Spanish Rheumatology Society and Hospital Pharmacy Society Consensus on recommendations for biologics optimization in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis

The aim of this study was to establish guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies for health professionals involved in the management of patients with RA, AS and PsA. Recommendations were established via consensus by a panel of experts in rheumatology and hospital pharmacy, based on analysis of available scientific evidence obtained from four systematic reviews and on the clinical experience of panellists. The Delphi method was used to evaluate these recommendations, both between panellists and among a wider group of rheumatologists. Previous concepts concerning better management of RA, AS and PsA were reviewed and, more specifically, guidelines for the optimization of biologic therapies used to treat these diseases were formulated. Recommendations were made with the aim of establishing a plan for when and how to taper biologic treatment in patients with these diseases. The recommendations established herein aim not only to provide advice on how to improve the risk:benefit ratio and efficiency of such treatments, but also to reduce variability in daily clinical practice in the use of biologic therapies for rheumatic diseases

Long-term benefit of early pre-reperfusion metoprolol administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Results from the Metocard-CNIC trial (Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection during an Acute Myocardial Infarction)

The goal of this trial was to study the long-term effects of intravenous (IV) metoprolol administration before reperfusion on left ventricular (LV) function and clinical events. Early IV metoprolol during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been shown to reduce infarct size when used in conjunction with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). The METOCARD-CNIC (Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial recruited 270 patients with Killip class ≤II anterior STEMI presenting early after symptom onset (<6 h) and randomized them to pre-reperfusion IV metoprolol or control group. Long-term magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on 202 patients (101 per group) 6 months after STEMI. Patients had a minimal 12-month clinical follow-up. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at the 6 months MRI was higher after IV metoprolol (48.7 ± 9.9% vs. 45.0 ± 11.7% in control subjects; adjusted treatment effect 3.49%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44% to 6.55%; p = 0.025). The occurrence of severely depressed LVEF (≤35%) at 6 months was significantly lower in patients treated with IV metoprolol (11% vs. 27%, p = 0.006). The proportion of patients fulfilling Class I indications for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was significantly lower in the IV metoprolol group (7% vs. 20%, p = 0.012). At a median follow-up of 2 years, occurrence of the pre-specified composite of death, heart failure admission, reinfarction, and malignant arrhythmias was 10.8% in the IV metoprolol group versus 18.3% in the control group, adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.55; 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.04; p = 0.065. Heart failure admission was significantly lower in the IV metoprolol group (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.015 to 0.95; p = 0.046). In patients with anterior Killip class ≤II STEMI undergoing pPCI, early IV metoprolol before reperfusion resulted in higher long-term LVEF, reduced incidence of severe LV systolic dysfunction and ICD indications, and fewer heart failure admissions.

Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among cardiogenic shock patients. Prognostic and therapeutic implications

Cardiogenic shock (CS) has a poor prognosis. The heterogeneity in the mortality through different subgroups suggests that some factors can be useful to perform risk stratification and guide management. We aimed to find predictors of in-hospital mortality in these patients. We analyzed all cases of cardiogenic shock due to medical conditions admitted in our intensive acute cardiovascular care unity from November 2010 till November 2015. Clinical, biochemical and hemodynamic variables were registered, as was the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile at 24 h of CS diagnosis. From a total of 281 patients, 28 died within the first 24 h and were not included in the analysis. A total of 253 patients survived the first 24 h, mean age was 68.8 ± 14.4 years, and 174 (68.8%) were men. Etiologies: acute coronary syndrome 146 (57.7%), acute heart failure 60 (23.7%), arrhythmias 35 (13.8%), and others 12 (4.8%). A total of 91 patients (36.0%) died during hospitalization. We found the following independent predictors of in-hospital mortality: age (odds ratio [OR] 1.032, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.003–1.062), blood glucose (OR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001–1.008), heart rate (OR 1.014, 95% CI 1.001–1.028), and INTERMACS profile (OR 0.168, 95% CI 0.107–0.266). In patients with CS the INTERMACS profile at 24 h of diagnosis was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. This and other prognostic variables (age, blood glucose, and heart rate) may be useful for risk stratification and to select appropriate medical or invasive interventions.

Edoxaban versus enoxaparin–warfarin in patients undergoing cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial

Background Edoxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, is non-inferior for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and is associated with less bleeding than well controlled warfarin therapy. Few safety data about edoxaban in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion are available. Methods We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint evaluation trial in 19 countries with 239 sites comparing edoxaban 60 mg per day with enoxaparin–warfarin in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion of non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The dose of edoxaban was reduced to 30 mg per day if one or more factors (creatinine clearance 15–50 mL/min, low bodyweight [≤60 kg], or concomitant use of P-glycoprotein inhibitors) were present. Block randomisation (block size four)—stratified by cardioversion approach (transoesophageal echocardiography [TEE] or not), anticoagulant experience, selected edoxaban dose, and region—was done through a voice-web system. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of stroke, systemic embolic event, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality, analysed by intention to treat. The primary safety endpoint was major and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Follow-up was 28 days on study drug after cardioversion plus 30 days to assess safety. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02072434. Findings Between March 25, 2014, and Oct 28, 2015, 2199 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive edoxaban (n=1095) or enoxaparin–warfarin (n=1104). The mean age was 64 years (SD 10·54) and mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2·6 (SD 1·4). Mean time in therapeutic range on warfarin was 70·8% (SD 27·4). The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in five (<1%) patients in the edoxaban group versus 11 (1%) in the enoxaparin–warfarin group (odds ratio [OR] 0·46, 95% CI 0·12–1·43). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 16 (1%) of 1067 patients given edoxaban versus 11 (1%) of 1082 patients given enoxaparin–warfarin (OR 1·48, 95% CI 0·64–3·55). The results were independent of the TEE-guided strategy and anticoagulation status. Interpretation ENSURE-AF is the largest prospective randomised clinical trial of anticoagulation for cardioversion of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Rates of major and CRNM bleeding and thromboembolism were low in the two treatment groups. Funding Daiichi Sankyo provided financial support for the study. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd