Heart Failure

A post hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial, although not intended to alter the conclusions generated by the published data, suggests that clinically relevant benefits were obscured, providing the basis for recommending different analyses for future studies that are more suited to capture the most clinically significant endpoints.

“What these data show us is that we need clinical trial designs moving towards more pragmatic information that better reflect clinical practice,” reported Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The reevaluation of the PARADISE-MI data, presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Barcelona, was based on a win ratio analysis and on the inclusion of investigator-reported endpoints, not just adjudicated events. Both appear to reveal clinically meaningful benefits not reflected in the published study, according to Dr. Berwanger.

In PARADISE-MI, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, more than 5,500 patients were randomized to the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan or the ACE inhibitor ramipril after a myocardial infarction. A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, or both were required for enrollment.

For the primary composite outcomes of death from cardiovascular (CV) causes or incident heart failure, the ARNI had a 10% numerical advantage, but it did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .17).

“PARADISE-MI was a neutral trial. This post hoc analysis will not change that result,” Dr. Berwanger emphasized. However, the post hoc analysis does provide a basis for exploring why conventional trial designs might not be providing answers that are relevant and helpful for clinical practice.

New analysis provides positive trial result

When the data from PARADISE-MI are reevaluated in a hierarchical win ratio analysis with CV death serving as the most severe and important outcome, the principal conclusion changes. Whether events are reevaluated in this format by the clinical events committee (CEC) or by investigators, there is a greater number of total wins than total losses for the ARNI. Combined, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a win ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.33; P = 0.015) over ramipril.

Using a sports analogy, Dr. Berwanger explained that the win ratio analysis divides the total number of wins to the total number of losses to provide a much more clinically relevant approach to keeping score. It also used a hierarchical analysis so that the most serious and important events are considered first.

In addition to CV death, this analysis included first hospitalization for heart failure and first outpatient heart failure events. CEC-defined events and events reported by investigators were evaluated separately.

The ARNI had more wins than losses in every category for all outcomes, whether CEC adjudicated or investigator reported, but most of this benefit was generated by the endpoint of CEC-adjudicated CV deaths. This accounted for 36.9% of all events (investigator-documented CV death accounted for 0.7%). This is important because PARADISE-MI, like many standard trials, was conducted on a time-to-primary event basis.

“In this type of analysis, the first event is what counts. Usually time-to-first-event analyses are dominated by nonfatal events,” Dr. Berwanger explained. He believes that placing more weight on the most serious events results in an emphasis on what outcomes are of greatest clinical interest.

In addition, Dr. Berwanger argued that it is important to consider investigator-reported events, not just CEC-adjudicated events. While adjudicated events improve the rigor of the data, Dr. Berwanger suggested it omits outcomes with which clinicians are most concerned.
 

Investigator, adjudicated outcomes differ

Again, using PARADISE-MI as an example, he reevaluated the primary outcome based on investigator reports. When investigator-reported events are included, the number of events increased in both the ARNI (443 vs. 338) and ramipril (516 vs. 373) arms, but the advantage of the ARNI over the ACE inhibitors now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.85; P = .01).

“The data suggest that maybe we should find definitions for adjudication that are closer to clinical judgment in the real world and clinical practice,” Dr. Berwanger said.

One possible explanation for the neutral result in PARADISE-MI is that benefit of an ARNI over an ACE inhibitor would only be expected in those at risk for progressive left ventricular dysfunction, and it is likely that a substantial proportion of patients enrolled in this trial recovered, according to Johann Bauersachs, MD, PhD, professor and head of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“You cannot predict which patients with reduced LV function following an MI will go on to chronic remodeling and which will recover,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was an ESC-invited discussant of Dr. Berwanger’s post hoc analysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

He agreed that Dr. Berwanger has raised several important issues in standard trial design that might have prevented PARADISE-MI from showing a benefit from an ARNI, but he pointed out that there are other potential issues, such as the low use of mineralocorticoid antagonists in PARADISE-MI, that may have skewed results.

However, he agreed generally with the premise that there is a need for trial design likely to generate more clinically useful information.

“We have now seen the win-ratio approach used in several studies,” said Dr. Bauersachs, citing in particular the EMPULSE trial presented at the 2022 meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “It is a very useful tool, and I think we will be seeing it used more in the future.”

However, he indicated that the issues raised by Dr. Berwanger are not necessarily easily resolved. Dr. Bauersachs endorsed the effort to consider trial designs that generate data that are more immediately clinically applicable but suggested that different types of designs may be required for different types of clinical questions.

Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Servier, and Novartis, which provided funding for the PARADISE-MI trial. Dr. Bauersachs reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Corvia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, Vifor, and Zoll.

A post hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial, although not intended to alter the conclusions generated by the published data, suggests that clinically relevant benefits were obscured, providing the basis for recommending different analyses for future studies that are more suited to capture the most clinically significant endpoints.

“What these data show us is that we need clinical trial designs moving towards more pragmatic information that better reflect clinical practice,” reported Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The reevaluation of the PARADISE-MI data, presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Barcelona, was based on a win ratio analysis and on the inclusion of investigator-reported endpoints, not just adjudicated events. Both appear to reveal clinically meaningful benefits not reflected in the published study, according to Dr. Berwanger.

In PARADISE-MI, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, more than 5,500 patients were randomized to the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan or the ACE inhibitor ramipril after a myocardial infarction. A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, or both were required for enrollment.

For the primary composite outcomes of death from cardiovascular (CV) causes or incident heart failure, the ARNI had a 10% numerical advantage, but it did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .17).

“PARADISE-MI was a neutral trial. This post hoc analysis will not change that result,” Dr. Berwanger emphasized. However, the post hoc analysis does provide a basis for exploring why conventional trial designs might not be providing answers that are relevant and helpful for clinical practice.

New analysis provides positive trial result

When the data from PARADISE-MI are reevaluated in a hierarchical win ratio analysis with CV death serving as the most severe and important outcome, the principal conclusion changes. Whether events are reevaluated in this format by the clinical events committee (CEC) or by investigators, there is a greater number of total wins than total losses for the ARNI. Combined, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a win ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.33; P = 0.015) over ramipril.

Using a sports analogy, Dr. Berwanger explained that the win ratio analysis divides the total number of wins to the total number of losses to provide a much more clinically relevant approach to keeping score. It also used a hierarchical analysis so that the most serious and important events are considered first.

In addition to CV death, this analysis included first hospitalization for heart failure and first outpatient heart failure events. CEC-defined events and events reported by investigators were evaluated separately.

The ARNI had more wins than losses in every category for all outcomes, whether CEC adjudicated or investigator reported, but most of this benefit was generated by the endpoint of CEC-adjudicated CV deaths. This accounted for 36.9% of all events (investigator-documented CV death accounted for 0.7%). This is important because PARADISE-MI, like many standard trials, was conducted on a time-to-primary event basis.

“In this type of analysis, the first event is what counts. Usually time-to-first-event analyses are dominated by nonfatal events,” Dr. Berwanger explained. He believes that placing more weight on the most serious events results in an emphasis on what outcomes are of greatest clinical interest.

In addition, Dr. Berwanger argued that it is important to consider investigator-reported events, not just CEC-adjudicated events. While adjudicated events improve the rigor of the data, Dr. Berwanger suggested it omits outcomes with which clinicians are most concerned.
 

Investigator, adjudicated outcomes differ

Again, using PARADISE-MI as an example, he reevaluated the primary outcome based on investigator reports. When investigator-reported events are included, the number of events increased in both the ARNI (443 vs. 338) and ramipril (516 vs. 373) arms, but the advantage of the ARNI over the ACE inhibitors now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.85; P = .01).

“The data suggest that maybe we should find definitions for adjudication that are closer to clinical judgment in the real world and clinical practice,” Dr. Berwanger said.

One possible explanation for the neutral result in PARADISE-MI is that benefit of an ARNI over an ACE inhibitor would only be expected in those at risk for progressive left ventricular dysfunction, and it is likely that a substantial proportion of patients enrolled in this trial recovered, according to Johann Bauersachs, MD, PhD, professor and head of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“You cannot predict which patients with reduced LV function following an MI will go on to chronic remodeling and which will recover,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was an ESC-invited discussant of Dr. Berwanger’s post hoc analysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

He agreed that Dr. Berwanger has raised several important issues in standard trial design that might have prevented PARADISE-MI from showing a benefit from an ARNI, but he pointed out that there are other potential issues, such as the low use of mineralocorticoid antagonists in PARADISE-MI, that may have skewed results.

However, he agreed generally with the premise that there is a need for trial design likely to generate more clinically useful information.

“We have now seen the win-ratio approach used in several studies,” said Dr. Bauersachs, citing in particular the EMPULSE trial presented at the 2022 meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “It is a very useful tool, and I think we will be seeing it used more in the future.”

However, he indicated that the issues raised by Dr. Berwanger are not necessarily easily resolved. Dr. Bauersachs endorsed the effort to consider trial designs that generate data that are more immediately clinically applicable but suggested that different types of designs may be required for different types of clinical questions.

Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Servier, and Novartis, which provided funding for the PARADISE-MI trial. Dr. Bauersachs reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Corvia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, Vifor, and Zoll.

A post hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial, although not intended to alter the conclusions generated by the published data, suggests that clinically relevant benefits were obscured, providing the basis for recommending different analyses for future studies that are more suited to capture the most clinically significant endpoints.

“What these data show us is that we need clinical trial designs moving towards more pragmatic information that better reflect clinical practice,” reported Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The reevaluation of the PARADISE-MI data, presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Barcelona, was based on a win ratio analysis and on the inclusion of investigator-reported endpoints, not just adjudicated events. Both appear to reveal clinically meaningful benefits not reflected in the published study, according to Dr. Berwanger.

In PARADISE-MI, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, more than 5,500 patients were randomized to the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan or the ACE inhibitor ramipril after a myocardial infarction. A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, or both were required for enrollment.

For the primary composite outcomes of death from cardiovascular (CV) causes or incident heart failure, the ARNI had a 10% numerical advantage, but it did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .17).

“PARADISE-MI was a neutral trial. This post hoc analysis will not change that result,” Dr. Berwanger emphasized. However, the post hoc analysis does provide a basis for exploring why conventional trial designs might not be providing answers that are relevant and helpful for clinical practice.

New analysis provides positive trial result

When the data from PARADISE-MI are reevaluated in a hierarchical win ratio analysis with CV death serving as the most severe and important outcome, the principal conclusion changes. Whether events are reevaluated in this format by the clinical events committee (CEC) or by investigators, there is a greater number of total wins than total losses for the ARNI. Combined, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a win ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.33; P = 0.015) over ramipril.

Using a sports analogy, Dr. Berwanger explained that the win ratio analysis divides the total number of wins to the total number of losses to provide a much more clinically relevant approach to keeping score. It also used a hierarchical analysis so that the most serious and important events are considered first.

In addition to CV death, this analysis included first hospitalization for heart failure and first outpatient heart failure events. CEC-defined events and events reported by investigators were evaluated separately.

The ARNI had more wins than losses in every category for all outcomes, whether CEC adjudicated or investigator reported, but most of this benefit was generated by the endpoint of CEC-adjudicated CV deaths. This accounted for 36.9% of all events (investigator-documented CV death accounted for 0.7%). This is important because PARADISE-MI, like many standard trials, was conducted on a time-to-primary event basis.

“In this type of analysis, the first event is what counts. Usually time-to-first-event analyses are dominated by nonfatal events,” Dr. Berwanger explained. He believes that placing more weight on the most serious events results in an emphasis on what outcomes are of greatest clinical interest.

In addition, Dr. Berwanger argued that it is important to consider investigator-reported events, not just CEC-adjudicated events. While adjudicated events improve the rigor of the data, Dr. Berwanger suggested it omits outcomes with which clinicians are most concerned.
 

Investigator, adjudicated outcomes differ

Again, using PARADISE-MI as an example, he reevaluated the primary outcome based on investigator reports. When investigator-reported events are included, the number of events increased in both the ARNI (443 vs. 338) and ramipril (516 vs. 373) arms, but the advantage of the ARNI over the ACE inhibitors now reached statistical significance (HR, 0.85; P = .01).

“The data suggest that maybe we should find definitions for adjudication that are closer to clinical judgment in the real world and clinical practice,” Dr. Berwanger said.

One possible explanation for the neutral result in PARADISE-MI is that benefit of an ARNI over an ACE inhibitor would only be expected in those at risk for progressive left ventricular dysfunction, and it is likely that a substantial proportion of patients enrolled in this trial recovered, according to Johann Bauersachs, MD, PhD, professor and head of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“You cannot predict which patients with reduced LV function following an MI will go on to chronic remodeling and which will recover,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was an ESC-invited discussant of Dr. Berwanger’s post hoc analysis.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

He agreed that Dr. Berwanger has raised several important issues in standard trial design that might have prevented PARADISE-MI from showing a benefit from an ARNI, but he pointed out that there are other potential issues, such as the low use of mineralocorticoid antagonists in PARADISE-MI, that may have skewed results.

However, he agreed generally with the premise that there is a need for trial design likely to generate more clinically useful information.

“We have now seen the win-ratio approach used in several studies,” said Dr. Bauersachs, citing in particular the EMPULSE trial presented at the 2022 meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “It is a very useful tool, and I think we will be seeing it used more in the future.”

However, he indicated that the issues raised by Dr. Berwanger are not necessarily easily resolved. Dr. Bauersachs endorsed the effort to consider trial designs that generate data that are more immediately clinically applicable but suggested that different types of designs may be required for different types of clinical questions.

Dr. Berwanger reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Servier, and Novartis, which provided funding for the PARADISE-MI trial. Dr. Bauersachs reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Corvia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, Vifor, and Zoll.

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic, patisiran (Onpattro, Alnylam), showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on functional capacity, as measured by the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), compared with placebo, in the treatment of transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy, in the APOLLO-B trial.

The study also met its first secondary endpoint, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit on health status and quality of life.

These positive results, their first formal presentation, were announced Sept. 8 at the 18th International Symposium on Amyloidosis. However, the company announced positive top-line results from the trial in early August.

Transthyretin-mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a rare, rapidly progressive, debilitating disease caused by misfolded transthyretin (TTR) proteins which accumulate as amyloid fibrils in multiple tissues including the nerves, heart, and gastrointestinal tract.

There are two different types of ATTR amyloidosis: hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis, caused by a TTR gene variant, and wild-type ATTR (wtATTR) amyloidosis, which occurs without a TTR gene variant. hATTR amyloidosis affects approximately 50,000 people worldwide, whereas wtATTR amyloidosis is estimated to affect 200,000-300,000 people worldwide.

Patisiran is an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic that is approved in the United States and Canada for the treatment of the polyneuropathy of hATTR amyloidosis in adults. It is also approved in the European Union, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan for a similar indication. It is designed to target and silence TTR messenger RNA, thereby reducing the production of TTR protein before it is made. Reducing the pathogenic protein leads to a reduction in amyloid deposits in tissues.

“The results of the APOLLO-B phase 3 study are impressive, as I believe they underscore the potential for patisiran to provide a benefit on functional capacity and quality of life in patients living with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. Furthermore, these results were seen after only 12 months of treatment,” Mathew Maurer, MD, Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Professor of Cardiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said in an Alnylam press release.

“The cardiac manifestations associated with ATTR amyloidosis can have a devastating impact on patients’ lives and current treatment options are limited. With the rapidly progressive nature of the disease, there is a significant need for treatments like patisiran, which has the potential to be a new option for patients and physicians to treat the cardiomyopathy of ATTR amyloidosis,” Dr. Maurer added.

APOLLO-B is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating the effects of patisiran on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The study enrolled 360 adult patients with ATTR amyloidosis (hereditary or wild-type) with cardiomyopathy who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 0.3 mg/kg of patisiran or placebo intravenously administered every 3 weeks over a 12-month treatment period. After 12 months, all patients will receive patisiran in an open-label extension.

Results at 12 months, reported by Alnylam, found that the primary endpoint, the 6-MWT, showed a median change from baseline of –8.15 m for the patisiran group and –21.34 m for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

The first secondary endpoint was health status and quality of life, as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score. This showed a mean change from baseline of +0.300 for the patisiran group and –3.408 for the placebo group, a significant difference favoring patisiran.

Secondary composite outcome endpoints did not achieve statistical significance.

A nonsignificant result (win ratio, 1.27; P = .0574) was found on the secondary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, frequency of cardiovascular events, and change from baseline in 6-MWT over 12 months, compared with placebo.

The final two composite endpoints were not powered for statistical significance, given the sample size and short duration of the study – all-cause mortality and frequency of all-cause hospitalizations and urgent heart failure visits in patients not on tafamidis at baseline (hazard ratio, 0.997) and in the overall study population (HR, 0.883).

Patisiran achieved a rapid and sustained reduction in serum TTR levels, with a mean percent reduction from baseline in serum TTR reduction of 87% at month 12.

A beneficial effect on the exploratory endpoint, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a measure of cardiac stress, was observed in the patisiran arm, with a 20% reduction in the adjusted geometric mean fold change from baseline, compared with placebo.

Patisiran also demonstrated an encouraging safety and tolerability profile, including no cardiac safety concerns relative to placebo, during the 12-month treatment period, Alnylam reported.

The majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Treatment emergent adverse events in the patisiran group included infusion-related reactions, arthralgia, and muscle spasms.

In the safety analysis, there were five deaths (2.8%) observed in patisiran-treated patients and eight deaths (4.5%) observed in the placebo group.

Pushkal Garg, MD, chief medical officer at Alnylam, said: “We believe these data validate the therapeutic hypothesis that TTR silencing by an RNAi therapeutic may be an effective approach to treating cardiomyopathy of both wild-type and hereditary ATTR amyloidosis.”

Alnylam plans to file a supplemental new drug application for patisiran as a potential treatment for ATTR amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy in the United States in late 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care providers about the potential for clip lock malfunctions with Abbott’s MitraClip’s delivery system.

“These events appear to occur in approximately 1.3% of MitraClip procedures and have been observed with all device models,” the FDA says in a letter posted on its website.

The MitraClip device was approved in 2013 for patients with symptomatic, degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) deemed high risk for mitral-valve surgery.

In its own “urgent medical device correction letter” to providers, Abbott reports a recent increase in reports of the clips failing to “establish final arm angle (EFAA)” and of “clip opening while locked (COWL)” events.

During device preparation and prior to clip deployment, the operator intentionally attempts to open a locked clip to verify that the locking mechanism is engaged.

COWL describes when the clip arm angle increases postdeployment. “In these cases, users observe a slippage in the lock, resulting in an arm angle greater than 10 degrees from the angle observed at deployment,” which can be identified through fluoroscopy, Abbott says.

From February 2021 to January 2022, the EFAA failure rate was 0.51% and COWL rate 0.28%, increasing to 0.80% and 0.50%, respectively, from February 2022 to July 2022, according to the company.

Despite the increase in reports, the acute procedural success rate remains consistent with historical data, according to Abbott. “Further, EFAA failure or COWL most often results in no adverse patient outcomes. COWL may lead to less MR reduction, which is often treated with the use of one or more additional clips.”

Abbott says there is also a “low incidence” of required additional interventions. No immediate open surgical conversions have occurred as a result of EFAA/COWL events, whereas 0.53% of such events have resulted in nonurgent surgical conversions.

“In any case where significant residual MR is observed after clip deployment, a second clip should be considered and implanted in accordance with the IFU [instructions for use],” it advises.

Abbott says that a “change in the material properties of one of the clip locking components” has been identified as a contributing cause of EFAA/COWL events. It is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material to mitigate the risk.

Certain use conditions can also contribute to EFAA/COWL events, and are referenced in the IFU, Appendix A, it notes.

The FDA is working with Abbott and recommends that health care providers do the following:

• Review the recall notice from Abbott for all MitraClip Clip Delivery Systems.
• Be aware of the potential for clip lock malfunctions before or after deployment with this device.
• Read and carefully follow the instructions for use and the recommendations provided in the recall notice to help minimize the chance of the clip failing to lock. These include recommendations about procedural steps for implant positioning, locking sequences, establishing clip arm angle, preparation for clip release, and avoiding excessive force and manipulation when unlocking the clip during device preparation and during the procedure.

Health care professionals can also report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Health concerns about the consumption of artificial sweeteners could be strengthened with the publication of a new study linking their intake to increased risk of heart disease and stroke events.

In this latest large-scale, prospective study of French adults, total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased risk overall of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

The study was published online in the BMJ.

The current study differs from those done previously in that it includes artificial sweetener intake from both food and drinks, whereas previous studies have focused mainly on artificial sweetener content of beverages alone.

“Here we have quantified for the first time the global exposure to artificial sweeteners. This is not just beverages but includes the use of tabletop sweeteners, and other foods that include artificial sweeteners such as yogurts and desserts. This is the first time this information has been correlated to risk of heart disease,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, MD, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, told this news organization.

Just over half of the artificial sweetener intake in the study came from drinks, with the rest coming from tabletop sweeteners and foods.

“We included hard cardio- and cerebrovascular clinical endpoints such as a heart attack or stroke, and our results suggest that the amount of artificial sweetener in less than one can of soda could increase the risk of such events,” Dr. Touvier noted.

“This is an important and statistically significant association which shows robustness in all models after adjusting for many other possible confounding factors,” she said.

“There is now mounting evidence correlating artificial sweeteners to weight gain and heart disease,” she concluded. “My advice would be that we all need to try to limit sugar intake, but we should not consider artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives. Rather, we need to try to reduce our need for a sugary taste in our diet.”

But another leading researcher in the field urges caution in interpreting these results.

John Sievenpiper, MD, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, commented: “This paper shows the same relationship seen by many other large prospective cohorts which model the intake of artificial sweeteners as baseline or prevalent exposures.

“These observations are well recognized to be at high risk of residual confounding from behavior clustering and reverse causality in which being at risk for cardiovascular disease causes people to consume artificial sweeteners as a strategy to mitigate this risk as opposed to the other way around.”
 

Risk increased by 9%

The current study included 103,388 French adults from the NutriNet-Sante cohort, of whom 37.1% reported consumption of artificial sweeteners. The sweeteners assessed were mainly aspartame (58% of sweetener intake), acesulfame potassium (29%), and sucralose (10%), with the other 3% made up of various other sweeteners including cyclamates and saccharin.

Results showed that over an average 9 years of follow-up, artificial sweetener intake was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, including myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, angioplasty, angina, stroke, or transient ischemic attack, with a hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.18; P = .03).

The average intake of artificial sweeteners among those who reported consuming them was 42.46 mg/day, which corresponds to approximately one individual packet of tabletop sweetener or 100 mL of diet soda.

“We don’t have enough evidence to work out an amount of artificial sweetener that is harmful, but we did show a dose-effect association, with a higher risk of cardiovascular events with higher consumption,” Dr. Touvier said.

“Higher consumption in this study was a mean of 77 mg/day artificial sweetener, which is about 200 mL of soda – just a bit less than one standard can of soda,” she added.

The absolute incidence rate of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in higher consumers was 346 per 100,000 person-years vs. 314 per 100,000 person-years in nonconsumers.

Further analysis suggested that aspartame intake was particularly associated with increased risk of cerebrovascular events, while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.
 

Study strengths

Dr. Touvier acknowledged that dietary studies, which generally rely on individuals self-reporting food and drink intake, are always hard to interpret. But she said this study used a more reliable method of dietary assessment, with repeated 24-hour dietary records, which were validated by interviews with a trained dietitian and against blood and urinary biomarkers.

And whereas residual confounding cannot be totally excluded, she pointed out that models were adjusted for a wide range of potential sociodemographic, anthropometric, dietary, and lifestyle confounders.

Dr. Touvier also noted that cases of cardiovascular disease in the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded to minimize the bias caused by individuals who maybe have switched to artificial sweeteners because of a cardiovascular issue.

“While this study has many strengths, it cannot on its own prove a causal relationship between artificial sweetener and increased cardiovascular risk,” she added. “We need health agencies to examine all the literature in the field. This is however another important piece of evidence.”

Dr. Touvier says that although observational studies have their issues, they will form the basis of the evidence on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health.

“Randomized studies in this area can only really look at short-term outcomes such as weight gain or biomarker changes. So, we will have to use observational studies together with experimental research to build the evidence. This is what happened with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. That link was not established by randomized trials, but by the accumulation of observational and experimental data.”
 

Different artificial sweeteners may be better?

Commenting on the study, Kim Williams Sr., MD, University of Louisville (Ky.), pointed out that this study included artificial sweeteners that increase insulin or decrease insulin sensitivity, and that insulin spikes increase obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and atherosclerosis.

“There are some safer artificial sweeteners that do not increase insulin much or at all, such as erythritol, yacon root/yacon syrup, stevia root, but they weren’t included in the analysis,” Dr. Williams added.

Dr. Sievenpiper explained that most studies on artificial sweeteners look at their consumption in isolation without considering how they compare to the intake of the sugars that they are intended to replace.

“The comparator matters as no food is consumed in a vacuum,” he said.

To address this, Dr. Sievenpiper and colleagues have recently published a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective cohort study evidence that shows if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is modeled in substitution for sugar-sweetened beverages, then they are associated with less coronary heart disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

On the other hand, if exposure to artificially sweetened beverages is compared with water, then no difference in these outcomes was seen.

“These observations are more biologically plausible, robust, and reproducible and agree with the evidence for the effect of artificial sweeteners on intermediate risk factors in randomized trials,” Dr. Sievenpiper notes.

His group has also recently published a review of randomized studies showing that when compared with sugar-sweetened beverages, intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with small improvements in body weight and cardiometabolic risk factors without evidence of harm.

“I think the context provided by these studies is important, and taken together, the totality of the evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners are likely to be a useful tool in sugar reduction strategies,” Dr. Sievenpiper concludes.

The current study was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, French National Cancer Institute, French Ministry of Health, IdEx Université de Paris Cité, Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation Research Prize 2021. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Reduced physical function is an independent risk factor for composite and individual cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and heart failure (HF) in older adults, according to new observational data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

“We found that physical function in older adults predicts future cardiovascular disease (CVD) beyond traditional heart disease risk factors, regardless of whether an individual has a history of cardiovascular disease,” senior author Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Keeping fit with age

The researchers analyzed health data collected between 2011 and 2013 for 5,570 ARIC participants (mean age, 75 years; 58% women, 22% Black persons). They assessed physical function using the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), which measures walking speed, leg strength, and balance.

On the basis of the results, participants were categorized into three physical function groups: low (score, 0-6; 13% of the cohort), intermediate (score, 7-9; 30%) and high (score, 10-12; 57%).

During a median follow up of 7 years, there were 930 composite CVD events (386 CHD, 251 stroke, and 529 HF).

Adults with lower SPPB scores had a higher cumulative incidence of composite CVD outcomes.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of the composite CVD outcome in the low- and intermediate-SPPB categories was about three times (23.4%) and two times (15.3%) higher than in the high-SPPB category (8.6%), the researchers reported.

In addition, continuous SPPB scores showed significant associations with composite and individual CVD outcomes in all models. A 1-point lower SPPB score was associated with 6%-10% higher risk for CVD events after adjusting for potential confounders.

In the fully adjusted model, the risk for composite CVD outcomes was 47% higher (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.79) in those with low physical function and 25% higher in those with intermediate physical function (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46) compared with peers with high physical function.

For the individual outcomes, low physical function was associated with higher risk for stroke (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.24-2.64) and HF (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.73), whereas the association for CHD was not significant.

The associations were largely consistent across subgroups, including those with CVD at baseline.

The addition of SPPB scores significantly improved risk prediction of CVD events beyond traditional CVD risk factors in adults regardless of prior CVD history, suggesting that this tool may be useful for classifying CVD risk in older adults, the researchers said.
 

Meaningful impact on care?

“Our findings highlight the value of assessing the physical function level of older adults in clinical practice,” lead author Xiao Hu, MHS, with the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, said in the news release. “In addition to heart health, older adults are at higher risk for falls and disability. The assessment of physical function may also inform the risk of these concerning conditions in older adults.”

Weighing in on the study, Jonathan Halperin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Heart and professor of medicine (cardiology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said that “It’s known that cardiorespiratory fitness is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk, but it is one of the few physiological risk factors that are subjectively queried but not objectively assessed in routine clinical practice.”

In this study, Dr. Halperin noted, the investigators found that a battery of physical performance assessments, including a walk test, chair standing, and balance testing, improved cardiovascular risk prediction.

Dr. Halperin cautioned, however, that “since even the short sequence of tests takes time to perform and interpret, and is not currently reimbursed under most health insurance policies, it is not clear whether the report will have a meaningful impact on patient care.”

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Matsushita and Dr. Halperin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Beta-blockers have long been recommended to prevent aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome despite limited evidence, but a new analysis also supports a benefit from angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) and further suggests that beta-blockers and ARBs exert independent effects.

For the endpoint of inhibition of growth of the aortic root, “there is no evidence of any interaction between the effects of ARBs with beta-blockers, and so we think that the treatment effects are likely to be additive,” reported Alex Pitcher, BMBCh, DPhil, Oxford (England) University Hospitals, NHS Trust.

Based on these data, Dr. Pitcher recommended considering ARBs and beta-blockers together soon after the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. This includes young children.

“We think that medical treatments can delay surgery and dissection substantially if given for a number of years,” he added.

In this study, undertaken by the Marfan Treatment Trialists (MTT) collaboration, data were available from 1,442 Marfan syndrome patients participating in seven treatment trials. The primary outcome was aortic root enlargement, a predictor of life-threatening aortic dissection and rupture. Rather than a meta-analysis of the pooled data, the meta-analysis was conducted with individual patient data that involved collaboration with the original trialists.

Four of the studies with 746 patients compared ARBs to placebo or a control medication. A second group of three trials with 766 patients compared ARBs to beta-blockers.

From the two sets of data, a calculation of the effect of beta-blockers was indirectly estimated.
 

ARBs slow annualized aortic growth rate significantly

In the first set of trials, the analysis showed a significantly slower annualized aortic root growth rate for those treated with ARBs relative to controls (0.07 vs. 0.13), producing a statistically significant absolute difference (0.7%; P = .01) in favor of the ARB.

“In other words, the rate of growth was nearly double in the control arm,” Dr. Pitcher said.

In the three trials comparing ARBs to beta-blockers, the annualized growth rate among those taking an ARB was similar (0.8%) to that seen in the previous set of controlled trials. This rate of annualized growth was not significantly different from the 0.11% annualized rate of growth in patients receiving beta-blockers. When an analysis of the impact of beta-blockers was conducted by indirectly evaluating the change in growth relative to controls, the estimated impact was an annualized growth rate of 0.9% (P = .042).

A second set of data provided the basis for suggesting that the effects of beta ARBs and beta-blockers are independent and potentially additive.

“We were able to look at subgroups of patients in the ARB trials that were broken down by whether they were or were not on beta-blockers at baseline, and so by doing able to estimate independent effects,” Dr. Pitcher said. The lack of any interactions led Dr. Pitcher to conclude that benefits are likely additive.

Of patients genotyped in the ARB studies, more than 80% had the FBN1 pathogenic variant of Marfan syndrome. When the data were analyzed by subgroups, including age or blood pressure, there were no differences in treatment effect except for those with the FBN1 mutation in whom the benefit of ARB therapy was greater relative to those without.

As FBN1 is one of the most common genetic signatures of Marfan syndrome, the “greater effect of ARBs in this group makes it more plausible that the effect is real,” Dr. Pitcher said.
 

Results could change treatment guidelines

Current guidelines recommend beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome prior to a dilatation size of 4.5 to 5 cm when surgery is indicated, according to Dr. Pitcher, but he said these data might change guidelines. While reinforcing the benefit of beta-blockers, this analysis suggests ARBs should also be considered, possibly in combination with beta-blockers.

“What I hope this meta-analysis does is add substantially to the certainty with which physicians can discuss treatments with patients.”

As for the mechanism, it is reasonable to speculate the antihypertensive effect of both medications is relevant, but each has plausible independent activities that might contribute to modifying aortic growth, according to Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, MD, PhD, a specialist in aortic diseases and heart failure at Raboud University Medical Center, Nijmegan, the Netherlands.

Citing several studies, he suggested that the benefit of beta-blockers could also stem from their ability to reduce heart rate and aortic stiffness while ARBs are likely to inhibit the interaction between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and TGF-beta pathway. Each of these might participate in risk of aortic root growth, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, who was invited by ESC to discuss this study.

On the basis of these data as well as past studies, he agreed that the combination of beta-blockers and ARBs might not just be additive but “even a little bit synergistic.”

While Dr. Pitcher suggested that the evidence supports starting both beta-blockers and ARBs soon after the diagnosis, Dr. van Kimmenade said, “I don’t like using beta-blockers in young patients, but ARBs are now shown to be an excellent alternative.”

Ultimately, “the prescription pencil will not replace the surgical knife” in a disease that is likely to eventually require surgery to prevent life-threatening events, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, but he agreed that these data provide more certainty about the value of beta-blockers and ARBs for slowing progression.

Dr. Pitcher reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. van Kimmenade has financial relationships with Bayer and Novartis.

Beta-blockers have long been recommended to prevent aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome despite limited evidence, but a new analysis also supports a benefit from angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) and further suggests that beta-blockers and ARBs exert independent effects.

For the endpoint of inhibition of growth of the aortic root, “there is no evidence of any interaction between the effects of ARBs with beta-blockers, and so we think that the treatment effects are likely to be additive,” reported Alex Pitcher, BMBCh, DPhil, Oxford (England) University Hospitals, NHS Trust.

Based on these data, Dr. Pitcher recommended considering ARBs and beta-blockers together soon after the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. This includes young children.

“We think that medical treatments can delay surgery and dissection substantially if given for a number of years,” he added.

In this study, undertaken by the Marfan Treatment Trialists (MTT) collaboration, data were available from 1,442 Marfan syndrome patients participating in seven treatment trials. The primary outcome was aortic root enlargement, a predictor of life-threatening aortic dissection and rupture. Rather than a meta-analysis of the pooled data, the meta-analysis was conducted with individual patient data that involved collaboration with the original trialists.

Four of the studies with 746 patients compared ARBs to placebo or a control medication. A second group of three trials with 766 patients compared ARBs to beta-blockers.

From the two sets of data, a calculation of the effect of beta-blockers was indirectly estimated.
 

ARBs slow annualized aortic growth rate significantly

In the first set of trials, the analysis showed a significantly slower annualized aortic root growth rate for those treated with ARBs relative to controls (0.07 vs. 0.13), producing a statistically significant absolute difference (0.7%; P = .01) in favor of the ARB.

“In other words, the rate of growth was nearly double in the control arm,” Dr. Pitcher said.

In the three trials comparing ARBs to beta-blockers, the annualized growth rate among those taking an ARB was similar (0.8%) to that seen in the previous set of controlled trials. This rate of annualized growth was not significantly different from the 0.11% annualized rate of growth in patients receiving beta-blockers. When an analysis of the impact of beta-blockers was conducted by indirectly evaluating the change in growth relative to controls, the estimated impact was an annualized growth rate of 0.9% (P = .042).

A second set of data provided the basis for suggesting that the effects of beta ARBs and beta-blockers are independent and potentially additive.

“We were able to look at subgroups of patients in the ARB trials that were broken down by whether they were or were not on beta-blockers at baseline, and so by doing able to estimate independent effects,” Dr. Pitcher said. The lack of any interactions led Dr. Pitcher to conclude that benefits are likely additive.

Of patients genotyped in the ARB studies, more than 80% had the FBN1 pathogenic variant of Marfan syndrome. When the data were analyzed by subgroups, including age or blood pressure, there were no differences in treatment effect except for those with the FBN1 mutation in whom the benefit of ARB therapy was greater relative to those without.

As FBN1 is one of the most common genetic signatures of Marfan syndrome, the “greater effect of ARBs in this group makes it more plausible that the effect is real,” Dr. Pitcher said.
 

Results could change treatment guidelines

Current guidelines recommend beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome prior to a dilatation size of 4.5 to 5 cm when surgery is indicated, according to Dr. Pitcher, but he said these data might change guidelines. While reinforcing the benefit of beta-blockers, this analysis suggests ARBs should also be considered, possibly in combination with beta-blockers.

“What I hope this meta-analysis does is add substantially to the certainty with which physicians can discuss treatments with patients.”

As for the mechanism, it is reasonable to speculate the antihypertensive effect of both medications is relevant, but each has plausible independent activities that might contribute to modifying aortic growth, according to Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, MD, PhD, a specialist in aortic diseases and heart failure at Raboud University Medical Center, Nijmegan, the Netherlands.

Citing several studies, he suggested that the benefit of beta-blockers could also stem from their ability to reduce heart rate and aortic stiffness while ARBs are likely to inhibit the interaction between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and TGF-beta pathway. Each of these might participate in risk of aortic root growth, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, who was invited by ESC to discuss this study.

On the basis of these data as well as past studies, he agreed that the combination of beta-blockers and ARBs might not just be additive but “even a little bit synergistic.”

While Dr. Pitcher suggested that the evidence supports starting both beta-blockers and ARBs soon after the diagnosis, Dr. van Kimmenade said, “I don’t like using beta-blockers in young patients, but ARBs are now shown to be an excellent alternative.”

Ultimately, “the prescription pencil will not replace the surgical knife” in a disease that is likely to eventually require surgery to prevent life-threatening events, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, but he agreed that these data provide more certainty about the value of beta-blockers and ARBs for slowing progression.

Dr. Pitcher reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. van Kimmenade has financial relationships with Bayer and Novartis.

Beta-blockers have long been recommended to prevent aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome despite limited evidence, but a new analysis also supports a benefit from angiotensin receptors blockers (ARBs) and further suggests that beta-blockers and ARBs exert independent effects.

For the endpoint of inhibition of growth of the aortic root, “there is no evidence of any interaction between the effects of ARBs with beta-blockers, and so we think that the treatment effects are likely to be additive,” reported Alex Pitcher, BMBCh, DPhil, Oxford (England) University Hospitals, NHS Trust.

Based on these data, Dr. Pitcher recommended considering ARBs and beta-blockers together soon after the diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. This includes young children.

“We think that medical treatments can delay surgery and dissection substantially if given for a number of years,” he added.

In this study, undertaken by the Marfan Treatment Trialists (MTT) collaboration, data were available from 1,442 Marfan syndrome patients participating in seven treatment trials. The primary outcome was aortic root enlargement, a predictor of life-threatening aortic dissection and rupture. Rather than a meta-analysis of the pooled data, the meta-analysis was conducted with individual patient data that involved collaboration with the original trialists.

Four of the studies with 746 patients compared ARBs to placebo or a control medication. A second group of three trials with 766 patients compared ARBs to beta-blockers.

From the two sets of data, a calculation of the effect of beta-blockers was indirectly estimated.
 

ARBs slow annualized aortic growth rate significantly

In the first set of trials, the analysis showed a significantly slower annualized aortic root growth rate for those treated with ARBs relative to controls (0.07 vs. 0.13), producing a statistically significant absolute difference (0.7%; P = .01) in favor of the ARB.

“In other words, the rate of growth was nearly double in the control arm,” Dr. Pitcher said.

In the three trials comparing ARBs to beta-blockers, the annualized growth rate among those taking an ARB was similar (0.8%) to that seen in the previous set of controlled trials. This rate of annualized growth was not significantly different from the 0.11% annualized rate of growth in patients receiving beta-blockers. When an analysis of the impact of beta-blockers was conducted by indirectly evaluating the change in growth relative to controls, the estimated impact was an annualized growth rate of 0.9% (P = .042).

A second set of data provided the basis for suggesting that the effects of beta ARBs and beta-blockers are independent and potentially additive.

“We were able to look at subgroups of patients in the ARB trials that were broken down by whether they were or were not on beta-blockers at baseline, and so by doing able to estimate independent effects,” Dr. Pitcher said. The lack of any interactions led Dr. Pitcher to conclude that benefits are likely additive.

Of patients genotyped in the ARB studies, more than 80% had the FBN1 pathogenic variant of Marfan syndrome. When the data were analyzed by subgroups, including age or blood pressure, there were no differences in treatment effect except for those with the FBN1 mutation in whom the benefit of ARB therapy was greater relative to those without.

As FBN1 is one of the most common genetic signatures of Marfan syndrome, the “greater effect of ARBs in this group makes it more plausible that the effect is real,” Dr. Pitcher said.
 

Results could change treatment guidelines

Current guidelines recommend beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome prior to a dilatation size of 4.5 to 5 cm when surgery is indicated, according to Dr. Pitcher, but he said these data might change guidelines. While reinforcing the benefit of beta-blockers, this analysis suggests ARBs should also be considered, possibly in combination with beta-blockers.

“What I hope this meta-analysis does is add substantially to the certainty with which physicians can discuss treatments with patients.”

As for the mechanism, it is reasonable to speculate the antihypertensive effect of both medications is relevant, but each has plausible independent activities that might contribute to modifying aortic growth, according to Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, MD, PhD, a specialist in aortic diseases and heart failure at Raboud University Medical Center, Nijmegan, the Netherlands.

Citing several studies, he suggested that the benefit of beta-blockers could also stem from their ability to reduce heart rate and aortic stiffness while ARBs are likely to inhibit the interaction between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and TGF-beta pathway. Each of these might participate in risk of aortic root growth, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, who was invited by ESC to discuss this study.

On the basis of these data as well as past studies, he agreed that the combination of beta-blockers and ARBs might not just be additive but “even a little bit synergistic.”

While Dr. Pitcher suggested that the evidence supports starting both beta-blockers and ARBs soon after the diagnosis, Dr. van Kimmenade said, “I don’t like using beta-blockers in young patients, but ARBs are now shown to be an excellent alternative.”

Ultimately, “the prescription pencil will not replace the surgical knife” in a disease that is likely to eventually require surgery to prevent life-threatening events, according to Dr. van Kimmenade, but he agreed that these data provide more certainty about the value of beta-blockers and ARBs for slowing progression.

Dr. Pitcher reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. van Kimmenade has financial relationships with Bayer and Novartis.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

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

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Patients with heart failure (HF) who received two doses of COVID mRNA vaccines were not more likely to have worsening disease, venous thromboembolism, or myocarditis within 90 days than similar unvaccinated patients, in a case-control study in Denmark.

Moreover, in the 90 days after receiving the second shot, vaccinated patients were less likely to die of any cause, compared with unvaccinated patients during a similar 90-day period.

Caroline Sindet-Pedersen, PhD, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues presented these findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Major risk is not receiving vaccine

These results “confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19,” Marco Metra, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. Metra was coauthor of an ESC guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, published online ahead of print November 2021 in the European Heart Journal.

The guidance explains that patients with HF are at increased risk for hospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, and death because of COVID-19, and that vaccination reduces the risk for serious illness from COVID-19, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues explained in a press release from the ESC.

However, “concerns remain,” they added, “about the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients, due to a perceived increased risk of cardiovascular side effects.”

The study findings suggest that “there should be no concern about cardiovascular side effects from mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues summarized.

The results also “point to a beneficial effect of vaccination on mortality” and “indicate that patients with HF should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters,” they added.

“There are ongoing concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in fragile patients and patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Metra, professor of cardiology and director of the Institute of Cardiology of the Civil Hospital and University of Brescia (Italy).

“These concerns are not based on evidence but just on reports of rare side effects (namely, myocarditis and pericarditis) in vaccinated people,” he added.

Dr. Metra also coauthored a position paper on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with HF from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, which was published online October 2021 in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

“The current study,” he summarized, “shows a lower risk of mortality among patients vaccinated, compared with those not vaccinated.

“It has limitations,” he cautioned, “as it is not a prospective randomized study, but [rather] an observational one with comparison between vaccinated and not vaccinated patients with similar characteristics.

“However, it was done in a large population,” he noted, “and its results confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19.”

95% of patients with HF in Denmark double vaccinated

The group did not analyze the types of all-cause death in their study, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen clarified in an interview.

Other studies have shown that vaccines are associated with improved survival, she noted. For example, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccines and the measles vaccines have been linked with a decreased risk for nonspecific mortality in children, and influenza vaccines are associated with decreased all-cause mortality in patients with HF.

The rates of vaccination in this study were much higher than those for patients with HF in the United States.

In a study of 7,094 patients with HF seen at the Mount Sinai Health System between January 2021 and January 2022, 31% of patients were fully vaccinated with two doses and 14.8% had also received a booster, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. However, another 9.1% of patients were only partially vaccinated with one dose, and 45% remained unvaccinated by January 2022,

In the current study, “the uptake was very high,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen noted, that is, “95% of the prevalent heart failure patients in 2021 received a vaccine.”

“It might be that the last 5% of the patients that did not receive a vaccine were too ill [terminal] to receive the vaccine,” she speculated, “or that was due to personal reasons.”

The researchers identified 50,893 patients with HF who were double vaccinated in 2021 and they matched them with 50,893 unvaccinated patients with HF in 2019 (prepandemic), with the same age, sex, HF duration, use of HF medications, ischemic heart disease, cancer, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and admission with HF within 90 days.

Almost all patients in the vaccinated group received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine (92%) and the rest received the Moderna mRNA vaccine (8%), in 2021.

The patients had a mean age of 74, and 64% were men. They had HF for a median of 4.1 years.

During the 90-day follow-up, 1,311 patients in the unvaccinated cohort (2.56%) and 1,113 patients in the vaccinated cohort (2.23%) died; there was a significantly lower risk for all-cause death in the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort (–0.33 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.52 to –0.15 percentage points).

The risk for worsening heart failure was 1.1% in each group; myocarditis and venous thromboembolism were extremely rare, and risks for these conditions were not significantly different in the two groups.

The researchers and Dr. Metra declared they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metra is editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Heart Failure and senior consulting editor of the European Heart Journal.

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

Patients with heart failure (HF) who received two doses of COVID mRNA vaccines were not more likely to have worsening disease, venous thromboembolism, or myocarditis within 90 days than similar unvaccinated patients, in a case-control study in Denmark.

Moreover, in the 90 days after receiving the second shot, vaccinated patients were less likely to die of any cause, compared with unvaccinated patients during a similar 90-day period.

Caroline Sindet-Pedersen, PhD, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues presented these findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Major risk is not receiving vaccine

These results “confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19,” Marco Metra, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. Metra was coauthor of an ESC guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, published online ahead of print November 2021 in the European Heart Journal.

The guidance explains that patients with HF are at increased risk for hospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, and death because of COVID-19, and that vaccination reduces the risk for serious illness from COVID-19, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues explained in a press release from the ESC.

However, “concerns remain,” they added, “about the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients, due to a perceived increased risk of cardiovascular side effects.”

The study findings suggest that “there should be no concern about cardiovascular side effects from mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues summarized.

The results also “point to a beneficial effect of vaccination on mortality” and “indicate that patients with HF should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters,” they added.

“There are ongoing concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in fragile patients and patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Metra, professor of cardiology and director of the Institute of Cardiology of the Civil Hospital and University of Brescia (Italy).

“These concerns are not based on evidence but just on reports of rare side effects (namely, myocarditis and pericarditis) in vaccinated people,” he added.

Dr. Metra also coauthored a position paper on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with HF from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, which was published online October 2021 in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

“The current study,” he summarized, “shows a lower risk of mortality among patients vaccinated, compared with those not vaccinated.

“It has limitations,” he cautioned, “as it is not a prospective randomized study, but [rather] an observational one with comparison between vaccinated and not vaccinated patients with similar characteristics.

“However, it was done in a large population,” he noted, “and its results confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19.”

95% of patients with HF in Denmark double vaccinated

The group did not analyze the types of all-cause death in their study, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen clarified in an interview.

Other studies have shown that vaccines are associated with improved survival, she noted. For example, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccines and the measles vaccines have been linked with a decreased risk for nonspecific mortality in children, and influenza vaccines are associated with decreased all-cause mortality in patients with HF.

The rates of vaccination in this study were much higher than those for patients with HF in the United States.

In a study of 7,094 patients with HF seen at the Mount Sinai Health System between January 2021 and January 2022, 31% of patients were fully vaccinated with two doses and 14.8% had also received a booster, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. However, another 9.1% of patients were only partially vaccinated with one dose, and 45% remained unvaccinated by January 2022,

In the current study, “the uptake was very high,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen noted, that is, “95% of the prevalent heart failure patients in 2021 received a vaccine.”

“It might be that the last 5% of the patients that did not receive a vaccine were too ill [terminal] to receive the vaccine,” she speculated, “or that was due to personal reasons.”

The researchers identified 50,893 patients with HF who were double vaccinated in 2021 and they matched them with 50,893 unvaccinated patients with HF in 2019 (prepandemic), with the same age, sex, HF duration, use of HF medications, ischemic heart disease, cancer, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and admission with HF within 90 days.

Almost all patients in the vaccinated group received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine (92%) and the rest received the Moderna mRNA vaccine (8%), in 2021.

The patients had a mean age of 74, and 64% were men. They had HF for a median of 4.1 years.

During the 90-day follow-up, 1,311 patients in the unvaccinated cohort (2.56%) and 1,113 patients in the vaccinated cohort (2.23%) died; there was a significantly lower risk for all-cause death in the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort (–0.33 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.52 to –0.15 percentage points).

The risk for worsening heart failure was 1.1% in each group; myocarditis and venous thromboembolism were extremely rare, and risks for these conditions were not significantly different in the two groups.

The researchers and Dr. Metra declared they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metra is editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Heart Failure and senior consulting editor of the European Heart Journal.

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

Patients with heart failure (HF) who received two doses of COVID mRNA vaccines were not more likely to have worsening disease, venous thromboembolism, or myocarditis within 90 days than similar unvaccinated patients, in a case-control study in Denmark.

Moreover, in the 90 days after receiving the second shot, vaccinated patients were less likely to die of any cause, compared with unvaccinated patients during a similar 90-day period.

Caroline Sindet-Pedersen, PhD, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues presented these findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Major risk is not receiving vaccine

These results “confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19,” Marco Metra, MD, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. Metra was coauthor of an ESC guidance for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, published online ahead of print November 2021 in the European Heart Journal.

The guidance explains that patients with HF are at increased risk for hospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, and death because of COVID-19, and that vaccination reduces the risk for serious illness from COVID-19, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues explained in a press release from the ESC.

However, “concerns remain,” they added, “about the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients, due to a perceived increased risk of cardiovascular side effects.”

The study findings suggest that “there should be no concern about cardiovascular side effects from mRNA vaccines in heart failure patients,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen and colleagues summarized.

The results also “point to a beneficial effect of vaccination on mortality” and “indicate that patients with HF should be prioritized for COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters,” they added.

“There are ongoing concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in fragile patients and patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Metra, professor of cardiology and director of the Institute of Cardiology of the Civil Hospital and University of Brescia (Italy).

“These concerns are not based on evidence but just on reports of rare side effects (namely, myocarditis and pericarditis) in vaccinated people,” he added.

Dr. Metra also coauthored a position paper on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with HF from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, which was published online October 2021 in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

“The current study,” he summarized, “shows a lower risk of mortality among patients vaccinated, compared with those not vaccinated.

“It has limitations,” he cautioned, “as it is not a prospective randomized study, but [rather] an observational one with comparison between vaccinated and not vaccinated patients with similar characteristics.

“However, it was done in a large population,” he noted, “and its results confirm that the major risk for patients with HF is not receiving vaccination for COVID-19.”

95% of patients with HF in Denmark double vaccinated

The group did not analyze the types of all-cause death in their study, Dr. Sindet-Pedersen clarified in an interview.

Other studies have shown that vaccines are associated with improved survival, she noted. For example, bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccines and the measles vaccines have been linked with a decreased risk for nonspecific mortality in children, and influenza vaccines are associated with decreased all-cause mortality in patients with HF.

The rates of vaccination in this study were much higher than those for patients with HF in the United States.

In a study of 7,094 patients with HF seen at the Mount Sinai Health System between January 2021 and January 2022, 31% of patients were fully vaccinated with two doses and 14.8% had also received a booster, as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance. However, another 9.1% of patients were only partially vaccinated with one dose, and 45% remained unvaccinated by January 2022,

In the current study, “the uptake was very high,” Dr. Sindet-Pedersen noted, that is, “95% of the prevalent heart failure patients in 2021 received a vaccine.”

“It might be that the last 5% of the patients that did not receive a vaccine were too ill [terminal] to receive the vaccine,” she speculated, “or that was due to personal reasons.”

The researchers identified 50,893 patients with HF who were double vaccinated in 2021 and they matched them with 50,893 unvaccinated patients with HF in 2019 (prepandemic), with the same age, sex, HF duration, use of HF medications, ischemic heart disease, cancer, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and admission with HF within 90 days.

Almost all patients in the vaccinated group received the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine (92%) and the rest received the Moderna mRNA vaccine (8%), in 2021.

The patients had a mean age of 74, and 64% were men. They had HF for a median of 4.1 years.

During the 90-day follow-up, 1,311 patients in the unvaccinated cohort (2.56%) and 1,113 patients in the vaccinated cohort (2.23%) died; there was a significantly lower risk for all-cause death in the vaccinated cohort versus the unvaccinated cohort (–0.33 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.52 to –0.15 percentage points).

The risk for worsening heart failure was 1.1% in each group; myocarditis and venous thromboembolism were extremely rare, and risks for these conditions were not significantly different in the two groups.

The researchers and Dr. Metra declared they have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Metra is editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Heart Failure and senior consulting editor of the European Heart Journal.

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