Venous Thromboembolism

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — Patients with COPD are at an increased risk for fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and may require personalized, targeted thromboprophylaxis. Those are the conclusions of investigators who analyzed public health data and found that patients with COPD have a markedly increased risk for PE-related death, particularly among those aged 65-85 years.

The data suggest that “maybe we should start thinking about if we are admitting a patient with COPD in that specific age group, higher thromboprophylaxis for PE,” said Marwa Oudah, MD, a pulmonary hypertension fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She presented her group’s findings in a rapid-fire oral abstract session at the CHEST Annual Meeting.
 

Known Risk Factor

COPD is a known risk factor for PE. To estimate how the obstructive lung disease may contribute to PE-related deaths among patients of varying ages, Oudah and colleagues drew data on deaths due to an underlying cause of PE from 1999 to 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database.

They stratified the patients into two groups — those with or without COPD — whose data were included in the Multiple Causes of Death dataset, according to age groups ranging from 35 years to over 100 years. The investigators calculated proportional mortality ratios in the non-COPD group and applied these to the COPD-positive group among different age ranges to estimate the observed vs expected number of deaths.

A total of 10,434 persons who died from PE and had COPD listed among causes of death were identified. The sample was evenly divided by sex. The peak range of deaths was among those aged 75-84 years.

The authors saw an increase in PE-related mortality among patients with COPD aged 65-85 years (P < .001).

The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths among patients in this age range were “substantially greater than 1” said Oudah, with patients aged 75-79 years at highest risk for PE-related death, with an observed-to-expected ratio of 1.443.

In contrast, the rate of observed deaths among patients aged 85-89 years was similar to the expected rate, suggesting that the COPD-PE interaction may wane among older patients, she said.

Among patients aged 35-64 years, the risk for death from PE was not significantly higher for any of the 5-year age categories.

The investigators emphasized that “given the observed trend, individualized patient assessments are imperative to optimize preventable measures against PE in the aging COPD population.”
 

Confounding Comorbidities

In an interview, a pulmonary specialist who was not involved in the study commented that older persons with COPD tend to have multiple comorbidities that may contribute to the risk for PE.

“Older patients have so many comorbidities, and their risk for pulmonary embolism and thromboembolic disease is pretty high, so I’m not surprised that 75 to 79 years olds are having a higher mortality from PE, but it’s a little difficult to say whether that’s due to COPD,” said Krishna Sundar, MBBS, MD, FCCP, a pulmonary, sleep medicine, and critical care medicine specialist at St. John’s Medical Center in Jackson, Wyoming, who moderated the session.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Oudah and Sundar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the article "‘Door-to-thrombectomy ’ time linked to better acute PE outcomes" in the November 2024 issue of CHEST Physician, Dr. Patel was quoted as stating, "Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed mortality benefit," and, "There's a mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high risk or intermediate-high." Dr. Patel was referring to the FLASH registry as a whole and not to the registry data study described in this article. CHEST Physician regrets the error and any confusion this may have caused.

BOSTON — The sooner that patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) get treated with mechanical thrombectomy, the greater the likelihood that they will have favorable short- and long-term outcomes, regardless of their degree of initial risk, a study of registry data showed.

Among nearly 800 patients with acute PE whose data are recorded in the FlowTriever All-Comer Registry for Patient Safety and Hemodynamics (FLASH), a prospective multicenter registry of individuals treated with mechanical thrombectomy using the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical), shorter time from admission to mechanical thrombectomy was associated with significantly greater reductions in intraprocedural mean and systolic pulmonary artery pressures (PAP), greater reductions in the right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio, and longer 6-minute walk times at 6 months, reported Krunal H. Patel, MD, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed a mortality benefit. I think as time progresses and mechanical thrombectomy becomes more popular, we’re just going to need to figure out what is the ideal time for intervention,” he said during an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“There’s mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high-risk or intermediate-high. This is a thought-provoking retrospective analysis that says that early intervention is probably better than doing it late, but regardless, the FLASH registry trial showed that early thrombectomy or thrombectomy in general shows positive mortality benefit,” Patel said in an interview.

He likened the challenge for pulmonary and critical care specialists to that of interventional cardiologists, who have determined that the ideal window for starting percutaneous coronary interventions is within 90 minutes of the patient’s arrival at the facility.

“I think we have to get our ‘door-to-balloon’ time for PE care,” he said.
 

Study Details

Patel and colleague Parth M. Rali, MD, FCCP, associate professor of thoracic medicine at Temple, conducted a retrospective review of data on 787 US patients in the FLASH registry for whom time to mechanical thrombectomy data were available. They stratified the patients into short and long time to mechanical thrombectomy groups, with “short” defined as ≤ 12 hours of presentation and “long” as > 12 hours.

They found that the median time to thrombectomy was 19.68 hours. In all, 242 patients (31%) were treated within the short window, and the remaining 545 patients (69%) were treated after at least 12 hours had passed.

Comparing clinical characteristics between the groups, the investigators noted that significantly more patients in the short time group vs long time group were categorized as high-risk (11.2% vs 6.2%; P = .0026). This difference is likely due to the need for greater urgency among high-risk patients, Patel said.

Patients in the short time group also had significantly higher baseline RV/LV ratios and lactate levels, but baseline dyspnea scores and pre-procedure median and systolic PAP were similar between the groups.

The mean time to thrombectomy was 6.08 hours in the short time group vs 34.04 hours in the long time group. Their respective median times were 6.01 and 24.73 hours.

The procedural time was similar between the groups, at 45 and 42 minutes, respectively.

The location of the treated thrombus was central only in 35.1% and 26.5% patients in the short and long time groups, respectively. Lobar-only thrombi were treated in 7.9% and 14.3%, respectively, and both central and lobar thrombi were treated in 57.0% and 59.2%, respectively.

Both 48-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were similar between the groups (0.4%/0.2% and 0.5%/1.0%).

Patients in the short time group had slightly but significantly longer post-procedure hospital and intensive care unit stays, but 30-day readmission rates — whether for PE- or non-PE–related causes — were similar.

Where the differences between the groups really showed, however, were PAP reductions over baseline, with decline in median pressures of −8.7 mm Hg in the short group vs −7.2 mm Hg in the long group (P = .0008), and drops in systolic PAP of −14.4 vs −12.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .0011).

In addition, reductions in RV/LV ratios from baseline were also significantly greater among patients whose thrombectomies had been expedited at the 48-hour, 30-day, and 6-month follow-up periods.

At 6 months, patients who had received mechanical thrombectomy within 12 hours also had significantly longer 6-minute walk distances (442.2 vs 390.5 m; P = .0032).
 

Low Thrombolysis Rate

Following his presentation, session co-moderator Galina Glazman-Kuczaj, MD, from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Albany Med Health System, Albany, New York, asked Patel what percentage of patients, if any, had received thrombolytic therapy before the thrombectomy procedure.

He noted that only 1% or 2% patients in the FLASH registry received thrombolysis.

In an interview, Glazman-Kuczaj said that “it was reassuring for [Patel] to report that it was only a small population of patients who got thrombolysis beforehand in either group because you would expect that maybe people in the group that took longer to have a thrombectomy got some thrombolysis beforehand and that perhaps they were more stable, but it seems like thrombectomy was the first-line treatment in both groups.”

The FLASH Registry is funded by Inari Medical. Patel and Glazman-Kuczaj reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the article "‘Door-to-thrombectomy ’ time linked to better acute PE outcomes" in the November 2024 issue of CHEST Physician, Dr. Patel was quoted as stating, "Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed mortality benefit," and, "There's a mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high risk or intermediate-high." Dr. Patel was referring to the FLASH registry as a whole and not to the registry data study described in this article. CHEST Physician regrets the error and any confusion this may have caused.

BOSTON — The sooner that patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) get treated with mechanical thrombectomy, the greater the likelihood that they will have favorable short- and long-term outcomes, regardless of their degree of initial risk, a study of registry data showed.

Among nearly 800 patients with acute PE whose data are recorded in the FlowTriever All-Comer Registry for Patient Safety and Hemodynamics (FLASH), a prospective multicenter registry of individuals treated with mechanical thrombectomy using the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical), shorter time from admission to mechanical thrombectomy was associated with significantly greater reductions in intraprocedural mean and systolic pulmonary artery pressures (PAP), greater reductions in the right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio, and longer 6-minute walk times at 6 months, reported Krunal H. Patel, MD, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed a mortality benefit. I think as time progresses and mechanical thrombectomy becomes more popular, we’re just going to need to figure out what is the ideal time for intervention,” he said during an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“There’s mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high-risk or intermediate-high. This is a thought-provoking retrospective analysis that says that early intervention is probably better than doing it late, but regardless, the FLASH registry trial showed that early thrombectomy or thrombectomy in general shows positive mortality benefit,” Patel said in an interview.

He likened the challenge for pulmonary and critical care specialists to that of interventional cardiologists, who have determined that the ideal window for starting percutaneous coronary interventions is within 90 minutes of the patient’s arrival at the facility.

“I think we have to get our ‘door-to-balloon’ time for PE care,” he said.
 

Study Details

Patel and colleague Parth M. Rali, MD, FCCP, associate professor of thoracic medicine at Temple, conducted a retrospective review of data on 787 US patients in the FLASH registry for whom time to mechanical thrombectomy data were available. They stratified the patients into short and long time to mechanical thrombectomy groups, with “short” defined as ≤ 12 hours of presentation and “long” as > 12 hours.

They found that the median time to thrombectomy was 19.68 hours. In all, 242 patients (31%) were treated within the short window, and the remaining 545 patients (69%) were treated after at least 12 hours had passed.

Comparing clinical characteristics between the groups, the investigators noted that significantly more patients in the short time group vs long time group were categorized as high-risk (11.2% vs 6.2%; P = .0026). This difference is likely due to the need for greater urgency among high-risk patients, Patel said.

Patients in the short time group also had significantly higher baseline RV/LV ratios and lactate levels, but baseline dyspnea scores and pre-procedure median and systolic PAP were similar between the groups.

The mean time to thrombectomy was 6.08 hours in the short time group vs 34.04 hours in the long time group. Their respective median times were 6.01 and 24.73 hours.

The procedural time was similar between the groups, at 45 and 42 minutes, respectively.

The location of the treated thrombus was central only in 35.1% and 26.5% patients in the short and long time groups, respectively. Lobar-only thrombi were treated in 7.9% and 14.3%, respectively, and both central and lobar thrombi were treated in 57.0% and 59.2%, respectively.

Both 48-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were similar between the groups (0.4%/0.2% and 0.5%/1.0%).

Patients in the short time group had slightly but significantly longer post-procedure hospital and intensive care unit stays, but 30-day readmission rates — whether for PE- or non-PE–related causes — were similar.

Where the differences between the groups really showed, however, were PAP reductions over baseline, with decline in median pressures of −8.7 mm Hg in the short group vs −7.2 mm Hg in the long group (P = .0008), and drops in systolic PAP of −14.4 vs −12.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .0011).

In addition, reductions in RV/LV ratios from baseline were also significantly greater among patients whose thrombectomies had been expedited at the 48-hour, 30-day, and 6-month follow-up periods.

At 6 months, patients who had received mechanical thrombectomy within 12 hours also had significantly longer 6-minute walk distances (442.2 vs 390.5 m; P = .0032).
 

Low Thrombolysis Rate

Following his presentation, session co-moderator Galina Glazman-Kuczaj, MD, from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Albany Med Health System, Albany, New York, asked Patel what percentage of patients, if any, had received thrombolytic therapy before the thrombectomy procedure.

He noted that only 1% or 2% patients in the FLASH registry received thrombolysis.

In an interview, Glazman-Kuczaj said that “it was reassuring for [Patel] to report that it was only a small population of patients who got thrombolysis beforehand in either group because you would expect that maybe people in the group that took longer to have a thrombectomy got some thrombolysis beforehand and that perhaps they were more stable, but it seems like thrombectomy was the first-line treatment in both groups.”

The FLASH Registry is funded by Inari Medical. Patel and Glazman-Kuczaj reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the article "‘Door-to-thrombectomy ’ time linked to better acute PE outcomes" in the November 2024 issue of CHEST Physician, Dr. Patel was quoted as stating, "Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed mortality benefit," and, "There's a mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high risk or intermediate-high." Dr. Patel was referring to the FLASH registry as a whole and not to the registry data study described in this article. CHEST Physician regrets the error and any confusion this may have caused.

BOSTON — The sooner that patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) get treated with mechanical thrombectomy, the greater the likelihood that they will have favorable short- and long-term outcomes, regardless of their degree of initial risk, a study of registry data showed.

Among nearly 800 patients with acute PE whose data are recorded in the FlowTriever All-Comer Registry for Patient Safety and Hemodynamics (FLASH), a prospective multicenter registry of individuals treated with mechanical thrombectomy using the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical), shorter time from admission to mechanical thrombectomy was associated with significantly greater reductions in intraprocedural mean and systolic pulmonary artery pressures (PAP), greater reductions in the right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio, and longer 6-minute walk times at 6 months, reported Krunal H. Patel, MD, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed a mortality benefit. I think as time progresses and mechanical thrombectomy becomes more popular, we’re just going to need to figure out what is the ideal time for intervention,” he said during an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“There’s mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high-risk or intermediate-high. This is a thought-provoking retrospective analysis that says that early intervention is probably better than doing it late, but regardless, the FLASH registry trial showed that early thrombectomy or thrombectomy in general shows positive mortality benefit,” Patel said in an interview.

He likened the challenge for pulmonary and critical care specialists to that of interventional cardiologists, who have determined that the ideal window for starting percutaneous coronary interventions is within 90 minutes of the patient’s arrival at the facility.

“I think we have to get our ‘door-to-balloon’ time for PE care,” he said.
 

Study Details

Patel and colleague Parth M. Rali, MD, FCCP, associate professor of thoracic medicine at Temple, conducted a retrospective review of data on 787 US patients in the FLASH registry for whom time to mechanical thrombectomy data were available. They stratified the patients into short and long time to mechanical thrombectomy groups, with “short” defined as ≤ 12 hours of presentation and “long” as > 12 hours.

They found that the median time to thrombectomy was 19.68 hours. In all, 242 patients (31%) were treated within the short window, and the remaining 545 patients (69%) were treated after at least 12 hours had passed.

Comparing clinical characteristics between the groups, the investigators noted that significantly more patients in the short time group vs long time group were categorized as high-risk (11.2% vs 6.2%; P = .0026). This difference is likely due to the need for greater urgency among high-risk patients, Patel said.

Patients in the short time group also had significantly higher baseline RV/LV ratios and lactate levels, but baseline dyspnea scores and pre-procedure median and systolic PAP were similar between the groups.

The mean time to thrombectomy was 6.08 hours in the short time group vs 34.04 hours in the long time group. Their respective median times were 6.01 and 24.73 hours.

The procedural time was similar between the groups, at 45 and 42 minutes, respectively.

The location of the treated thrombus was central only in 35.1% and 26.5% patients in the short and long time groups, respectively. Lobar-only thrombi were treated in 7.9% and 14.3%, respectively, and both central and lobar thrombi were treated in 57.0% and 59.2%, respectively.

Both 48-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were similar between the groups (0.4%/0.2% and 0.5%/1.0%).

Patients in the short time group had slightly but significantly longer post-procedure hospital and intensive care unit stays, but 30-day readmission rates — whether for PE- or non-PE–related causes — were similar.

Where the differences between the groups really showed, however, were PAP reductions over baseline, with decline in median pressures of −8.7 mm Hg in the short group vs −7.2 mm Hg in the long group (P = .0008), and drops in systolic PAP of −14.4 vs −12.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .0011).

In addition, reductions in RV/LV ratios from baseline were also significantly greater among patients whose thrombectomies had been expedited at the 48-hour, 30-day, and 6-month follow-up periods.

At 6 months, patients who had received mechanical thrombectomy within 12 hours also had significantly longer 6-minute walk distances (442.2 vs 390.5 m; P = .0032).
 

Low Thrombolysis Rate

Following his presentation, session co-moderator Galina Glazman-Kuczaj, MD, from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Albany Med Health System, Albany, New York, asked Patel what percentage of patients, if any, had received thrombolytic therapy before the thrombectomy procedure.

He noted that only 1% or 2% patients in the FLASH registry received thrombolysis.

In an interview, Glazman-Kuczaj said that “it was reassuring for [Patel] to report that it was only a small population of patients who got thrombolysis beforehand in either group because you would expect that maybe people in the group that took longer to have a thrombectomy got some thrombolysis beforehand and that perhaps they were more stable, but it seems like thrombectomy was the first-line treatment in both groups.”

The FLASH Registry is funded by Inari Medical. Patel and Glazman-Kuczaj reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who also present with interstitial lung disease (ILD) have worse outcomes with respect to in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital cost, and all-cause readmission, according to results from a new retrospective analysis.

“There’s a lot of evidence now that demonstrates that ILD, in general, leads to worse mortality, morbidity in hospital complications, and overall [outcomes]. It’s not hard to extrapolate this to pulmonary embolism outcomes, too. Unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot of evidence out there to really demonstrate it,” Leah Yuan, MD, said during a presentation of the results at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The question is complicated by the nebulous nature of ILD, which includes a diverse set of diseases and etiologies, and different levels of inflammation and fibrosis. It has been employed in the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index but counts for only 10 points out of 210. “If you look at ILD and PE outcomes, there’s nothing really out there [in the literature],” Yuan said in an interview. She is a resident physician at Cook County Health and Hospitals System.

The new study suggested that ILD could have an important influence and perhaps should have greater weight in risk stratification of patients with PE, she said. “We looked at all-cause readmissions and we looked at in-hospital mortality, [both] of which are significant for increased odds ratio. One thing that I’m very curious to see is whether there is increased PE readmissions [associated with ILD], which is something that we couldn’t find to be significant in our study,” said Yuan.

The researchers used data from hospitalizations for PE drawn from the Nationwide Readmissions Database in 2019, using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes to identify admissions. Among a total of 105,133 patients admitted for PE, 158 patients also had ILD. The mean age was 63.6 years for those without ILD (SD, 0.1) and 66.5 years for those with ILD (SD, 1.3).

Admission with ILD was associated with all-cause readmission (odds ratio [OR], 4.12; P < .01), in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.17; P = .01), a longer length of stay (+2.07 days; P < .01), and higher hospitalization charges (+$22,627; P < .01).

In the Q&A period after the presentation, Parth Rali, MD, professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at Temple University, Philadelphia, suggested phenotyping patients to better understand the location of the PE in relation to the ILD. “It may not fall into your classic PE classification. It may just depend on where the clot is in relationship to the interstitial lung disease. I think that’s where the field is going to evolve,” he later said in an interview.

“What is interesting is that patients with interstitial lung disease have a lot of fibrotic disease, and they do not need to have a large clot burden to make them sick. An example [is someone] who has undergone a lung transplant evaluation, and if their right lung is completely diseased from interstitial lung disease and if they get a big blood clot on the right side, it doesn’t affect them because the lung is already fibrotic, so the clot doesn’t matter. If they get a small clot [in the left lung], even though if you look at the standard PE classification they may qualify as a low-risk PE or even as an intermediate-low-risk PE, they are much sicker because that’s the functioning part of the lung,” said Rali.

He advised physicians to pay close attention to the location of PEs in relation to fibrotic tissue in patients with ILD. A PE in healthy lung tissue could have an outsized effect on hemodynamics, whereas a PE in fibrotic tissue may be clinically insignificant and not require treatment. “So it goes both ways: You don’t overtreat and you don’t undertreat,” Rali said.

Yuan and Rali disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who also present with interstitial lung disease (ILD) have worse outcomes with respect to in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital cost, and all-cause readmission, according to results from a new retrospective analysis.

“There’s a lot of evidence now that demonstrates that ILD, in general, leads to worse mortality, morbidity in hospital complications, and overall [outcomes]. It’s not hard to extrapolate this to pulmonary embolism outcomes, too. Unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot of evidence out there to really demonstrate it,” Leah Yuan, MD, said during a presentation of the results at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The question is complicated by the nebulous nature of ILD, which includes a diverse set of diseases and etiologies, and different levels of inflammation and fibrosis. It has been employed in the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index but counts for only 10 points out of 210. “If you look at ILD and PE outcomes, there’s nothing really out there [in the literature],” Yuan said in an interview. She is a resident physician at Cook County Health and Hospitals System.

The new study suggested that ILD could have an important influence and perhaps should have greater weight in risk stratification of patients with PE, she said. “We looked at all-cause readmissions and we looked at in-hospital mortality, [both] of which are significant for increased odds ratio. One thing that I’m very curious to see is whether there is increased PE readmissions [associated with ILD], which is something that we couldn’t find to be significant in our study,” said Yuan.

The researchers used data from hospitalizations for PE drawn from the Nationwide Readmissions Database in 2019, using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes to identify admissions. Among a total of 105,133 patients admitted for PE, 158 patients also had ILD. The mean age was 63.6 years for those without ILD (SD, 0.1) and 66.5 years for those with ILD (SD, 1.3).

Admission with ILD was associated with all-cause readmission (odds ratio [OR], 4.12; P < .01), in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.17; P = .01), a longer length of stay (+2.07 days; P < .01), and higher hospitalization charges (+$22,627; P < .01).

In the Q&A period after the presentation, Parth Rali, MD, professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at Temple University, Philadelphia, suggested phenotyping patients to better understand the location of the PE in relation to the ILD. “It may not fall into your classic PE classification. It may just depend on where the clot is in relationship to the interstitial lung disease. I think that’s where the field is going to evolve,” he later said in an interview.

“What is interesting is that patients with interstitial lung disease have a lot of fibrotic disease, and they do not need to have a large clot burden to make them sick. An example [is someone] who has undergone a lung transplant evaluation, and if their right lung is completely diseased from interstitial lung disease and if they get a big blood clot on the right side, it doesn’t affect them because the lung is already fibrotic, so the clot doesn’t matter. If they get a small clot [in the left lung], even though if you look at the standard PE classification they may qualify as a low-risk PE or even as an intermediate-low-risk PE, they are much sicker because that’s the functioning part of the lung,” said Rali.

He advised physicians to pay close attention to the location of PEs in relation to fibrotic tissue in patients with ILD. A PE in healthy lung tissue could have an outsized effect on hemodynamics, whereas a PE in fibrotic tissue may be clinically insignificant and not require treatment. “So it goes both ways: You don’t overtreat and you don’t undertreat,” Rali said.

Yuan and Rali disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) who also present with interstitial lung disease (ILD) have worse outcomes with respect to in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital cost, and all-cause readmission, according to results from a new retrospective analysis.

“There’s a lot of evidence now that demonstrates that ILD, in general, leads to worse mortality, morbidity in hospital complications, and overall [outcomes]. It’s not hard to extrapolate this to pulmonary embolism outcomes, too. Unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot of evidence out there to really demonstrate it,” Leah Yuan, MD, said during a presentation of the results at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The question is complicated by the nebulous nature of ILD, which includes a diverse set of diseases and etiologies, and different levels of inflammation and fibrosis. It has been employed in the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index but counts for only 10 points out of 210. “If you look at ILD and PE outcomes, there’s nothing really out there [in the literature],” Yuan said in an interview. She is a resident physician at Cook County Health and Hospitals System.

The new study suggested that ILD could have an important influence and perhaps should have greater weight in risk stratification of patients with PE, she said. “We looked at all-cause readmissions and we looked at in-hospital mortality, [both] of which are significant for increased odds ratio. One thing that I’m very curious to see is whether there is increased PE readmissions [associated with ILD], which is something that we couldn’t find to be significant in our study,” said Yuan.

The researchers used data from hospitalizations for PE drawn from the Nationwide Readmissions Database in 2019, using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes to identify admissions. Among a total of 105,133 patients admitted for PE, 158 patients also had ILD. The mean age was 63.6 years for those without ILD (SD, 0.1) and 66.5 years for those with ILD (SD, 1.3).

Admission with ILD was associated with all-cause readmission (odds ratio [OR], 4.12; P < .01), in-hospital mortality (OR, 2.17; P = .01), a longer length of stay (+2.07 days; P < .01), and higher hospitalization charges (+$22,627; P < .01).

In the Q&A period after the presentation, Parth Rali, MD, professor of thoracic medicine and surgery at Temple University, Philadelphia, suggested phenotyping patients to better understand the location of the PE in relation to the ILD. “It may not fall into your classic PE classification. It may just depend on where the clot is in relationship to the interstitial lung disease. I think that’s where the field is going to evolve,” he later said in an interview.

“What is interesting is that patients with interstitial lung disease have a lot of fibrotic disease, and they do not need to have a large clot burden to make them sick. An example [is someone] who has undergone a lung transplant evaluation, and if their right lung is completely diseased from interstitial lung disease and if they get a big blood clot on the right side, it doesn’t affect them because the lung is already fibrotic, so the clot doesn’t matter. If they get a small clot [in the left lung], even though if you look at the standard PE classification they may qualify as a low-risk PE or even as an intermediate-low-risk PE, they are much sicker because that’s the functioning part of the lung,” said Rali.

He advised physicians to pay close attention to the location of PEs in relation to fibrotic tissue in patients with ILD. A PE in healthy lung tissue could have an outsized effect on hemodynamics, whereas a PE in fibrotic tissue may be clinically insignificant and not require treatment. “So it goes both ways: You don’t overtreat and you don’t undertreat,” Rali said.

Yuan and Rali disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is associated with reduced short- and long-term mortality among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), according to results from a new propensity score–matched analysis.

“There are a lot of new studies that show benefits [of SGLT2 inhibitors] in heart failure, in [chronic kidney disease], and of course, in diabetes. Group one pulmonary hypertension includes not only the inflammatory cascades but also fibrotic and neurovascularization, and all these different parts of the pathophysiology are linked to each other. There are studies that show that SGLT2 inhibitors can have an impact on inflammatory cascades, fibrosis, and vascular remodeling in general. Together, all this data triggered this idea for me, and that’s when I decided to conduct further studies,” said Irakli Lemonjava, MD, who presented the study at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The researchers drew data on 125,634 adult patients from the TriNetX database who were diagnosed with PAH after January 1, 2013. They used propensity score matching to account for demographic characteristics and 10 organ system disorders to compare patients with exposure to SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin; n = 6238) with those without such exposure (n = 6243).

At 1 year, 8.1% of patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors had died, compared with 15.5% of patients not taking SGLT2 inhibitors (risk reduction [RR], 0.52; P < .0001). The values were 13% and 22.5% (RR, 0.579; P < .0001) at 3 years and 14.6% and 25% at 5 years (RR, 0.583; P < .0001).

The study generated discussion during the Q&A period following the talk. One audience member asked if the group was able to access patients both inside and outside the United States. “Because I wonder if access to GLP2 inhibitors is actually a surrogate marker for access to other medications,” the questioner said.

Although the finding is intriguing, it shouldn’t change clinical practice, according to Lemonjava. “I don’t think we can make any changes based on what I shared today. Our purpose was to trigger the question. I think the numbers are so impressive that it will trigger more studies. I think if in the future it’s demonstrated by clinical trials that [SGLT2 inhibitors are beneficial], it will not be a problem to prescribe for someone with pulmonary arterial hypertension because they do not have many side effects,” he said. Lemonjava is a resident physician at Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital, Philadelphia.

Session co-moderator said Syed Rehan Quadery, MD, praised the study but emphasized the remaining uncertainty. “It’s an excellent proof of concept study. More trials need to [be done] on it, and we don’t understand the mechanism of action in which it improves survival in patients with pulmonary artery hypertension. The majority of the patients with pulmonary hypertension are much older and they have comorbidities, including cardiovascular risk factors, and maybe that is one of the ways in which this drug helps. Plus, there are multiple mechanisms in which it may be working, including anti-inflammatory as well as antiproliferative mechanisms through inhibiting the Notch-3 signaling pathway,” said Quadery, who is a consultant respiratory physician at National Pulmonary Hypertension Unit, Dublin, Ireland.

Quadery and his co-moderator Zeenat Safdar, MD, both noted that SGLT2 inhibitors have already been demonstrated to improve outcomes in heart failure. “[SGLT2 inhibition] improves survival, it decreases hospitalization, it improves morbidity and mortality. There are a lot of things that can be shown in different [animal or in vitro] models. In humans, we actually don’t know exactly how it works, but we know that it does. If it works in left heart failure, it also [could] work in right heart failure,” said Safdar, who is the director of the Houston Methodist Lung Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston.

The study was independently supported. Lemonjava, Quadery, and Safdar reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is associated with reduced short- and long-term mortality among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), according to results from a new propensity score–matched analysis.

“There are a lot of new studies that show benefits [of SGLT2 inhibitors] in heart failure, in [chronic kidney disease], and of course, in diabetes. Group one pulmonary hypertension includes not only the inflammatory cascades but also fibrotic and neurovascularization, and all these different parts of the pathophysiology are linked to each other. There are studies that show that SGLT2 inhibitors can have an impact on inflammatory cascades, fibrosis, and vascular remodeling in general. Together, all this data triggered this idea for me, and that’s when I decided to conduct further studies,” said Irakli Lemonjava, MD, who presented the study at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The researchers drew data on 125,634 adult patients from the TriNetX database who were diagnosed with PAH after January 1, 2013. They used propensity score matching to account for demographic characteristics and 10 organ system disorders to compare patients with exposure to SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin; n = 6238) with those without such exposure (n = 6243).

At 1 year, 8.1% of patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors had died, compared with 15.5% of patients not taking SGLT2 inhibitors (risk reduction [RR], 0.52; P < .0001). The values were 13% and 22.5% (RR, 0.579; P < .0001) at 3 years and 14.6% and 25% at 5 years (RR, 0.583; P < .0001).

The study generated discussion during the Q&A period following the talk. One audience member asked if the group was able to access patients both inside and outside the United States. “Because I wonder if access to GLP2 inhibitors is actually a surrogate marker for access to other medications,” the questioner said.

Although the finding is intriguing, it shouldn’t change clinical practice, according to Lemonjava. “I don’t think we can make any changes based on what I shared today. Our purpose was to trigger the question. I think the numbers are so impressive that it will trigger more studies. I think if in the future it’s demonstrated by clinical trials that [SGLT2 inhibitors are beneficial], it will not be a problem to prescribe for someone with pulmonary arterial hypertension because they do not have many side effects,” he said. Lemonjava is a resident physician at Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital, Philadelphia.

Session co-moderator said Syed Rehan Quadery, MD, praised the study but emphasized the remaining uncertainty. “It’s an excellent proof of concept study. More trials need to [be done] on it, and we don’t understand the mechanism of action in which it improves survival in patients with pulmonary artery hypertension. The majority of the patients with pulmonary hypertension are much older and they have comorbidities, including cardiovascular risk factors, and maybe that is one of the ways in which this drug helps. Plus, there are multiple mechanisms in which it may be working, including anti-inflammatory as well as antiproliferative mechanisms through inhibiting the Notch-3 signaling pathway,” said Quadery, who is a consultant respiratory physician at National Pulmonary Hypertension Unit, Dublin, Ireland.

Quadery and his co-moderator Zeenat Safdar, MD, both noted that SGLT2 inhibitors have already been demonstrated to improve outcomes in heart failure. “[SGLT2 inhibition] improves survival, it decreases hospitalization, it improves morbidity and mortality. There are a lot of things that can be shown in different [animal or in vitro] models. In humans, we actually don’t know exactly how it works, but we know that it does. If it works in left heart failure, it also [could] work in right heart failure,” said Safdar, who is the director of the Houston Methodist Lung Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston.

The study was independently supported. Lemonjava, Quadery, and Safdar reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is associated with reduced short- and long-term mortality among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), according to results from a new propensity score–matched analysis.

“There are a lot of new studies that show benefits [of SGLT2 inhibitors] in heart failure, in [chronic kidney disease], and of course, in diabetes. Group one pulmonary hypertension includes not only the inflammatory cascades but also fibrotic and neurovascularization, and all these different parts of the pathophysiology are linked to each other. There are studies that show that SGLT2 inhibitors can have an impact on inflammatory cascades, fibrosis, and vascular remodeling in general. Together, all this data triggered this idea for me, and that’s when I decided to conduct further studies,” said Irakli Lemonjava, MD, who presented the study at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The researchers drew data on 125,634 adult patients from the TriNetX database who were diagnosed with PAH after January 1, 2013. They used propensity score matching to account for demographic characteristics and 10 organ system disorders to compare patients with exposure to SGLT2 inhibitors (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin; n = 6238) with those without such exposure (n = 6243).

At 1 year, 8.1% of patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors had died, compared with 15.5% of patients not taking SGLT2 inhibitors (risk reduction [RR], 0.52; P < .0001). The values were 13% and 22.5% (RR, 0.579; P < .0001) at 3 years and 14.6% and 25% at 5 years (RR, 0.583; P < .0001).

The study generated discussion during the Q&A period following the talk. One audience member asked if the group was able to access patients both inside and outside the United States. “Because I wonder if access to GLP2 inhibitors is actually a surrogate marker for access to other medications,” the questioner said.

Although the finding is intriguing, it shouldn’t change clinical practice, according to Lemonjava. “I don’t think we can make any changes based on what I shared today. Our purpose was to trigger the question. I think the numbers are so impressive that it will trigger more studies. I think if in the future it’s demonstrated by clinical trials that [SGLT2 inhibitors are beneficial], it will not be a problem to prescribe for someone with pulmonary arterial hypertension because they do not have many side effects,” he said. Lemonjava is a resident physician at Jefferson Einstein Philadelphia Hospital, Philadelphia.

Session co-moderator said Syed Rehan Quadery, MD, praised the study but emphasized the remaining uncertainty. “It’s an excellent proof of concept study. More trials need to [be done] on it, and we don’t understand the mechanism of action in which it improves survival in patients with pulmonary artery hypertension. The majority of the patients with pulmonary hypertension are much older and they have comorbidities, including cardiovascular risk factors, and maybe that is one of the ways in which this drug helps. Plus, there are multiple mechanisms in which it may be working, including anti-inflammatory as well as antiproliferative mechanisms through inhibiting the Notch-3 signaling pathway,” said Quadery, who is a consultant respiratory physician at National Pulmonary Hypertension Unit, Dublin, Ireland.

Quadery and his co-moderator Zeenat Safdar, MD, both noted that SGLT2 inhibitors have already been demonstrated to improve outcomes in heart failure. “[SGLT2 inhibition] improves survival, it decreases hospitalization, it improves morbidity and mortality. There are a lot of things that can be shown in different [animal or in vitro] models. In humans, we actually don’t know exactly how it works, but we know that it does. If it works in left heart failure, it also [could] work in right heart failure,” said Safdar, who is the director of the Houston Methodist Lung Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston.

The study was independently supported. Lemonjava, Quadery, and Safdar reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.