, received chronic anticoagulation medications, or had a triglyceride level > 300 mg/dL.

Results

The study included 3027 patients. Of those patients, 78 patients were female while 2949 were male, and the mean (SD) age was 68.3 (9.4) years. A subsample of 32 patients was analyzed to determine whether an ADR was noted or low LDL-C level was addressed in the chart. The subsample size was determined through chart review and included patients who had a documented intracranial hemorrhage. None of the 32 patients had an ADR documented, and 6 (19%) had the low LDL-C level addressed in the chart by monitoring levels, reducing statin doses, or discontinuing the medication. Of the total population analyzed, 8 patients (0.3%) had a documented intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year following the low LDL-C level.

We also analyzed the intensity of statin related to the low LDL-C level (Table 1).

Eight patients of the total sample analyzed had an intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year of having a recorded LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL. Secondarily, 32 patients had clinicians address an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL through documentation or modifying the medication therapy. The most common ADRs among all medications analyzed were leg and joint pain, rash, and cramps. Of all medications included in this study, the mean duration of therapy was > 1 year, which would allow them to affect LDL-C levels and have those levels monitored and recorded in patients’ charts.

Discussion

When comparing our primary outcome of risk of intracranial hemorrhage with previous literature, the results are consistent with previous outcomes. Previous literature had a smaller sample size but analyzed LDL-C levels < 50 mg/dL and had an outcome of 48 patients experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year of an LDL-C level < 50 mg/dL. Due to this study having stricter parameters of LDL-C levels < 40 mg/dL, there were fewer patients with documented intracranial hemorrhages. With there being a risk of intracranial hemorrhage with low LDL-C levels, the results demonstrate the need to monitor and address LDL-C levels.

Limitations

There were several notable limitations to this study. The retrospective, single-center nature coupled with the predominately male study population may affect the generalizability of the study results to patients outside of the facility in which the study was performed. Additionally, the study only included statin medications and PCSK9 inhibitors. With future studies, all lipid-lowering medications could be analyzed. The study was largely reliant on the proper documentation of International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes exclusive to the HWW VAMC, which may exclude patients who first present to outside facilities. Due to time restraints, the incidence of hemorrhage was only analyzed 1 year following an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL. For considerations for future investigation, the length of time to analyze incidence of hemorrhage could be expanded to be similar to previous studies, and the study could be expanded across the local Veterans Integrated Service Network or VA system. Additionally, the study could have analyzed the percentage of time a patient had an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL in their lifetime.

Conclusions

These results show there is a risk that patients with an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL may experience an intracranial hemorrhage. As seen by the results, there is a clinical need for practitioners to routinely monitor and address LDL-C levels. With various guidelines that recommend starting statin medication to reduce risk of ASCVD, it is necessary that practitioners routinely monitor cholesterol levels and adjust the medications according to laboratory results.¹¹

Within 1 year of an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL, 0.3% of patients had an intracranial hemorrhage. There was no statistical significance between the rate of ADRs among the medications analyzed. High-intensity statin medications were statistically significant in resulting in an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL compared with moderate- and low-intensity statin medications. Of the 32 subsample of patients, LDL-C levels < 40 mg/mL are not routinely being addressed in the chart by the clinician.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 795,000 strokes occur in the United States yearly and are the fifth leading cause of death.¹ The CDC also states that about 43 million Americans who could benefit from cholesterol medication are currently taking them.² As of 2019, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky are 3 states with the highest rates of heart disease mortality.³

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) accumulates on the walls of blood vessels, which can lead to coronary heart disease. However, some LDL-C is necessary to maintain proper brain function. Guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) recommend LDL-C goal levels < 70 mg/dL.⁴ Yet, there is no consensus on how low LDL-C levels should be. According to clinical practice guidelines for dyslipidemia, developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense, statin medications are first-line agents for lowering LDL-C. The intensity of the statin medication is based on primary or secondary prevention, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, and current LDL-C levels prior to treatment.⁵

Statin medications are used for primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD. In addition, statin medications decrease total cholesterol, LDL-C, and triglycerides while causing a mild increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Although statin medications are first-line therapy for LDL-C lowering, other medications can be used to assist in decreasing LDL-C. Ezetimibe, fenofibrates, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors can also be used.⁵ Statin medications do pose a risk of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as rhabdomyolysis and myopathy.⁶

One prospective cohort study looked at 27,937 women and analyzed total cholesterol, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and strokes. The study noted a mean 19.3-year follow-up and within that follow-up, 137 hemorrhagic strokes occurred. Based on the study’s results, LDL-C levels < 70 mg/dL had 2.17 times the risk of experiencing a hemorrhagic stroke.⁷ A meta-analysis of prospective studies analyzed 476,173 patients and 7487 hemorrhagic stroke cases. This review concluded that a 10 mg/dL increase in LDL-C was associated with a 3% lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.⁸

An observational study conducted in Asia of Chinese adults found that 22% of all strokes were hemorrhagic. The incidence of the hemorrhagic strokes was higher for patients who had an LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L than those who had an LDL-C between 1.8 and 2.6 mmol/L. This study also showed that if hypertension was inadequately treated, the risk of hemorrhagic stroke increased. This study concluded that the benefit of reducing ASCVD outweighs the small risk of hemorrhagic strokes.⁹

Another prospective cohort study included 96,043 stroke-free participants and analyzed LDL-C concentrations and incidence of intracranial hemorrhage. The average LDL-C concentrations were calculated from data collected in 4 separate reporting years, and incidence of intracranial hemorrhage was confirmed through review of medication records. Over a 9-year follow-up period, the study concluded that participants with an LDL-C level of < 70 mg/dL had a significantly higher risk of developing intracranial hemorrhage than participants with LDL-C levels 70 to 99 mg/dL.¹⁰

The safety and effects of prolonged very low LDL-C levels are currently unknown. The current study sought to gather information to determine the risks of very low LDL-C levels in a veteran population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients aged 18 to 90 years receiving care at the Hershel “Woody” Williams Veterans Affairs Medical Center (HWW VAMC) in Huntington, West Virginia, between January 1, 2010, and September 1, 2020. Approval of the current study was obtained through the Marshall University Institutional Review Board, HWW VAMC Research and Development Committee, and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) DATA Access Request Tracker (DART)/VA Informatic and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI). Data were obtained via the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) for the HWW VAMC using Microsoft Structured Query Language (SQL) server available in VINCI. Analysis of the data was conducted using STATA v. 15.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of hyperlipidemia/dyslipidemia, received treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors or PCSK9 medications, and had an LDL-C level ≤ 40 mg/dL. The primary outcome was the rate of intracranial hemorrhage that could be caused by very low LDL-C levels. The secondary outcomes included actions taken by clinicians to address LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL, ADRs, duration of therapy, and medication adherence. Patients were excluded if they were aged < 18 or > 90 years, were pregnant during the study period, had hypothyroidism, received chronic anticoagulation medications, or had a triglyceride level > 300 mg/dL.

Results

The study included 3027 patients. Of those patients, 78 patients were female while 2949 were male, and the mean (SD) age was 68.3 (9.4) years. A subsample of 32 patients was analyzed to determine whether an ADR was noted or low LDL-C level was addressed in the chart. The subsample size was determined through chart review and included patients who had a documented intracranial hemorrhage. None of the 32 patients had an ADR documented, and 6 (19%) had the low LDL-C level addressed in the chart by monitoring levels, reducing statin doses, or discontinuing the medication. Of the total population analyzed, 8 patients (0.3%) had a documented intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year following the low LDL-C level.

We also analyzed the intensity of statin related to the low LDL-C level (Table 1).

Eight patients of the total sample analyzed had an intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year of having a recorded LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL. Secondarily, 32 patients had clinicians address an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL through documentation or modifying the medication therapy. The most common ADRs among all medications analyzed were leg and joint pain, rash, and cramps. Of all medications included in this study, the mean duration of therapy was > 1 year, which would allow them to affect LDL-C levels and have those levels monitored and recorded in patients’ charts.

Discussion

When comparing our primary outcome of risk of intracranial hemorrhage with previous literature, the results are consistent with previous outcomes. Previous literature had a smaller sample size but analyzed LDL-C levels < 50 mg/dL and had an outcome of 48 patients experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage within 1 year of an LDL-C level < 50 mg/dL. Due to this study having stricter parameters of LDL-C levels < 40 mg/dL, there were fewer patients with documented intracranial hemorrhages. With there being a risk of intracranial hemorrhage with low LDL-C levels, the results demonstrate the need to monitor and address LDL-C levels.

Limitations

There were several notable limitations to this study. The retrospective, single-center nature coupled with the predominately male study population may affect the generalizability of the study results to patients outside of the facility in which the study was performed. Additionally, the study only included statin medications and PCSK9 inhibitors. With future studies, all lipid-lowering medications could be analyzed. The study was largely reliant on the proper documentation of International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes exclusive to the HWW VAMC, which may exclude patients who first present to outside facilities. Due to time restraints, the incidence of hemorrhage was only analyzed 1 year following an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL. For considerations for future investigation, the length of time to analyze incidence of hemorrhage could be expanded to be similar to previous studies, and the study could be expanded across the local Veterans Integrated Service Network or VA system. Additionally, the study could have analyzed the percentage of time a patient had an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL in their lifetime.

Conclusions

These results show there is a risk that patients with an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL may experience an intracranial hemorrhage. As seen by the results, there is a clinical need for practitioners to routinely monitor and address LDL-C levels. With various guidelines that recommend starting statin medication to reduce risk of ASCVD, it is necessary that practitioners routinely monitor cholesterol levels and adjust the medications according to laboratory results.¹¹

Within 1 year of an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL, 0.3% of patients had an intracranial hemorrhage. There was no statistical significance between the rate of ADRs among the medications analyzed. High-intensity statin medications were statistically significant in resulting in an LDL-C level < 40 mg/dL compared with moderate- and low-intensity statin medications. Of the 32 subsample of patients, LDL-C levels < 40 mg/mL are not routinely being addressed in the chart by the clinician.

The use of low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality continues to be controversial, particularly for older adults. Recently published, robust randomized controlled trials have revealed less cardiovascular benefit from aspirin for primary prevention compared with previous trials; additionally, an increased risk of major bleeding events has been notably more prevalent in older adults.^1-5 These trials have suggested that preventative aspirin use in older adults confers less benefit than other therapies for decreasing atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk, including blood pressure (BP) control, cholesterol management, and tobacco cessation.^1,6

A recent meta-analysis indicated a composite cardiovascular risk reduction in patients aged 53 to 74 years taking aspirin vs no aspirin; however, this benefit was offset with an even greater increased risk of major bleeding.⁷ This trend was consistent regardless of stratification by 10-year ASCVD risk or presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) diagnosis.^7,8 Additionally, the recently published Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial studied the impacts of aspirin use in healthy adults aged ≥ 70 years and aged ≥ 65 years among Black and Hispanic adults.⁴ The study concluded that the risk of major bleeding with aspirin use was even higher vs the potential cardiovascular benefit in older adults.⁴

With this emerging evidence, guidelines have been updated to represent the need for risk vs benefit considerations regarding aspirin use for primary prevention in older adults.^1,9,10 The most recent guideline update from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommends against the routine use of aspirin in patients aged > 70 years or those with bleeding risk factors.¹ The guideline recommends considering aspirin use for patients ages 40 to 70 years only after a patient-specific risk vs benefit discussion.¹ Furthermore, the 2020 American Diabetes Association guideline recommends considering aspirin use for primary prevention in adults with DM between ages 50 and 70 only after a risk vs benefit discussion of patient-specific bleeding risk factors and ASCVD risk-enhancing factors.¹⁰

Despite the demonstrated risks for bleeding with the routine use of aspirin, studies indicate that aspirin continues to be used commonly among older adults, often when unnecessary. In the 2017 National Health Interview Survey, about 23% of adults aged > 40 years in the United States without CVD used aspirin daily, and 23% of these did so without recommendation from a health care professional.¹¹ Furthermore, nearly half of adults ages ≥ 70 years and nearly one-quarter of adults with a history of peptic ulcer disease used aspirin daily.¹¹ Although the most recent guidelines from the ACC/AHA do not recommend a 10-year ASCVD risk threshold for therapy, one study illustrated that 12% of older adult patients were inappropriately prescribed aspirin for primary prevention despite a 10-year ASCVD risk of < 6%.^1,12 These studies highlight the large proportion of individuals, particularly older adults, who may be inappropriately taking aspirin for primary prevention.

Deprescribing Program

Deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is particularly important in the older adult population, as these individuals experience a high risk of adverse effects (AEs), polypharmacy, cognitive decline, and falls related to medication use.^6,13-17 Evidence suggests that mortality outcomes are improved with the implementation of targeted deprescribing efforts based on patient-specific factors.¹⁸ Additionally, deprescribing unnecessary medications may improve adherence to other essential medications and reduce financial burdens.¹⁹ Pharmacists play a crucial role among health care professionals in the implementation of deprescribing practices, and studies have shown that physicians are highly accepting of pharmacists’ deprescribing recommendations.^13,20-22

Despite the evidence for the benefits of deprescribing, limited data are available regarding the impact and feasibility of a targeted aspirin deprescribing approach by nonphysician practitioners.²³ The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate the success of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol for older adults in a primary care setting.

This aspirin deprescribing protocol was developed by ambulatory care clinical pharmacist or clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs), at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, CPPs work under a broad scope of practice with the ability to independently prescribe and monitor medications. The protocol was reviewed by physician stakeholders in both primary care and cardiology and a list was generated, including patients from 2 primary care panels aged ≥ 70 years with aspirin on their medication list, either as a prescription or over-the-counter medication, using the VA Information System Technology and Architecture. A CPP or supervised pharmacy intern identified patients from this list who were appropriate for risk/benefit discussions regarding the discontinuation of aspirin. Patients were excluded from the intervention if they had a history of clinical ASCVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), stable or unstable angina, coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary or other arterial revascularization, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic accident (TIA), or peripheral artery disease (PAD), or another documented indication for aspirin use, including pain, flushing (with niacin use), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, valvular heart disease, or acute or recurrent pericarditis.

After identifying eligible patients, a CPP or pharmacy intern contacted patients by telephone, following a script to guide conversation. All patients were screened for potential appropriate aspirin indications, particularly any history of MI, CAD, CVA, TIA, PAD, or other clinical ASCVD. The patient was asked about their rationale for taking aspirin and patient-specific ASCVD risk-enhancing factors and bleeding risk factors and educated them on lifestyle modalities to reduce ASCVD risk, using the script as a guide. ASCVD risk-enhancing factors included family history of premature MI, inability to achieve BP goal, DM with the inability to achieve blood glucose or hemoglobin A_1c goal, tobacco use, or inadequate statin therapy. Bleeding risk factors included a history of gastrointestinal bleed or peptic ulcer disease, concurrent use of medications that increase bleeding risk, chronic kidney disease, or thrombocytopenia.

Through shared decision making with careful consideration of these factors, we reached a conclusion with each patient to either continue or to deprescribe aspirin. Each discussion was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) using a standard documentation template (eAppendix, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0320). The patient’s medication list also was updated to reflect changes in aspirin use. For patients who declined deprescribing, the CPP or pharmacy intern asked the patient for their primary reason for preferring to continue aspirin, which was subsequently categorized as one of the following: no prior concerns with bleeding, concerns about a future cardiovascular event, wishing to discuss further with their primary care practitioner (PCP), or identifying an appropriate use for aspirin not evident through record review. For the patients who wished to further discuss the issue with their PCP before deprescribing, the patient’s PCP was notified of this preference by a record alert to the note documenting the encounter, and the patient was also encouraged to follow up about this issue. A voicemail was left if the patient did not answer requesting a call back, and a second attempt was made within 2 weeks.

Data Collected

We collected data to assess the proportion of patients for whom aspirin for primary prevention was discontinued. For patients who declined deprescribing, we documented the rationale for continuing aspirin. Additionally, the feasibility of implementation was assessed, including pharmacist time spent on each record review and intervention. Descriptive statistics were generated to evaluate baseline characteristics and intervention outcomes. The time to completion of these tasks was summarized with descriptive statistics.

We reviewed 459 patient records, and 110 were determined eligible for risk/benefit discussions.

Results of the time-study analysis for each intervention indicated that a pharmacy intern or pharmacist spent about 2 minutes reviewing the record of each patient to determine eligibility for risk/benefit discussions. The 110 patients identified as eligible were 24% of the 459 records reviewed. An average (range) of 12 (6-20) minutes was spent on the telephone call plus documentation for each patient contacted. Additionally, we estimated that CPPs and pharmacy interns spent an approximate combined 12 hours in the development and review of materials for this program, including the protocol, script, and documentation templates. This also included about 1 hour to identify appropriate parameters for, and generate, the eligible patient list.

Discussion

The implementation of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol for older adults in a primary care setting led to the discontinuation of inappropriate aspirin use in nearly half of older adults contacted. Furthermore, opportunities were identified to update medication lists to reflect previously self-discontinued aspirin for older adults. Just over one-quarter of those contacted declined to discontinue or reduce their aspirin dose. It is hypothesized that with these targeted deprescribing interventions, overall risk reduction for bleeding and polypharmacy will be observed for older adults.¹

In addition to deprescribing aspirin, CPPs used shared decision making to initiate risk/benefit discussions and to educate on targeted lifestyle modifications to lower ASCVD risk. While not all patients agreed to discontinue aspirin, all were provided education that may empower them to engage in future discussions with PCPs regarding appropriate aspirin use. Previous pharmacist-led deprescribing initiatives for proton pump inhibitors and other PIMs have indicated that a large percentage of patients who opt to further discuss a deprescribing concern with their PCPs ultimately resulted in deprescribing outcomes.^24,25 Additionally, a recent trial examining pharmacist-led deprescribing of 4 common PIMs in older adults compared the impact of pharmacists leading educational interventions directly to patients with pharmacists making deprescribing recommendations to physicians. Deprescribing was more successful when patients were involved in the decision-making process.²⁶

Limitations

Although this quality improvement initiative resulted in the deprescribing of inappropriate aspirin for many older adults, a limitation is the small sample size within a single institution. The population of male veterans also may limit generalizability to nonmale and nonveteran older adults. As the protocol was initiated within a limited number of primary care teams initially, future implementation into additional primary care teams will increase the number of older adults impacted by risk/benefit discussions regarding aspirin use. This work may not be generalizable to other health care systems. Many patients within the VA receive both their primary and specialty care within the system, which facilitates communication and collaboration between primary and specialty practitioners. The protocol may require workflow adjustments for patients receiving care within multiple systems. Additionally, although the deprescribing protocol was created in collaboration with physicians, CPPs within the VA work under a broad scope of practice that includes independent medication prescribing, deprescribing, and monitoring. This may be a consideration when implementing similar protocols at other sites, as collaborative practice agreements may need to be in place.

Future Directions

The time required to complete these interventions was generally feasible, though this intervention would require some workflow alteration to be incorporated routinely into a CPP’s schedule. The telephone calls were completed as isolated interventions and were not incorporated into existing scheduled primary care appointments. In the future, the aspirin deprescribing protocol could be incorporated into existing pharmacist-led primary care appointments. Based on the outcomes of this study, CPPs are leading an initiative to develop an aspirin deprescribing clinical reminder tool, which may be quickly inserted into a progress note within the EHR and may be incorporated into any primary care visit led by a CPP or PCP.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that a pharmacist-led aspirin deprescribing protocol in the ambulatory care pharmacy setting was successful in the discontinuation of unnecessary aspirin use in older adults. The protocol also provided opportunities for education on ASCVD risk reduction in all older adults reached. These findings highlight the role of pharmacists in deprescribing PIMs for older adults and identifying opportunities to further streamline risk/benefit discussions on aspirin deprescribing potential within primary care visits.

The use of low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality continues to be controversial, particularly for older adults. Recently published, robust randomized controlled trials have revealed less cardiovascular benefit from aspirin for primary prevention compared with previous trials; additionally, an increased risk of major bleeding events has been notably more prevalent in older adults.^1-5 These trials have suggested that preventative aspirin use in older adults confers less benefit than other therapies for decreasing atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk, including blood pressure (BP) control, cholesterol management, and tobacco cessation.^1,6

A recent meta-analysis indicated a composite cardiovascular risk reduction in patients aged 53 to 74 years taking aspirin vs no aspirin; however, this benefit was offset with an even greater increased risk of major bleeding.⁷ This trend was consistent regardless of stratification by 10-year ASCVD risk or presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) diagnosis.^7,8 Additionally, the recently published Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial studied the impacts of aspirin use in healthy adults aged ≥ 70 years and aged ≥ 65 years among Black and Hispanic adults.⁴ The study concluded that the risk of major bleeding with aspirin use was even higher vs the potential cardiovascular benefit in older adults.⁴

With this emerging evidence, guidelines have been updated to represent the need for risk vs benefit considerations regarding aspirin use for primary prevention in older adults.^1,9,10 The most recent guideline update from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommends against the routine use of aspirin in patients aged > 70 years or those with bleeding risk factors.¹ The guideline recommends considering aspirin use for patients ages 40 to 70 years only after a patient-specific risk vs benefit discussion.¹ Furthermore, the 2020 American Diabetes Association guideline recommends considering aspirin use for primary prevention in adults with DM between ages 50 and 70 only after a risk vs benefit discussion of patient-specific bleeding risk factors and ASCVD risk-enhancing factors.¹⁰

Despite the demonstrated risks for bleeding with the routine use of aspirin, studies indicate that aspirin continues to be used commonly among older adults, often when unnecessary. In the 2017 National Health Interview Survey, about 23% of adults aged > 40 years in the United States without CVD used aspirin daily, and 23% of these did so without recommendation from a health care professional.¹¹ Furthermore, nearly half of adults ages ≥ 70 years and nearly one-quarter of adults with a history of peptic ulcer disease used aspirin daily.¹¹ Although the most recent guidelines from the ACC/AHA do not recommend a 10-year ASCVD risk threshold for therapy, one study illustrated that 12% of older adult patients were inappropriately prescribed aspirin for primary prevention despite a 10-year ASCVD risk of < 6%.^1,12 These studies highlight the large proportion of individuals, particularly older adults, who may be inappropriately taking aspirin for primary prevention.

Deprescribing Program

Deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is particularly important in the older adult population, as these individuals experience a high risk of adverse effects (AEs), polypharmacy, cognitive decline, and falls related to medication use.^6,13-17 Evidence suggests that mortality outcomes are improved with the implementation of targeted deprescribing efforts based on patient-specific factors.¹⁸ Additionally, deprescribing unnecessary medications may improve adherence to other essential medications and reduce financial burdens.¹⁹ Pharmacists play a crucial role among health care professionals in the implementation of deprescribing practices, and studies have shown that physicians are highly accepting of pharmacists’ deprescribing recommendations.^13,20-22

Despite the evidence for the benefits of deprescribing, limited data are available regarding the impact and feasibility of a targeted aspirin deprescribing approach by nonphysician practitioners.²³ The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate the success of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol for older adults in a primary care setting.

This aspirin deprescribing protocol was developed by ambulatory care clinical pharmacist or clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs), at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, CPPs work under a broad scope of practice with the ability to independently prescribe and monitor medications. The protocol was reviewed by physician stakeholders in both primary care and cardiology and a list was generated, including patients from 2 primary care panels aged ≥ 70 years with aspirin on their medication list, either as a prescription or over-the-counter medication, using the VA Information System Technology and Architecture. A CPP or supervised pharmacy intern identified patients from this list who were appropriate for risk/benefit discussions regarding the discontinuation of aspirin. Patients were excluded from the intervention if they had a history of clinical ASCVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), stable or unstable angina, coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary or other arterial revascularization, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic accident (TIA), or peripheral artery disease (PAD), or another documented indication for aspirin use, including pain, flushing (with niacin use), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, valvular heart disease, or acute or recurrent pericarditis.

After identifying eligible patients, a CPP or pharmacy intern contacted patients by telephone, following a script to guide conversation. All patients were screened for potential appropriate aspirin indications, particularly any history of MI, CAD, CVA, TIA, PAD, or other clinical ASCVD. The patient was asked about their rationale for taking aspirin and patient-specific ASCVD risk-enhancing factors and bleeding risk factors and educated them on lifestyle modalities to reduce ASCVD risk, using the script as a guide. ASCVD risk-enhancing factors included family history of premature MI, inability to achieve BP goal, DM with the inability to achieve blood glucose or hemoglobin A_1c goal, tobacco use, or inadequate statin therapy. Bleeding risk factors included a history of gastrointestinal bleed or peptic ulcer disease, concurrent use of medications that increase bleeding risk, chronic kidney disease, or thrombocytopenia.

Through shared decision making with careful consideration of these factors, we reached a conclusion with each patient to either continue or to deprescribe aspirin. Each discussion was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) using a standard documentation template (eAppendix, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0320). The patient’s medication list also was updated to reflect changes in aspirin use. For patients who declined deprescribing, the CPP or pharmacy intern asked the patient for their primary reason for preferring to continue aspirin, which was subsequently categorized as one of the following: no prior concerns with bleeding, concerns about a future cardiovascular event, wishing to discuss further with their primary care practitioner (PCP), or identifying an appropriate use for aspirin not evident through record review. For the patients who wished to further discuss the issue with their PCP before deprescribing, the patient’s PCP was notified of this preference by a record alert to the note documenting the encounter, and the patient was also encouraged to follow up about this issue. A voicemail was left if the patient did not answer requesting a call back, and a second attempt was made within 2 weeks.

Data Collected

We collected data to assess the proportion of patients for whom aspirin for primary prevention was discontinued. For patients who declined deprescribing, we documented the rationale for continuing aspirin. Additionally, the feasibility of implementation was assessed, including pharmacist time spent on each record review and intervention. Descriptive statistics were generated to evaluate baseline characteristics and intervention outcomes. The time to completion of these tasks was summarized with descriptive statistics.

We reviewed 459 patient records, and 110 were determined eligible for risk/benefit discussions.

Results of the time-study analysis for each intervention indicated that a pharmacy intern or pharmacist spent about 2 minutes reviewing the record of each patient to determine eligibility for risk/benefit discussions. The 110 patients identified as eligible were 24% of the 459 records reviewed. An average (range) of 12 (6-20) minutes was spent on the telephone call plus documentation for each patient contacted. Additionally, we estimated that CPPs and pharmacy interns spent an approximate combined 12 hours in the development and review of materials for this program, including the protocol, script, and documentation templates. This also included about 1 hour to identify appropriate parameters for, and generate, the eligible patient list.

Discussion

The implementation of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol for older adults in a primary care setting led to the discontinuation of inappropriate aspirin use in nearly half of older adults contacted. Furthermore, opportunities were identified to update medication lists to reflect previously self-discontinued aspirin for older adults. Just over one-quarter of those contacted declined to discontinue or reduce their aspirin dose. It is hypothesized that with these targeted deprescribing interventions, overall risk reduction for bleeding and polypharmacy will be observed for older adults.¹

In addition to deprescribing aspirin, CPPs used shared decision making to initiate risk/benefit discussions and to educate on targeted lifestyle modifications to lower ASCVD risk. While not all patients agreed to discontinue aspirin, all were provided education that may empower them to engage in future discussions with PCPs regarding appropriate aspirin use. Previous pharmacist-led deprescribing initiatives for proton pump inhibitors and other PIMs have indicated that a large percentage of patients who opt to further discuss a deprescribing concern with their PCPs ultimately resulted in deprescribing outcomes.^24,25 Additionally, a recent trial examining pharmacist-led deprescribing of 4 common PIMs in older adults compared the impact of pharmacists leading educational interventions directly to patients with pharmacists making deprescribing recommendations to physicians. Deprescribing was more successful when patients were involved in the decision-making process.²⁶

Limitations

Although this quality improvement initiative resulted in the deprescribing of inappropriate aspirin for many older adults, a limitation is the small sample size within a single institution. The population of male veterans also may limit generalizability to nonmale and nonveteran older adults. As the protocol was initiated within a limited number of primary care teams initially, future implementation into additional primary care teams will increase the number of older adults impacted by risk/benefit discussions regarding aspirin use. This work may not be generalizable to other health care systems. Many patients within the VA receive both their primary and specialty care within the system, which facilitates communication and collaboration between primary and specialty practitioners. The protocol may require workflow adjustments for patients receiving care within multiple systems. Additionally, although the deprescribing protocol was created in collaboration with physicians, CPPs within the VA work under a broad scope of practice that includes independent medication prescribing, deprescribing, and monitoring. This may be a consideration when implementing similar protocols at other sites, as collaborative practice agreements may need to be in place.

Future Directions

The time required to complete these interventions was generally feasible, though this intervention would require some workflow alteration to be incorporated routinely into a CPP’s schedule. The telephone calls were completed as isolated interventions and were not incorporated into existing scheduled primary care appointments. In the future, the aspirin deprescribing protocol could be incorporated into existing pharmacist-led primary care appointments. Based on the outcomes of this study, CPPs are leading an initiative to develop an aspirin deprescribing clinical reminder tool, which may be quickly inserted into a progress note within the EHR and may be incorporated into any primary care visit led by a CPP or PCP.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that a pharmacist-led aspirin deprescribing protocol in the ambulatory care pharmacy setting was successful in the discontinuation of unnecessary aspirin use in older adults. The protocol also provided opportunities for education on ASCVD risk reduction in all older adults reached. These findings highlight the role of pharmacists in deprescribing PIMs for older adults and identifying opportunities to further streamline risk/benefit discussions on aspirin deprescribing potential within primary care visits.

The use of low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality continues to be controversial, particularly for older adults. Recently published, robust randomized controlled trials have revealed less cardiovascular benefit from aspirin for primary prevention compared with previous trials; additionally, an increased risk of major bleeding events has been notably more prevalent in older adults.^1-5 These trials have suggested that preventative aspirin use in older adults confers less benefit than other therapies for decreasing atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk, including blood pressure (BP) control, cholesterol management, and tobacco cessation.^1,6

A recent meta-analysis indicated a composite cardiovascular risk reduction in patients aged 53 to 74 years taking aspirin vs no aspirin; however, this benefit was offset with an even greater increased risk of major bleeding.⁷ This trend was consistent regardless of stratification by 10-year ASCVD risk or presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) diagnosis.^7,8 Additionally, the recently published Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial studied the impacts of aspirin use in healthy adults aged ≥ 70 years and aged ≥ 65 years among Black and Hispanic adults.⁴ The study concluded that the risk of major bleeding with aspirin use was even higher vs the potential cardiovascular benefit in older adults.⁴

With this emerging evidence, guidelines have been updated to represent the need for risk vs benefit considerations regarding aspirin use for primary prevention in older adults.^1,9,10 The most recent guideline update from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommends against the routine use of aspirin in patients aged > 70 years or those with bleeding risk factors.¹ The guideline recommends considering aspirin use for patients ages 40 to 70 years only after a patient-specific risk vs benefit discussion.¹ Furthermore, the 2020 American Diabetes Association guideline recommends considering aspirin use for primary prevention in adults with DM between ages 50 and 70 only after a risk vs benefit discussion of patient-specific bleeding risk factors and ASCVD risk-enhancing factors.¹⁰

Despite the demonstrated risks for bleeding with the routine use of aspirin, studies indicate that aspirin continues to be used commonly among older adults, often when unnecessary. In the 2017 National Health Interview Survey, about 23% of adults aged > 40 years in the United States without CVD used aspirin daily, and 23% of these did so without recommendation from a health care professional.¹¹ Furthermore, nearly half of adults ages ≥ 70 years and nearly one-quarter of adults with a history of peptic ulcer disease used aspirin daily.¹¹ Although the most recent guidelines from the ACC/AHA do not recommend a 10-year ASCVD risk threshold for therapy, one study illustrated that 12% of older adult patients were inappropriately prescribed aspirin for primary prevention despite a 10-year ASCVD risk of < 6%.^1,12 These studies highlight the large proportion of individuals, particularly older adults, who may be inappropriately taking aspirin for primary prevention.

Deprescribing Program

Deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is particularly important in the older adult population, as these individuals experience a high risk of adverse effects (AEs), polypharmacy, cognitive decline, and falls related to medication use.^6,13-17 Evidence suggests that mortality outcomes are improved with the implementation of targeted deprescribing efforts based on patient-specific factors.¹⁸ Additionally, deprescribing unnecessary medications may improve adherence to other essential medications and reduce financial burdens.¹⁹ Pharmacists play a crucial role among health care professionals in the implementation of deprescribing practices, and studies have shown that physicians are highly accepting of pharmacists’ deprescribing recommendations.^13,20-22

Despite the evidence for the benefits of deprescribing, limited data are available regarding the impact and feasibility of a targeted aspirin deprescribing approach by nonphysician practitioners.²³ The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate the success of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol for older adults in a primary care setting.

This aspirin deprescribing protocol was developed by ambulatory care clinical pharmacist or clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs), at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, CPPs work under a broad scope of practice with the ability to independently prescribe and monitor medications. The protocol was reviewed by physician stakeholders in both primary care and cardiology and a list was generated, including patients from 2 primary care panels aged ≥ 70 years with aspirin on their medication list, either as a prescription or over-the-counter medication, using the VA Information System Technology and Architecture. A CPP or supervised pharmacy intern identified patients from this list who were appropriate for risk/benefit discussions regarding the discontinuation of aspirin. Patients were excluded from the intervention if they had a history of clinical ASCVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), stable or unstable angina, coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary or other arterial revascularization, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic accident (TIA), or peripheral artery disease (PAD), or another documented indication for aspirin use, including pain, flushing (with niacin use), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, valvular heart disease, or acute or recurrent pericarditis.

After identifying eligible patients, a CPP or pharmacy intern contacted patients by telephone, following a script to guide conversation. All patients were screened for potential appropriate aspirin indications, particularly any history of MI, CAD, CVA, TIA, PAD, or other clinical ASCVD. The patient was asked about their rationale for taking aspirin and patient-specific ASCVD risk-enhancing factors and bleeding risk factors and educated them on lifestyle modalities to reduce ASCVD risk, using the script as a guide. ASCVD risk-enhancing factors included family history of premature MI, inability to achieve BP goal, DM with the inability to achieve blood glucose or hemoglobin A_1c goal, tobacco use, or inadequate statin therapy. Bleeding risk factors included a history of gastrointestinal bleed or peptic ulcer disease, concurrent use of medications that increase bleeding risk, chronic kidney disease, or thrombocytopenia.

Through shared decision making with careful consideration of these factors, we reached a conclusion with each patient to either continue or to deprescribe aspirin. Each discussion was documented in the electronic health record (EHR) using a standard documentation template (eAppendix, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0320). The patient’s medication list also was updated to reflect changes in aspirin use. For patients who declined deprescribing, the CPP or pharmacy intern asked the patient for their primary reason for preferring to continue aspirin, which was subsequently categorized as one of the following: no prior concerns with bleeding, concerns about a future cardiovascular event, wishing to discuss further with their primary care practitioner (PCP), or identifying an appropriate use for aspirin not evident through record review. For the patients who wished to further discuss the issue with their PCP before deprescribing, the patient’s PCP was notified of this preference by a record alert to the note documenting the encounter, and the patient was also encouraged to follow up about this issue. A voicemail was left if the patient did not answer requesting a call back, and a second attempt was made within 2 weeks.

Data Collected

We collected data to assess the proportion of patients for whom aspirin for primary prevention was discontinued. For patients who declined deprescribing, we documented the rationale for continuing aspirin. Additionally, the feasibility of implementation was assessed, including pharmacist time spent on each record review and intervention. Descriptive statistics were generated to evaluate baseline characteristics and intervention outcomes. The time to completion of these tasks was summarized with descriptive statistics.

We reviewed 459 patient records, and 110 were determined eligible for risk/benefit discussions.

Results of the time-study analysis for each intervention indicated that a pharmacy intern or pharmacist spent about 2 minutes reviewing the record of each patient to determine eligibility for risk/benefit discussions. The 110 patients identified as eligible were 24% of the 459 records reviewed. An average (range) of 12 (6-20) minutes was spent on the telephone call plus documentation for each patient contacted. Additionally, we estimated that CPPs and pharmacy interns spent an approximate combined 12 hours in the development and review of materials for this program, including the protocol, script, and documentation templates. This also included about 1 hour to identify appropriate parameters for, and generate, the eligible patient list.

Discussion

The implementation of a pharmacist-driven aspirin deprescribing protocol for older adults in a primary care setting led to the discontinuation of inappropriate aspirin use in nearly half of older adults contacted. Furthermore, opportunities were identified to update medication lists to reflect previously self-discontinued aspirin for older adults. Just over one-quarter of those contacted declined to discontinue or reduce their aspirin dose. It is hypothesized that with these targeted deprescribing interventions, overall risk reduction for bleeding and polypharmacy will be observed for older adults.¹

In addition to deprescribing aspirin, CPPs used shared decision making to initiate risk/benefit discussions and to educate on targeted lifestyle modifications to lower ASCVD risk. While not all patients agreed to discontinue aspirin, all were provided education that may empower them to engage in future discussions with PCPs regarding appropriate aspirin use. Previous pharmacist-led deprescribing initiatives for proton pump inhibitors and other PIMs have indicated that a large percentage of patients who opt to further discuss a deprescribing concern with their PCPs ultimately resulted in deprescribing outcomes.^24,25 Additionally, a recent trial examining pharmacist-led deprescribing of 4 common PIMs in older adults compared the impact of pharmacists leading educational interventions directly to patients with pharmacists making deprescribing recommendations to physicians. Deprescribing was more successful when patients were involved in the decision-making process.²⁶

Limitations

Although this quality improvement initiative resulted in the deprescribing of inappropriate aspirin for many older adults, a limitation is the small sample size within a single institution. The population of male veterans also may limit generalizability to nonmale and nonveteran older adults. As the protocol was initiated within a limited number of primary care teams initially, future implementation into additional primary care teams will increase the number of older adults impacted by risk/benefit discussions regarding aspirin use. This work may not be generalizable to other health care systems. Many patients within the VA receive both their primary and specialty care within the system, which facilitates communication and collaboration between primary and specialty practitioners. The protocol may require workflow adjustments for patients receiving care within multiple systems. Additionally, although the deprescribing protocol was created in collaboration with physicians, CPPs within the VA work under a broad scope of practice that includes independent medication prescribing, deprescribing, and monitoring. This may be a consideration when implementing similar protocols at other sites, as collaborative practice agreements may need to be in place.

Future Directions

The time required to complete these interventions was generally feasible, though this intervention would require some workflow alteration to be incorporated routinely into a CPP’s schedule. The telephone calls were completed as isolated interventions and were not incorporated into existing scheduled primary care appointments. In the future, the aspirin deprescribing protocol could be incorporated into existing pharmacist-led primary care appointments. Based on the outcomes of this study, CPPs are leading an initiative to develop an aspirin deprescribing clinical reminder tool, which may be quickly inserted into a progress note within the EHR and may be incorporated into any primary care visit led by a CPP or PCP.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that a pharmacist-led aspirin deprescribing protocol in the ambulatory care pharmacy setting was successful in the discontinuation of unnecessary aspirin use in older adults. The protocol also provided opportunities for education on ASCVD risk reduction in all older adults reached. These findings highlight the role of pharmacists in deprescribing PIMs for older adults and identifying opportunities to further streamline risk/benefit discussions on aspirin deprescribing potential within primary care visits.