Richard Kirkner

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the share of the U.S. adult population reporting symptoms of elevated depression had more than tripled from prepandemic levels and worsened significantly since restrictions went into effect, a study of more than 1,000 adults surveyed at the start of the pandemic and 1 year into it has reported.

The study also found that younger adults, people with lower incomes and savings, unmarried people, and those exposed to multiple stress factors were most vulnerable to elevated levels of depression through the first year of the pandemic.

“The pandemic has been an ongoing exposure,” lead author Catherine K. Ettman, a PhD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview. “Mental health is sensitive to economic and social conditions. While living conditions have improved for some people over the last 12 months, the pandemic has been disruptive to life and economic well-being for many,” said Ms. Ettman, who is also chief of staff and director of strategic initiatives in the office of the dean at Boston University. Her study was published in Lancet Regional Health – Americas.

Ms. Ettman and coauthors reported that 32.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.1%-36.8%) of surveyed adults had elevated depressive symptoms in 2021, compared with 27.8% (95% CI, 24.9%-30.9%) in the early months of the pandemic in 2020 (P = .0016). That compares with a rate of 8.5% before the pandemic, a figure based on a prepandemic sample of 5,065 patients from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reported previously by Ms. Ettman and associates.

“The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences have displaced social networks, created ongoing stressors, and reduced access to the resources that protect mental health,” Ms. Ettman said.
 

Four groups most affected

In this latest research, a longitudinal panel study of a nationally representative group of U.S. adults, the researchers surveyed participants in March and April 2020 (n = 1,414) and the same group again in March and April 2021 (n = 1,161). The participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and were enrolled in the COVID-19 and Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-Being study.

The study found that elevated depressive symptoms were most prevalent in four groups:

• Younger patients, with 43.9% of patients aged 18-39 years self-reporting elevated depressive symptoms, compared with 32.4% of those aged 40-59, and 19.1% of patients aged 60 and older.
• People with lower incomes, with 58.1% of people making $19,999 or less reporting elevated symptoms, compared with 41.3% of those making $20,000-$44,999, 31.4% of people making $45,000-$74,999, and 14.1% of those making $75,000 or more.
• People with less than $5,000 in family savings, with a rate of 51.1%, compared with 24.2% of those with more than that.
• People never married, with a rate of 39.8% versus 37.7% of those living with a partner; 31.5% widowed, divorced, or separated; and 18.3% married.

The study also found correlations between the number of self-reported stressors and elevated depression symptoms: a rate of 51.1% in people with four or more stressors; 25.8% in those with two or three stressors; and 17% in people with one or no stressors.

Among the groups reporting the lowest rates of depressive symptoms in 2021 were people making more than $75,000 a year; those with one or no COVID-19 stressors; and non-Hispanic Asian persons.

“Stressors such as difficulties finding childcare, difficulties paying for housing, and job loss were associated with greater depression 12 months into the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Ettman said. “Efforts to address stressors and improve access to childcare, housing, employment, and fair wages can improve mental health.”

The duration of the pandemic is another explanation for the significant rise in depressive symptoms, senior author Sandro Galea, MD, MPH, DrPH, said in an interview. “The COVID-19 pandemic is different from other traumatic events in its ongoing length, in its widespread reach, and in its inequities,” Dr. Galea added. “Unlike acute traumatic events, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing.”

He said clinicians, public health officials, and policy makers need to be aware of the impact COVID-19 has had on mental health. “We can take steps as a society to treat and prevent depression and create conditions that allow all populations to be healthy,” said Dr. Galea, who is dean and a professor of family medicine at Boston University.
 

Age of sample cited as limitation

The study builds on existing evidence linking depression trends and the COVID-19 pandemic, David Puder, MD, a medical director at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said in an interview. However, he noted it had some limitations. “The age range is only 18 and older, so we don’t get to see what is happening with a highly impacted group of students who have not been able to go to school and be with their friends during COVID,” said Dr. Puder, who also hosts the podcast “Psychiatry & Psychotherapy.” “Further, the PHQ-9 is often a screening tool for depression and is not best used for changes in mental health over time.”

At the same time, Dr. Puder said, one of the study’s strengths was that it showed how depressive symptoms increased during the COVID lockdown. “It shows certain groups are at higher risk, including those with less financial resources and those with higher amounts of stress,” Dr. Puder said.

Ms. Ettman, Dr. Galea, and Dr. Puder reported no relevant disclosures.

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the share of the U.S. adult population reporting symptoms of elevated depression had more than tripled from prepandemic levels and worsened significantly since restrictions went into effect, a study of more than 1,000 adults surveyed at the start of the pandemic and 1 year into it has reported.

The study also found that younger adults, people with lower incomes and savings, unmarried people, and those exposed to multiple stress factors were most vulnerable to elevated levels of depression through the first year of the pandemic.

“The pandemic has been an ongoing exposure,” lead author Catherine K. Ettman, a PhD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview. “Mental health is sensitive to economic and social conditions. While living conditions have improved for some people over the last 12 months, the pandemic has been disruptive to life and economic well-being for many,” said Ms. Ettman, who is also chief of staff and director of strategic initiatives in the office of the dean at Boston University. Her study was published in Lancet Regional Health – Americas.

Ms. Ettman and coauthors reported that 32.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.1%-36.8%) of surveyed adults had elevated depressive symptoms in 2021, compared with 27.8% (95% CI, 24.9%-30.9%) in the early months of the pandemic in 2020 (P = .0016). That compares with a rate of 8.5% before the pandemic, a figure based on a prepandemic sample of 5,065 patients from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reported previously by Ms. Ettman and associates.

“The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences have displaced social networks, created ongoing stressors, and reduced access to the resources that protect mental health,” Ms. Ettman said.
 

Four groups most affected

In this latest research, a longitudinal panel study of a nationally representative group of U.S. adults, the researchers surveyed participants in March and April 2020 (n = 1,414) and the same group again in March and April 2021 (n = 1,161). The participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and were enrolled in the COVID-19 and Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-Being study.

The study found that elevated depressive symptoms were most prevalent in four groups:

• Younger patients, with 43.9% of patients aged 18-39 years self-reporting elevated depressive symptoms, compared with 32.4% of those aged 40-59, and 19.1% of patients aged 60 and older.
• People with lower incomes, with 58.1% of people making $19,999 or less reporting elevated symptoms, compared with 41.3% of those making $20,000-$44,999, 31.4% of people making $45,000-$74,999, and 14.1% of those making $75,000 or more.
• People with less than $5,000 in family savings, with a rate of 51.1%, compared with 24.2% of those with more than that.
• People never married, with a rate of 39.8% versus 37.7% of those living with a partner; 31.5% widowed, divorced, or separated; and 18.3% married.

The study also found correlations between the number of self-reported stressors and elevated depression symptoms: a rate of 51.1% in people with four or more stressors; 25.8% in those with two or three stressors; and 17% in people with one or no stressors.

Among the groups reporting the lowest rates of depressive symptoms in 2021 were people making more than $75,000 a year; those with one or no COVID-19 stressors; and non-Hispanic Asian persons.

“Stressors such as difficulties finding childcare, difficulties paying for housing, and job loss were associated with greater depression 12 months into the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Ettman said. “Efforts to address stressors and improve access to childcare, housing, employment, and fair wages can improve mental health.”

The duration of the pandemic is another explanation for the significant rise in depressive symptoms, senior author Sandro Galea, MD, MPH, DrPH, said in an interview. “The COVID-19 pandemic is different from other traumatic events in its ongoing length, in its widespread reach, and in its inequities,” Dr. Galea added. “Unlike acute traumatic events, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing.”

He said clinicians, public health officials, and policy makers need to be aware of the impact COVID-19 has had on mental health. “We can take steps as a society to treat and prevent depression and create conditions that allow all populations to be healthy,” said Dr. Galea, who is dean and a professor of family medicine at Boston University.
 

Age of sample cited as limitation

The study builds on existing evidence linking depression trends and the COVID-19 pandemic, David Puder, MD, a medical director at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said in an interview. However, he noted it had some limitations. “The age range is only 18 and older, so we don’t get to see what is happening with a highly impacted group of students who have not been able to go to school and be with their friends during COVID,” said Dr. Puder, who also hosts the podcast “Psychiatry & Psychotherapy.” “Further, the PHQ-9 is often a screening tool for depression and is not best used for changes in mental health over time.”

At the same time, Dr. Puder said, one of the study’s strengths was that it showed how depressive symptoms increased during the COVID lockdown. “It shows certain groups are at higher risk, including those with less financial resources and those with higher amounts of stress,” Dr. Puder said.

Ms. Ettman, Dr. Galea, and Dr. Puder reported no relevant disclosures.

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic, the share of the U.S. adult population reporting symptoms of elevated depression had more than tripled from prepandemic levels and worsened significantly since restrictions went into effect, a study of more than 1,000 adults surveyed at the start of the pandemic and 1 year into it has reported.

The study also found that younger adults, people with lower incomes and savings, unmarried people, and those exposed to multiple stress factors were most vulnerable to elevated levels of depression through the first year of the pandemic.

“The pandemic has been an ongoing exposure,” lead author Catherine K. Ettman, a PhD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview. “Mental health is sensitive to economic and social conditions. While living conditions have improved for some people over the last 12 months, the pandemic has been disruptive to life and economic well-being for many,” said Ms. Ettman, who is also chief of staff and director of strategic initiatives in the office of the dean at Boston University. Her study was published in Lancet Regional Health – Americas.

Ms. Ettman and coauthors reported that 32.8% (95% confidence interval, 29.1%-36.8%) of surveyed adults had elevated depressive symptoms in 2021, compared with 27.8% (95% CI, 24.9%-30.9%) in the early months of the pandemic in 2020 (P = .0016). That compares with a rate of 8.5% before the pandemic, a figure based on a prepandemic sample of 5,065 patients from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey reported previously by Ms. Ettman and associates.

“The COVID-19 pandemic and its economic consequences have displaced social networks, created ongoing stressors, and reduced access to the resources that protect mental health,” Ms. Ettman said.
 

Four groups most affected

In this latest research, a longitudinal panel study of a nationally representative group of U.S. adults, the researchers surveyed participants in March and April 2020 (n = 1,414) and the same group again in March and April 2021 (n = 1,161). The participants completed the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and were enrolled in the COVID-19 and Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well-Being study.

The study found that elevated depressive symptoms were most prevalent in four groups:

• Younger patients, with 43.9% of patients aged 18-39 years self-reporting elevated depressive symptoms, compared with 32.4% of those aged 40-59, and 19.1% of patients aged 60 and older.
• People with lower incomes, with 58.1% of people making $19,999 or less reporting elevated symptoms, compared with 41.3% of those making $20,000-$44,999, 31.4% of people making $45,000-$74,999, and 14.1% of those making $75,000 or more.
• People with less than $5,000 in family savings, with a rate of 51.1%, compared with 24.2% of those with more than that.
• People never married, with a rate of 39.8% versus 37.7% of those living with a partner; 31.5% widowed, divorced, or separated; and 18.3% married.

The study also found correlations between the number of self-reported stressors and elevated depression symptoms: a rate of 51.1% in people with four or more stressors; 25.8% in those with two or three stressors; and 17% in people with one or no stressors.

Among the groups reporting the lowest rates of depressive symptoms in 2021 were people making more than $75,000 a year; those with one or no COVID-19 stressors; and non-Hispanic Asian persons.

“Stressors such as difficulties finding childcare, difficulties paying for housing, and job loss were associated with greater depression 12 months into the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Ettman said. “Efforts to address stressors and improve access to childcare, housing, employment, and fair wages can improve mental health.”

The duration of the pandemic is another explanation for the significant rise in depressive symptoms, senior author Sandro Galea, MD, MPH, DrPH, said in an interview. “The COVID-19 pandemic is different from other traumatic events in its ongoing length, in its widespread reach, and in its inequities,” Dr. Galea added. “Unlike acute traumatic events, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing.”

He said clinicians, public health officials, and policy makers need to be aware of the impact COVID-19 has had on mental health. “We can take steps as a society to treat and prevent depression and create conditions that allow all populations to be healthy,” said Dr. Galea, who is dean and a professor of family medicine at Boston University.
 

Age of sample cited as limitation

The study builds on existing evidence linking depression trends and the COVID-19 pandemic, David Puder, MD, a medical director at Loma Linda (Calif.) University, said in an interview. However, he noted it had some limitations. “The age range is only 18 and older, so we don’t get to see what is happening with a highly impacted group of students who have not been able to go to school and be with their friends during COVID,” said Dr. Puder, who also hosts the podcast “Psychiatry & Psychotherapy.” “Further, the PHQ-9 is often a screening tool for depression and is not best used for changes in mental health over time.”

At the same time, Dr. Puder said, one of the study’s strengths was that it showed how depressive symptoms increased during the COVID lockdown. “It shows certain groups are at higher risk, including those with less financial resources and those with higher amounts of stress,” Dr. Puder said.

Ms. Ettman, Dr. Galea, and Dr. Puder reported no relevant disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

Two important lessons about managing patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and COVID-19 have emerged from a hospital clinic in Madrid that managed COVID-infected patients with MS through the peak of the pandemic: Combined polymeric chain reaction and serology testing helped avoid disease reactivation in asymptomatic carriers during the pandemic peak, although after the peak PCR alone proved just as effective; and infected MS patients could stay on their MS medications while being treated for COVID-19, as fewer than one in five required hospitalization.

Virginia Meca-Lallana, MD, a neurologist and coordinator of the demyelinating diseases unit at the Hospital of the University of the Princess in Madrid, and colleagues presented their findings in two posters at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis-Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“MS treatments don’t seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said in an interview. “MS treatments prevent the patients’ disability, and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

The results arose from a multidisciplinary safety protocol involving neurology, microbiology, and preventive medicine that the University of Princess physicians developed to keep MS stable in patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2.

The researchers obtained 152 PCR nasopharyngeal swabs and 140 serology tests in 90 patients with MS over 3 months before starting a variety of MS treatments: Natalizumab (96 tests), ocrelizumab (36), rituximab (3), methylprednisolone (7), cladribine (4), and dimethyl fumarate (3). The protocol identified 7 asymptomatic carriers—7.8% of the total population—5 of whom had positive immunoglobulin M and G serology. The study also confirmed 5 patients with positive IgM+IgG serology post-infection, but no COVID-19 reactivations were detected after implementation of the protocol.

“The safety protocol reached its objective of avoiding disease reactivation and clinical activation in asymptomatic carriers,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said.

The second poster she presented reported on the real-world experience with SARS-CoV-2 in the MS unit at her hospital. The observational, prospective study included 41 cases, 38 of which were relapsing-remitting MS and the remainder progressive MS. The patients had MS for an average of 9 years.

“We need more patients to draw more robust conclusions, but in our patients, MS treatments seem safe in this situation,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “We did not discontinue treatments, and after our first results, we only delayed treatments in patients with any additional comorbidity or when coming to the hospital was not safe.”

A total of 39 patients were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs): 46.3% with oral agents, 39% with monoclonal antibodies, and 10% with injectable agents; 27 patients were previously treated with other DMTs. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was 2.5, and 11 patients had clinical activity the previous year. Eighteen cases were confirmed by PCR or serology, or both, and 23 were diagnosed clinically.

Among the patients with MS and COVID-19, 17% were admitted to the hospital. Six patients had pneumonia, but none required admission to the intensive care unit, and no deaths occurred. Three patients had other comorbidities. Admitted patients tended to be older and had higher EDSS scores, although the difference was not statistically significant. MS worsened in 7 patients, and 10 patients stopped or paused DMTs because of the infection.

“Multiple sclerosis is a weakening illness,” Dr. Meca-Lallana said. “MS treatments do not seem to make the prognosis of COVID-19 worse, but it is very important to evaluate other risk factors.”

The SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to result in a more aggressive form of the disease in MS patients, and selective immunosuppression may improve their outcomes, she noted.

“MS treatments avoid the patient’s disability,” the investigator added, “and it is very important not to stop them if it isn’t necessary.”

Dr. Meca-Lallana had no relevant financial disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Treating patients to a lower LDL target after an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin resulted in fewer recurrent strokes or major cardiovascular events, compared with a higher LDL goal, even though the international trial was stopped early because of lack of funding.

“In the Treat Stroke to Target [TST] trial we showed that the group of patients with an atherosclerotic stroke achieving an LDL cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL had 22% less recurrent ischemic stroke or other major vascular events than the group achieving a LDL cholesterol between 90 and 110 mg/dL,” lead author Pierre Amarenco, MD, chairman of the department of neurology and the stroke center at Bichat Hospital in Paris, said in an interview.

“We avoided more than one in recurrence in five,” he added.

The findings of the investigator-initiated trial were reported during a late-breaking research session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online Nov. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910355).

Discussant Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association, called the TST findings “practice confirming” of a strategy many cardiologists already follow for stroke patients.

“The TST study is only the second trial that was done in neurology for stroke prevention using statins and lipid-lowering therapy, and that’s what makes it a hopeful and real advance,” he said in an interview.

To achieve the LDL-lowering goal, two-thirds of patients received a high-dose statin therapy while the remainder received both high-dose statin and ezetimibe (Zetia, Merck). There were no significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage observed between lower- and higher-target groups.

“Now guidelines should move to recommending a target LDL cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL in all patients with a proven ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin,” said Dr. Amarenco, who is also a professor of neurology at Denis Diderot Paris University.

Rare lipid study following stroke

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines recommend intense statin therapy after an atherothrombotic stroke “but no target level is given to the practitioners,” Dr. Amarenco said. “In reality, most patients receive a reduced dose of statin.”

For example, despite 70% of patients receiving a statin, the average LDL cholesterol level was 92 mg/dL in a real-world registry.

The TST trial is the first major study to evaluate treating to target LDL levels in the ischemic stroke population since the SPARCL trial in 2006. SPARCL was the first randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate whether daily statin therapy could reduce the risk of stroke in patients who had suffered a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).

SPARCL demonstrated a 16% risk reduction with atorvastatin 80 mg daily versus placebo, and further risk reduction of 33% among those with carotid stenosis, over 5 years. There was some concern about safety for a time; post-hoc analysis showed what appeared to be an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage with statin treatment. Subsequent analyses seemed to suggest the finding may have been a chance one, however.

For the TST study, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues enrolled participants between March 2010 and December 2018 at one of 61 centers in France. In 2015, the study expanded to include 16 sites in South Korea.

Investigators evaluated participants after an ischemic stroke or a TIA with evidence of atherosclerosis. Blood pressure, smoking cessation, and diabetes were well controlled, he said.

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,430 participants to the low–LDL cholesterol target group, less than 70 mg/dL, and another 1,430 to a high-LDL group with a target of 100 mg/dL.

Assessments were every 6 months and up to 1 year after the last patient joined the study.

Treatment with any available statin on the market was allowed. Ezetimibe could be added on top of statin therapy as necessary. A total of 55% were statin naive at study entry.

Study stopped early

The trial was stopped in May 2019 after allocated funds ran out. At this point, researchers had 277 events to analyze, although their initial goal was to reach 385.

The primary endpoint of this event-driven trial was a composite of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal MI, and unstable angina followed by urgent coronary revascularization; TIA followed by urgent carotid revascularization; or cardiovascular death, including sudden deaths.

The endpoint was experienced by 8.5% of participants in the lower-target group versus 10.9% of those in the higher-target group. This translated to a 22% relative risk reduction (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.98; P =.04).

A total of 86% of participants had an ischemic stroke confirmed by brain MRI or CT scan. In this group, the relative risk reduction was 33% – “meaning that we could avoid one-third of recurrent major vascular events,” Dr. Amarenco said.

Furthermore, targeting the lower LDL levels was associated with a relative risk reduction of 40% among those with diabetes.

Secondary outcomes not significant

The investigators used hierarchical testing to compare two outcomes at a time in a prespecified order. They planned to continue this strategy until a comparison emerged as nonsignificant.

This occurred right away when their first composite secondary endpoint comparison between nonfatal MI and urgent revascularization was found to be not significantly different between groups (P = .12).

The early ending “weakened the results of the trial, and the results should be taken with caution because of that,” Dr. Amarenco said.

In addition, the number of hemorrhagic strokes did not differ significantly between groups. There were 18 of these events in the lower-target group and 13 in the higher-target cohort.

That numerical increase in intracranial hemorrhage was “driven by the Korean patients. … and that is something we will report soon,” Dr. Amarenco said.

Interestingly, the researchers also evaluated how much time participants spent within the target LDL cholesterol range, averaged by study site. They found that 53% of the lower–LDL target group, for example, was in the therapeutic range on average during the study.

When Dr. Amarenco and colleagues looked at participants who managed to spend 50%-100% in the target range, the relative risk reduction was 36%.

“So we can hypothesize that, if we had used a more potent drug like PCSK9 inhibitors to be closer to 100% in the therapeutic range, we may have had a greater effect size,” Dr. Amarenco said.

“Our results suggest that LDL cholesterol is causally related to atherosclerosis and confirm that the lower the LDL cholesterol the better,” Dr. Amarenco said.

“Future trials should explore the efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol to very low levels such as less than 55 mg/dL or even 30 mg/dL (as obtained in the FOURIER trial) by using PCSK9 inhibitors or equivalent in patients with an ischemic stroke due to atherosclerotic disease,” Dr. Amarenco said.

‘Practice-confirming’ findings

The findings are also in line with secondary analyses of the WASID (Neurology. 1995 Aug;45[8]:1488-93) and SAMMPRIS trials, which should dispel some concerns that persist about taking LDL to such low levels that it increases risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, Dr. Amarenco noted.

However, TST, he said, didn’t provide clear answers on what specific subgroups of patients with a stroke history would benefit from aggressive lipid lowering.

“What is stroke without atherosclerotic disease?” he said. “Some people say small-vessel disease is also a form of atherosclerosis, and most patients with atrial fibrillation, which is increasingly recognized as a cause of stroke, are also going to have atherosclerosis of the heart as well as the brain and blood vessels.

“Many, many stroke patients will fall into this category,” Dr. Elkind said, “and the question is, should they be treated more aggressively with lipid lowering?”

“The results of this study fit pretty nicely into the rubric of the AHA cholesterol guidelines,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, chairman, department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and chair of the AHA’s 2019 Council on Scientific Sessions Programming. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was also a member of the guideline committee.

Stroke patients are not “garden variety coronary patients,” he said. “The concern about intracerebral hemorrhage continues to be something that we wonder about: Should we be driving our stroke patients as low as our coronary patients? I think these data will certainly help us.”

Consideration for future guidelines

The study would have been more helpful if it provided more detail about the treatment regimens used, Jennifer Robinson, MD, director of the prevention intervention center, department of epidemiology, University of Iowa, said in an interview.

“What was the dose intensity of statins the patients were on?” Dr. Robinson said. “Part of our struggle has been to convince people to use high-intensity statins – get the maximum from statins that are generic now and cost saving in even very low-risk primary prevention patients.”

She said that a third of patients in TST also took ezetimibe with the statin “makes sense” because of its generic status.

Nonetheless, Dr. Robinson said, TST adds to the evidence that LDL of 100 mg/dL is not good enough, that high-intensity statin therapy is superior to a moderate regimen and that adding a nonstatin – ezetimibe in TST – can derive added benefit.

The TST findings may give guideline writers direction going forward, she said. “We really need to start thinking about the potential for net benefit from added therapy, whether it’s from intensifying LDL lowering, adding icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), which seems to have remarkable benefits, or SGLT2 inhibitor,” she said.

“There are a lot of options,” Dr. Robinson said. “We need to have an outlook beyond just treating to target with what really is the best maximized accepted therapy.”

TST was funded primarily by French Government, but also with grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Merck. Dr. Amarenco disclosed that he is a consultant or advisor to Modest, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Amgen; receives honoraria from Modest, Amgen, Kowa, Shing Poon, Kowa, Bayer, GSK, Fibrogen, and AstraZeneca. He also receives research grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, BMS, Merck, Boston Scientific, and the French Government.

This article also appears on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Amarenco P. ACC 2019, Late Breaking Science 6 session.

PHILADELPHIA – Treating patients to a lower LDL target after an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin resulted in fewer recurrent strokes or major cardiovascular events, compared with a higher LDL goal, even though the international trial was stopped early because of lack of funding.

“In the Treat Stroke to Target [TST] trial we showed that the group of patients with an atherosclerotic stroke achieving an LDL cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL had 22% less recurrent ischemic stroke or other major vascular events than the group achieving a LDL cholesterol between 90 and 110 mg/dL,” lead author Pierre Amarenco, MD, chairman of the department of neurology and the stroke center at Bichat Hospital in Paris, said in an interview.

“We avoided more than one in recurrence in five,” he added.

The findings of the investigator-initiated trial were reported during a late-breaking research session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online Nov. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910355).

Discussant Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association, called the TST findings “practice confirming” of a strategy many cardiologists already follow for stroke patients.

“The TST study is only the second trial that was done in neurology for stroke prevention using statins and lipid-lowering therapy, and that’s what makes it a hopeful and real advance,” he said in an interview.

To achieve the LDL-lowering goal, two-thirds of patients received a high-dose statin therapy while the remainder received both high-dose statin and ezetimibe (Zetia, Merck). There were no significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage observed between lower- and higher-target groups.

“Now guidelines should move to recommending a target LDL cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL in all patients with a proven ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin,” said Dr. Amarenco, who is also a professor of neurology at Denis Diderot Paris University.

Rare lipid study following stroke

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines recommend intense statin therapy after an atherothrombotic stroke “but no target level is given to the practitioners,” Dr. Amarenco said. “In reality, most patients receive a reduced dose of statin.”

For example, despite 70% of patients receiving a statin, the average LDL cholesterol level was 92 mg/dL in a real-world registry.

The TST trial is the first major study to evaluate treating to target LDL levels in the ischemic stroke population since the SPARCL trial in 2006. SPARCL was the first randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate whether daily statin therapy could reduce the risk of stroke in patients who had suffered a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).

SPARCL demonstrated a 16% risk reduction with atorvastatin 80 mg daily versus placebo, and further risk reduction of 33% among those with carotid stenosis, over 5 years. There was some concern about safety for a time; post-hoc analysis showed what appeared to be an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage with statin treatment. Subsequent analyses seemed to suggest the finding may have been a chance one, however.

For the TST study, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues enrolled participants between March 2010 and December 2018 at one of 61 centers in France. In 2015, the study expanded to include 16 sites in South Korea.

Investigators evaluated participants after an ischemic stroke or a TIA with evidence of atherosclerosis. Blood pressure, smoking cessation, and diabetes were well controlled, he said.

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,430 participants to the low–LDL cholesterol target group, less than 70 mg/dL, and another 1,430 to a high-LDL group with a target of 100 mg/dL.

Assessments were every 6 months and up to 1 year after the last patient joined the study.

Treatment with any available statin on the market was allowed. Ezetimibe could be added on top of statin therapy as necessary. A total of 55% were statin naive at study entry.

Study stopped early

The trial was stopped in May 2019 after allocated funds ran out. At this point, researchers had 277 events to analyze, although their initial goal was to reach 385.

The primary endpoint of this event-driven trial was a composite of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal MI, and unstable angina followed by urgent coronary revascularization; TIA followed by urgent carotid revascularization; or cardiovascular death, including sudden deaths.

The endpoint was experienced by 8.5% of participants in the lower-target group versus 10.9% of those in the higher-target group. This translated to a 22% relative risk reduction (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.98; P =.04).

A total of 86% of participants had an ischemic stroke confirmed by brain MRI or CT scan. In this group, the relative risk reduction was 33% – “meaning that we could avoid one-third of recurrent major vascular events,” Dr. Amarenco said.

Furthermore, targeting the lower LDL levels was associated with a relative risk reduction of 40% among those with diabetes.

Secondary outcomes not significant

The investigators used hierarchical testing to compare two outcomes at a time in a prespecified order. They planned to continue this strategy until a comparison emerged as nonsignificant.

This occurred right away when their first composite secondary endpoint comparison between nonfatal MI and urgent revascularization was found to be not significantly different between groups (P = .12).

The early ending “weakened the results of the trial, and the results should be taken with caution because of that,” Dr. Amarenco said.

In addition, the number of hemorrhagic strokes did not differ significantly between groups. There were 18 of these events in the lower-target group and 13 in the higher-target cohort.

That numerical increase in intracranial hemorrhage was “driven by the Korean patients. … and that is something we will report soon,” Dr. Amarenco said.

Interestingly, the researchers also evaluated how much time participants spent within the target LDL cholesterol range, averaged by study site. They found that 53% of the lower–LDL target group, for example, was in the therapeutic range on average during the study.

When Dr. Amarenco and colleagues looked at participants who managed to spend 50%-100% in the target range, the relative risk reduction was 36%.

“So we can hypothesize that, if we had used a more potent drug like PCSK9 inhibitors to be closer to 100% in the therapeutic range, we may have had a greater effect size,” Dr. Amarenco said.

“Our results suggest that LDL cholesterol is causally related to atherosclerosis and confirm that the lower the LDL cholesterol the better,” Dr. Amarenco said.

“Future trials should explore the efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol to very low levels such as less than 55 mg/dL or even 30 mg/dL (as obtained in the FOURIER trial) by using PCSK9 inhibitors or equivalent in patients with an ischemic stroke due to atherosclerotic disease,” Dr. Amarenco said.

‘Practice-confirming’ findings

The findings are also in line with secondary analyses of the WASID (Neurology. 1995 Aug;45[8]:1488-93) and SAMMPRIS trials, which should dispel some concerns that persist about taking LDL to such low levels that it increases risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, Dr. Amarenco noted.

However, TST, he said, didn’t provide clear answers on what specific subgroups of patients with a stroke history would benefit from aggressive lipid lowering.

“What is stroke without atherosclerotic disease?” he said. “Some people say small-vessel disease is also a form of atherosclerosis, and most patients with atrial fibrillation, which is increasingly recognized as a cause of stroke, are also going to have atherosclerosis of the heart as well as the brain and blood vessels.

“Many, many stroke patients will fall into this category,” Dr. Elkind said, “and the question is, should they be treated more aggressively with lipid lowering?”

“The results of this study fit pretty nicely into the rubric of the AHA cholesterol guidelines,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, chairman, department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and chair of the AHA’s 2019 Council on Scientific Sessions Programming. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was also a member of the guideline committee.

Stroke patients are not “garden variety coronary patients,” he said. “The concern about intracerebral hemorrhage continues to be something that we wonder about: Should we be driving our stroke patients as low as our coronary patients? I think these data will certainly help us.”

Consideration for future guidelines

The study would have been more helpful if it provided more detail about the treatment regimens used, Jennifer Robinson, MD, director of the prevention intervention center, department of epidemiology, University of Iowa, said in an interview.

“What was the dose intensity of statins the patients were on?” Dr. Robinson said. “Part of our struggle has been to convince people to use high-intensity statins – get the maximum from statins that are generic now and cost saving in even very low-risk primary prevention patients.”

She said that a third of patients in TST also took ezetimibe with the statin “makes sense” because of its generic status.

Nonetheless, Dr. Robinson said, TST adds to the evidence that LDL of 100 mg/dL is not good enough, that high-intensity statin therapy is superior to a moderate regimen and that adding a nonstatin – ezetimibe in TST – can derive added benefit.

The TST findings may give guideline writers direction going forward, she said. “We really need to start thinking about the potential for net benefit from added therapy, whether it’s from intensifying LDL lowering, adding icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), which seems to have remarkable benefits, or SGLT2 inhibitor,” she said.

“There are a lot of options,” Dr. Robinson said. “We need to have an outlook beyond just treating to target with what really is the best maximized accepted therapy.”

TST was funded primarily by French Government, but also with grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Merck. Dr. Amarenco disclosed that he is a consultant or advisor to Modest, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Amgen; receives honoraria from Modest, Amgen, Kowa, Shing Poon, Kowa, Bayer, GSK, Fibrogen, and AstraZeneca. He also receives research grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, BMS, Merck, Boston Scientific, and the French Government.

This article also appears on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Amarenco P. ACC 2019, Late Breaking Science 6 session.

PHILADELPHIA – Treating patients to a lower LDL target after an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin resulted in fewer recurrent strokes or major cardiovascular events, compared with a higher LDL goal, even though the international trial was stopped early because of lack of funding.

“In the Treat Stroke to Target [TST] trial we showed that the group of patients with an atherosclerotic stroke achieving an LDL cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL had 22% less recurrent ischemic stroke or other major vascular events than the group achieving a LDL cholesterol between 90 and 110 mg/dL,” lead author Pierre Amarenco, MD, chairman of the department of neurology and the stroke center at Bichat Hospital in Paris, said in an interview.

“We avoided more than one in recurrence in five,” he added.

The findings of the investigator-initiated trial were reported during a late-breaking research session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published online Nov. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910355).

Discussant Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association, called the TST findings “practice confirming” of a strategy many cardiologists already follow for stroke patients.

“The TST study is only the second trial that was done in neurology for stroke prevention using statins and lipid-lowering therapy, and that’s what makes it a hopeful and real advance,” he said in an interview.

To achieve the LDL-lowering goal, two-thirds of patients received a high-dose statin therapy while the remainder received both high-dose statin and ezetimibe (Zetia, Merck). There were no significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage observed between lower- and higher-target groups.

“Now guidelines should move to recommending a target LDL cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL in all patients with a proven ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin,” said Dr. Amarenco, who is also a professor of neurology at Denis Diderot Paris University.

Rare lipid study following stroke

American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines recommend intense statin therapy after an atherothrombotic stroke “but no target level is given to the practitioners,” Dr. Amarenco said. “In reality, most patients receive a reduced dose of statin.”

For example, despite 70% of patients receiving a statin, the average LDL cholesterol level was 92 mg/dL in a real-world registry.

The TST trial is the first major study to evaluate treating to target LDL levels in the ischemic stroke population since the SPARCL trial in 2006. SPARCL was the first randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate whether daily statin therapy could reduce the risk of stroke in patients who had suffered a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).

SPARCL demonstrated a 16% risk reduction with atorvastatin 80 mg daily versus placebo, and further risk reduction of 33% among those with carotid stenosis, over 5 years. There was some concern about safety for a time; post-hoc analysis showed what appeared to be an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage with statin treatment. Subsequent analyses seemed to suggest the finding may have been a chance one, however.

For the TST study, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues enrolled participants between March 2010 and December 2018 at one of 61 centers in France. In 2015, the study expanded to include 16 sites in South Korea.

Investigators evaluated participants after an ischemic stroke or a TIA with evidence of atherosclerosis. Blood pressure, smoking cessation, and diabetes were well controlled, he said.

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,430 participants to the low–LDL cholesterol target group, less than 70 mg/dL, and another 1,430 to a high-LDL group with a target of 100 mg/dL.

Assessments were every 6 months and up to 1 year after the last patient joined the study.

Treatment with any available statin on the market was allowed. Ezetimibe could be added on top of statin therapy as necessary. A total of 55% were statin naive at study entry.

Study stopped early

The trial was stopped in May 2019 after allocated funds ran out. At this point, researchers had 277 events to analyze, although their initial goal was to reach 385.

The primary endpoint of this event-driven trial was a composite of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal MI, and unstable angina followed by urgent coronary revascularization; TIA followed by urgent carotid revascularization; or cardiovascular death, including sudden deaths.

The endpoint was experienced by 8.5% of participants in the lower-target group versus 10.9% of those in the higher-target group. This translated to a 22% relative risk reduction (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.98; P =.04).

A total of 86% of participants had an ischemic stroke confirmed by brain MRI or CT scan. In this group, the relative risk reduction was 33% – “meaning that we could avoid one-third of recurrent major vascular events,” Dr. Amarenco said.

Furthermore, targeting the lower LDL levels was associated with a relative risk reduction of 40% among those with diabetes.

Secondary outcomes not significant

The investigators used hierarchical testing to compare two outcomes at a time in a prespecified order. They planned to continue this strategy until a comparison emerged as nonsignificant.

This occurred right away when their first composite secondary endpoint comparison between nonfatal MI and urgent revascularization was found to be not significantly different between groups (P = .12).

The early ending “weakened the results of the trial, and the results should be taken with caution because of that,” Dr. Amarenco said.

In addition, the number of hemorrhagic strokes did not differ significantly between groups. There were 18 of these events in the lower-target group and 13 in the higher-target cohort.

That numerical increase in intracranial hemorrhage was “driven by the Korean patients. … and that is something we will report soon,” Dr. Amarenco said.

Interestingly, the researchers also evaluated how much time participants spent within the target LDL cholesterol range, averaged by study site. They found that 53% of the lower–LDL target group, for example, was in the therapeutic range on average during the study.

When Dr. Amarenco and colleagues looked at participants who managed to spend 50%-100% in the target range, the relative risk reduction was 36%.

“So we can hypothesize that, if we had used a more potent drug like PCSK9 inhibitors to be closer to 100% in the therapeutic range, we may have had a greater effect size,” Dr. Amarenco said.

“Our results suggest that LDL cholesterol is causally related to atherosclerosis and confirm that the lower the LDL cholesterol the better,” Dr. Amarenco said.

“Future trials should explore the efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol to very low levels such as less than 55 mg/dL or even 30 mg/dL (as obtained in the FOURIER trial) by using PCSK9 inhibitors or equivalent in patients with an ischemic stroke due to atherosclerotic disease,” Dr. Amarenco said.

‘Practice-confirming’ findings

The findings are also in line with secondary analyses of the WASID (Neurology. 1995 Aug;45[8]:1488-93) and SAMMPRIS trials, which should dispel some concerns that persist about taking LDL to such low levels that it increases risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, Dr. Amarenco noted.

However, TST, he said, didn’t provide clear answers on what specific subgroups of patients with a stroke history would benefit from aggressive lipid lowering.

“What is stroke without atherosclerotic disease?” he said. “Some people say small-vessel disease is also a form of atherosclerosis, and most patients with atrial fibrillation, which is increasingly recognized as a cause of stroke, are also going to have atherosclerosis of the heart as well as the brain and blood vessels.

“Many, many stroke patients will fall into this category,” Dr. Elkind said, “and the question is, should they be treated more aggressively with lipid lowering?”

“The results of this study fit pretty nicely into the rubric of the AHA cholesterol guidelines,” said Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, chairman, department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, and chair of the AHA’s 2019 Council on Scientific Sessions Programming. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was also a member of the guideline committee.

Stroke patients are not “garden variety coronary patients,” he said. “The concern about intracerebral hemorrhage continues to be something that we wonder about: Should we be driving our stroke patients as low as our coronary patients? I think these data will certainly help us.”

Consideration for future guidelines

The study would have been more helpful if it provided more detail about the treatment regimens used, Jennifer Robinson, MD, director of the prevention intervention center, department of epidemiology, University of Iowa, said in an interview.

“What was the dose intensity of statins the patients were on?” Dr. Robinson said. “Part of our struggle has been to convince people to use high-intensity statins – get the maximum from statins that are generic now and cost saving in even very low-risk primary prevention patients.”

She said that a third of patients in TST also took ezetimibe with the statin “makes sense” because of its generic status.

Nonetheless, Dr. Robinson said, TST adds to the evidence that LDL of 100 mg/dL is not good enough, that high-intensity statin therapy is superior to a moderate regimen and that adding a nonstatin – ezetimibe in TST – can derive added benefit.

The TST findings may give guideline writers direction going forward, she said. “We really need to start thinking about the potential for net benefit from added therapy, whether it’s from intensifying LDL lowering, adding icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), which seems to have remarkable benefits, or SGLT2 inhibitor,” she said.

“There are a lot of options,” Dr. Robinson said. “We need to have an outlook beyond just treating to target with what really is the best maximized accepted therapy.”

TST was funded primarily by French Government, but also with grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and Merck. Dr. Amarenco disclosed that he is a consultant or advisor to Modest, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Amgen; receives honoraria from Modest, Amgen, Kowa, Shing Poon, Kowa, Bayer, GSK, Fibrogen, and AstraZeneca. He also receives research grants from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, BMS, Merck, Boston Scientific, and the French Government.

This article also appears on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Amarenco P. ACC 2019, Late Breaking Science 6 session.