Scientists have found the coronavirus in 29 kinds of animals, including household pets, livestock, and wildlife, according to researchers’ latest tally.

In most cases, humans infect animals, and animals don’t transmit the virus back to humans. But scientists have expressed concerns about recent research that shows some animals – such as mink and deer – appear to be able to spread the virus to humans.

In addition, the virus will likely continue to circulate in wild animals, which could lead to new mutations, some of which may make the virus less susceptible to people’s immunity from current vaccines. Researchers are calling for better surveillance of animals, especially in the wild, to track any new variants.

“It could be evolving in hosts we are not aware of,” Eman Anis, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Scientists have identified the virus in a growing list of animals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including cats, dogs, ferrets, gorillas, hamsters, hippos, hyenas, mice, otters, pigs, rabbits, and tigers. In many cases, humans spread the coronavirus to pets at home or to wildlife in zoos and sanctuaries.

In the study, published in bioRxiv, researchers identified a person who tested positive after close contact with infected white-tailed deer. The coronavirus had evolved dozens of mutations not found in other strains.

Even with the changes, the virus they found doesn’t appear different enough to evade current vaccines, the researchers reported. The vaccines target the spike protein on the outside of coronavirus cells, and the mutations that happened in deer occurred elsewhere in the virus.

At the same time, scientists have noted that this points to the need to step up monitoring in wild animals before mutations become a problem.

“This is no need to panic, but this is not something we can ignore,” Suresh Kuchipudi, PhD, a professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told the Inquirer.

Dr. Kuchipudi, who wasn’t involved with the Canadian study, has done other studies that found COVID-19 in deer. As the coronavirus continues to circulate in deer, more mutations will arise, he noted.

“It’s hard to predict what evolution’s going to come up with,” Frederic Bushman, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Inquirer.

“The virus will probably change different ways in different animals. Some of them probably won’t infect humans as well,” he said. “But the fear is that maybe some new one will come along that does infect humans well.”

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

Scientists have found the coronavirus in 29 kinds of animals, including household pets, livestock, and wildlife, according to researchers’ latest tally.

In most cases, humans infect animals, and animals don’t transmit the virus back to humans. But scientists have expressed concerns about recent research that shows some animals – such as mink and deer – appear to be able to spread the virus to humans.

In addition, the virus will likely continue to circulate in wild animals, which could lead to new mutations, some of which may make the virus less susceptible to people’s immunity from current vaccines. Researchers are calling for better surveillance of animals, especially in the wild, to track any new variants.

“It could be evolving in hosts we are not aware of,” Eman Anis, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Scientists have identified the virus in a growing list of animals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including cats, dogs, ferrets, gorillas, hamsters, hippos, hyenas, mice, otters, pigs, rabbits, and tigers. In many cases, humans spread the coronavirus to pets at home or to wildlife in zoos and sanctuaries.

In the study, published in bioRxiv, researchers identified a person who tested positive after close contact with infected white-tailed deer. The coronavirus had evolved dozens of mutations not found in other strains.

Even with the changes, the virus they found doesn’t appear different enough to evade current vaccines, the researchers reported. The vaccines target the spike protein on the outside of coronavirus cells, and the mutations that happened in deer occurred elsewhere in the virus.

At the same time, scientists have noted that this points to the need to step up monitoring in wild animals before mutations become a problem.

“This is no need to panic, but this is not something we can ignore,” Suresh Kuchipudi, PhD, a professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told the Inquirer.

Dr. Kuchipudi, who wasn’t involved with the Canadian study, has done other studies that found COVID-19 in deer. As the coronavirus continues to circulate in deer, more mutations will arise, he noted.

“It’s hard to predict what evolution’s going to come up with,” Frederic Bushman, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Inquirer.

“The virus will probably change different ways in different animals. Some of them probably won’t infect humans as well,” he said. “But the fear is that maybe some new one will come along that does infect humans well.”

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

Scientists have found the coronavirus in 29 kinds of animals, including household pets, livestock, and wildlife, according to researchers’ latest tally.

In most cases, humans infect animals, and animals don’t transmit the virus back to humans. But scientists have expressed concerns about recent research that shows some animals – such as mink and deer – appear to be able to spread the virus to humans.

In addition, the virus will likely continue to circulate in wild animals, which could lead to new mutations, some of which may make the virus less susceptible to people’s immunity from current vaccines. Researchers are calling for better surveillance of animals, especially in the wild, to track any new variants.

“It could be evolving in hosts we are not aware of,” Eman Anis, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Scientists have identified the virus in a growing list of animals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including cats, dogs, ferrets, gorillas, hamsters, hippos, hyenas, mice, otters, pigs, rabbits, and tigers. In many cases, humans spread the coronavirus to pets at home or to wildlife in zoos and sanctuaries.

In the study, published in bioRxiv, researchers identified a person who tested positive after close contact with infected white-tailed deer. The coronavirus had evolved dozens of mutations not found in other strains.

Even with the changes, the virus they found doesn’t appear different enough to evade current vaccines, the researchers reported. The vaccines target the spike protein on the outside of coronavirus cells, and the mutations that happened in deer occurred elsewhere in the virus.

At the same time, scientists have noted that this points to the need to step up monitoring in wild animals before mutations become a problem.

“This is no need to panic, but this is not something we can ignore,” Suresh Kuchipudi, PhD, a professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told the Inquirer.

Dr. Kuchipudi, who wasn’t involved with the Canadian study, has done other studies that found COVID-19 in deer. As the coronavirus continues to circulate in deer, more mutations will arise, he noted.

“It’s hard to predict what evolution’s going to come up with,” Frederic Bushman, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Inquirer.

“The virus will probably change different ways in different animals. Some of them probably won’t infect humans as well,” he said. “But the fear is that maybe some new one will come along that does infect humans well.”

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

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem confronting family physicians. In this issue of JFP, we offer 2 articles about AF: one on prevention and one on treatment. Both provide evidence-based guidance to help you refine your care. But gaps remain. I’ll get to that in a bit.

Prevention. This month’s PURL¹ discusses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled moderate alcohol drinkers with AF.² Compared to those who continued to drink moderately, those who reduced their alcohol consumption to 2 drinks per week had a significant reduction in recurrent AF (73% vs 53%), fewer hospitalizations (20% vs 9%), and less moderate or severe symptoms (32% vs 10%). Although previous studies of moderate alcohol consumption have shown positive effects on heart disease, this study and other more recent studies cast serious doubt on this assertion.³

The dilemma is that your patient with a wearable exercise monitoring device will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

Treatment. In their applied evidence article, Osayande and Sharma⁴ pose the question: When is catheter ablation a sound option for your patient with AF? They give us an excellent, evidence-based answer and remind us that we must focus on the treatment goals: to prevent stroke and to control symptoms. They recommend a stepwise approach, starting with rate control, progressing to rhythm control, and saving catheter ablation for resistant cases. In nearly all cases, anticoagulation to prevent stroke must be a part of treatment, with the exception of those with very low risk (so-called “lone atrial fibrillation”).

Screening. And what about screening for asymptomatic AF? The US Preventive Services Task Force recently reaffirmed its conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for screening for asymptomatic AF (a topic discussed in an online Practice Alert Brief⁵).⁶ Since wearable exercise-monitoring devices can detect heart arrhythmias (and are advertised for this purpose), a patient may present after receiving a notification about asymptomatic AF. What shall we do in these cases? The dilemma is that your patient will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

A recently published study suggests that we should be very cautious in recommending treatment. In an RCT of patients ages 70 to 90 years, 1501 patients received an implantable loop recorder, while 4503 received routine health care; median follow-up was 64.5 months.⁷ Although more cases of AF were detected (32% in the monitored group vs 12% in the usual care group), and oral anticoagulation treatment was started more frequently (30% vs 13%, respectively), there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a stroke or systemic arterial embolism (4.5% vs 5.6%).⁷ Until we have more data, reassurance seems to be the best recommendation for asymptomatic AF.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem confronting family physicians. In this issue of JFP, we offer 2 articles about AF: one on prevention and one on treatment. Both provide evidence-based guidance to help you refine your care. But gaps remain. I’ll get to that in a bit.

Prevention. This month’s PURL¹ discusses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled moderate alcohol drinkers with AF.² Compared to those who continued to drink moderately, those who reduced their alcohol consumption to 2 drinks per week had a significant reduction in recurrent AF (73% vs 53%), fewer hospitalizations (20% vs 9%), and less moderate or severe symptoms (32% vs 10%). Although previous studies of moderate alcohol consumption have shown positive effects on heart disease, this study and other more recent studies cast serious doubt on this assertion.³

The dilemma is that your patient with a wearable exercise monitoring device will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

Treatment. In their applied evidence article, Osayande and Sharma⁴ pose the question: When is catheter ablation a sound option for your patient with AF? They give us an excellent, evidence-based answer and remind us that we must focus on the treatment goals: to prevent stroke and to control symptoms. They recommend a stepwise approach, starting with rate control, progressing to rhythm control, and saving catheter ablation for resistant cases. In nearly all cases, anticoagulation to prevent stroke must be a part of treatment, with the exception of those with very low risk (so-called “lone atrial fibrillation”).

Screening. And what about screening for asymptomatic AF? The US Preventive Services Task Force recently reaffirmed its conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for screening for asymptomatic AF (a topic discussed in an online Practice Alert Brief⁵).⁶ Since wearable exercise-monitoring devices can detect heart arrhythmias (and are advertised for this purpose), a patient may present after receiving a notification about asymptomatic AF. What shall we do in these cases? The dilemma is that your patient will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

A recently published study suggests that we should be very cautious in recommending treatment. In an RCT of patients ages 70 to 90 years, 1501 patients received an implantable loop recorder, while 4503 received routine health care; median follow-up was 64.5 months.⁷ Although more cases of AF were detected (32% in the monitored group vs 12% in the usual care group), and oral anticoagulation treatment was started more frequently (30% vs 13%, respectively), there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a stroke or systemic arterial embolism (4.5% vs 5.6%).⁷ Until we have more data, reassurance seems to be the best recommendation for asymptomatic AF.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem confronting family physicians. In this issue of JFP, we offer 2 articles about AF: one on prevention and one on treatment. Both provide evidence-based guidance to help you refine your care. But gaps remain. I’ll get to that in a bit.

Prevention. This month’s PURL¹ discusses a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled moderate alcohol drinkers with AF.² Compared to those who continued to drink moderately, those who reduced their alcohol consumption to 2 drinks per week had a significant reduction in recurrent AF (73% vs 53%), fewer hospitalizations (20% vs 9%), and less moderate or severe symptoms (32% vs 10%). Although previous studies of moderate alcohol consumption have shown positive effects on heart disease, this study and other more recent studies cast serious doubt on this assertion.³

The dilemma is that your patient with a wearable exercise monitoring device will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

Treatment. In their applied evidence article, Osayande and Sharma⁴ pose the question: When is catheter ablation a sound option for your patient with AF? They give us an excellent, evidence-based answer and remind us that we must focus on the treatment goals: to prevent stroke and to control symptoms. They recommend a stepwise approach, starting with rate control, progressing to rhythm control, and saving catheter ablation for resistant cases. In nearly all cases, anticoagulation to prevent stroke must be a part of treatment, with the exception of those with very low risk (so-called “lone atrial fibrillation”).

Screening. And what about screening for asymptomatic AF? The US Preventive Services Task Force recently reaffirmed its conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for screening for asymptomatic AF (a topic discussed in an online Practice Alert Brief⁵).⁶ Since wearable exercise-monitoring devices can detect heart arrhythmias (and are advertised for this purpose), a patient may present after receiving a notification about asymptomatic AF. What shall we do in these cases? The dilemma is that your patient will know she has a potentially dangerous condition, but there is no evidence that treating it will result in more benefit than harm.

A recently published study suggests that we should be very cautious in recommending treatment. In an RCT of patients ages 70 to 90 years, 1501 patients received an implantable loop recorder, while 4503 received routine health care; median follow-up was 64.5 months.⁷ Although more cases of AF were detected (32% in the monitored group vs 12% in the usual care group), and oral anticoagulation treatment was started more frequently (30% vs 13%, respectively), there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who had a stroke or systemic arterial embolism (4.5% vs 5.6%).⁷ Until we have more data, reassurance seems to be the best recommendation for asymptomatic AF.

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

In a typical year, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has three 1.5- to 2-day meetings to make recommendations for the use of new and existing vaccines in the US population. However, 2021 was not a typical year. Last year, ACIP held 17 meetings for a total of 127 hours. Most of these were related to vaccines to prevent COVID-19. There are now 3 COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: the 2-dose mRNA-based Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and the single-dose adenovirus, vector-based Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine.

TABLE 1¹ includes the actions taken by the ACIP from late 2020 through 2021 related to COVID-19 vaccines. All of these recommendations except 1 occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the product using an emergency use authorization (EUA). The exception is the recommendation for use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) for those ages 16 years and older, which was approved under the normal process 8 months after widespread use under an EUA.

Hepatitis B vaccine now for all nonimmune adults up through 59 years

Since the introduction of hepatitis B (HepB) vaccines in 1980, the incidence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States has been reduced dramatically; there were an estimated 287,000 cases in 1985² and 19,200 in 2014.³ However, the incidence among adults has not declined in recent years and among someage groups has actually increased. Among those ages 40 to 49 years, the rate went from 1.9 per 100,000 in 2011⁴ to 2.7 per 100,000 population in 2019.⁵ In those ages 50 to 59, there was an increase from 1.1 to 1.6 per 100,000 population over the same period of time.^4,5

Recommendations for using HepB vaccine in adults have been based on risk that involves individual behavior, occupation, and medical conditions (TABLE 2⁶). The presence of these risk factors is often unknown to medical professionals, who rarely ask about or document them. And patients can be reluctant to disclose them for fear of being stigmatized. The consequence has been a low rate of vaccination in at-risk adults.

At its November 2021 meeting, ACIP accepted the advice of the Hepatitis Work Group to move to a universal adult recommendation through age 59.⁷ ACIP believed that the incidence of acute infection in those ages 60 and older was too low to merit a universal recommendation. The new recommendation states that all adults through age 59 years who are not immune to HBV through vaccination or prior infection should receive a HepB vaccine series, as should those 60 years and older with a risk factor (TABLE 2⁶). If a patient’s immune status is unknown, ACIP recommends administering the vaccine, as there are no documented harmful effects of doing so in an individual with immunity.

Multiple HepB vaccine products are available for adults. Two are recombinant-based and require 3 doses: Engerix-B (GlaxoSmithKline) and Recombivax HB (Merck). One is recombinant based and requires only 2 doses: Heplisav-B (Dynavax Technologies). A new product recently approved by the FDA, ­PREHEVBRIO (VBI Vaccines), is another recombinant 3-dose option that the ACIP will consider early in 2022. HepB and HepA vaccines can also be co-administered with Twinrix (GlaxoSmithKline).

Pneumococcal vaccines: New PCV vaccines alter prescribing choices

The ACIP recommendations for pneumococcal vaccines in adults have been very confusing, involving 2 vaccines: PCV13 (Prevnar13, Pfizer) and PPSV23 (Pneumovax23, Merck). Both PCV13 and PPSV23 given in series were recommended for immunocompromised patients, but only PPSV23 was recommended for those with chronic medical conditions. For those 65 and older, PPSV23 was recommended for all individuals (including those with no chronic or immunocompromising condition), and PCV13 was recommended for those with immunocompromising conditions. Other adults in this older age group could receive PCV13 based on individual risk and shared clinical decision making.⁸

Continue to: This past year...

This past year, 2 new PCV vaccines were approved by the FDA: PCV15 (Vaxneuvance, Merck) and PCV20 (Prevnar20, Pfizer). While considering these new vaccines, the ACIP re-­assessed its entire approval of pneumococcal vaccines. First, they retained the cutoff for universal pneumococcal vaccination at 65 years. For those younger than 65, they combined chronic medical conditions and immunocompromising conditions into a single at-risk group (TABLE 3⁹). They then issued the same recommendation for older adults and those younger than 65 with risks: to receive a PCV vaccine, either PCV15 or PCV20. If they receive PCV15, it should be followed by PPSV23. PPSV23 is not recommended for those who receive PCV20. Therefore, PPSV23 is no longer routinely recommended for adults unless PCV15 is the PCV of choice.⁹ Clinical guidance on the use of PCV vaccines will be published in early 2022.

Zoster vaccine for younger adults

Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has been licensed and recommended in the United States since 2017 in a 2-dose schedule for adults ages 50 years and older. In the summer of 2021, the FDA expanded the indication for use of RZV to include individuals 18 to 49 years of age who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy. In October, the ACIP agreed and recommended 2 RZV doses for those 19 years and older in these risk groups (TABLE 4¹⁰).

This recommendation was based on the elevated risk of herpes zoster documented in those with immune-suppressing conditions and therapies. In the conditions studied, the incidence in these younger adults exceeded that for older adults, for whom the vaccine is recommended.¹⁰ There are many immune conditions and immune-suppressing medications. The ACIP Zoster Work Group did not have efficacy and safety information on the use of RZV in each one of them, even though their recommendation includes them all. Many of these patients are under the care of specialists whose specialty societies had been recommending zoster vaccine for their patients, off label, prior to the FDA authorization.

Rabies vaccine is now available in 2-dose schedule

People who should receive rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with rabies vaccine include laboratory personnel who work with rabies virus, biologists who work with bats, animal care professionals, wildlife biologists, veterinarians, and travelers who may be at risk of encountering rabid dogs. The recommendation has been for 3 doses of rabies vaccine at 0, 7, and 21-28 days. The ACIP voted at its June 2021 meeting to adopt a 2-dose PrEP schedule of 0 and 7 days.¹¹ This will be especially helpful to travelers who want to complete the recommended doses prior to departure. Those who have sustained risk over time can elect to have a third dose after 21 days and before 3 years, or elect to have titers checked. More detailed clinical advice will be published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2022.

Dengue vaccine: New rec for those 9-16 years

In 2019, the FDA approved the first dengue vaccine for use in the United States for children 9 to 16 years old who had laboratory-­confirmed previous dengue virus infection and who were living in an area where dengue is endemic. The CYD-TDV dengue vaccine (Dengvaxia) is a live-attenuated tetravalent vaccine built on a yellow fever vaccine backbone. Its effectiveness is 82% for prevention of symptomatic dengue, 79% for prevention of dengue-associated hospitalizations, and 84% against severe dengue.¹²

Continue to: Dengue viruses...

Dengue viruses (DENV) are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes. There are 4 serotypes of dengue, and all 4 appear to be circulating in most endemic countries. Clinical disease varies from a mild febrile illness to severe disease. The most common clinical presentation includes sudden onset of fever, headache, retro-orbital pain, myalgia and arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea.

The incidence of hepatitis B infection among adults has not declined in recent years and has actually increased in some age groups.

Severe disease includes plasma leakage, shock, respiratory distress, severe bleeding, and organ failure. While severe dengue can occur with a primary infection, a second infection with a different DENV increases the risk of severe dengue. A small increased risk of severe dengue occurs when dengue infection occurs after vaccination in those with no evidence of previous dengue infection. It is felt that the vaccine serves as a primary infection that increases the risk of severe dengue with subsequent infections. This is the reason that the vaccine is recommended only for those with a documented previous dengue infection.

At its June 2021 meeting, the ACIP recommended 3-doses of Dengvaxia, administered at 0, 6, and 12 months, for individuals 9 to 16 years of age who have laboratory confirmation of previous dengue infection and live in endemic areas.¹² These areas include the territories and affiliated states of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. Puerto Rico accounts for 85% of the population of these areas and 95% of reported dengue cases.¹²The reason for the delay between FDA approval and the ACIP recommendation was the need to wait for a readily available, accurate laboratory test to confirm previous dengue infection, which is now available. There are other dengue vaccines in development including 2 live-attenuated, tetravalent vaccine candidates in Phase 3 trials.

CASE

Jack Z, a 75-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension, diabetes controlled by diet, and atrial fibrillation (AF) presents to the family medicine clinic to establish care with you after moving to the community from out of town.

The patient describes a 1-year history of AF. He provides you with an echocardiography report from 6 months ago that shows no evidence of structural heart disease. He takes lisinopril, to control blood pressure; an anticoagulant; a beta-blocker; and amiodarone for rhythm control. Initially, he took flecainide, which was ineffective for rhythm control, before being switched to amiodarone. He had 2 cardioversion procedures, each time after episodes of symptoms. He does not smoke or drink alcohol.

Mr. Z describes worsening palpitations and shortness of breath over the past 9 months. Symptoms now include episodes of exertional fatigue, even when he is not having palpitations. Prior to the episodes of worsening symptoms, he tells you that he lived a “fairly active” life, golfing twice a week.

The patient’s previous primary care physician had encouraged him to talk to his cardiologist about “other options” for managing AF, because levels of his liver enzymes had started to rise (a known adverse effect of amiodarone¹) when measured 3 months ago. He did not undertake that conversation, but asks you now about other treatments for AF.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, characterized by discordant electrical activation of the atria due to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities, or both. The disorder is associated with an increased rate of stroke and heart failure and is independently associated with a 1.5- to 2-fold risk of all-cause mortality.²

In this article, we review the pathophysiology of AF; management, including the role of, and indications for, catheter ablation; and patient- and disease-related factors associated with ablation (including odds of success, complications, risk of recurrence, and continuing need for thromboprophylaxis) that family physicians should consider when contemplating referral to a cardiologist or electrophysiologist for catheter ablation for AF.

What provokes AF?

AF is thought to occur as a result of an interaction among 3 phenomena:

• enhanced automaticity of abnormal atrial tissue
• triggered activity of ectopic foci within 1 or more pulmonary veins, lying within the left atrium
• re-entry, in which there is propagation of electrical impulses from an ectopic beat through another pathway.

Continue to: In patients who progress...

In patients who progress from paroxysmal to persistent AF (see “Subtypes,” below), 2 distinct pathways, facilitated by the presence of abnormal tissue, continuously activate one another, thus maintaining the arrhythmia. Myocardial tissue in the pulmonary veins is responsible for most ectopic electrical impulses in patients with drug-refractory AF (see “Rhythm control”).

Subtypes. For the purpose of planning treatment, AF is classified as:

• Paroxysmal. Terminates spontaneously or with intervention ≤ 7 days after onset.
• Persistent. Continuous and sustained for > 7 days.
• Longstanding persistent. Continuous for > 12 months.
• Permanent. The patient and physician accept that there will be no further attempt to restore or maintain sinus rhythm.

Goals of treatment

Primary management goals in patients with AF are 2-fold: control of symptoms and prevention of thromboembolism. A patient with new-onset AF who presents acutely with inadequate rate control and hemodynamic compromise requires urgent assessment to determine the cause of the arrhythmia and need for cardioversion.³ A symptomatic patient with AF who does not have high-risk features (eg, valvular heart disease, mechanical valves) might be a candidate for rhythm control in addition to rate control.^3,4

Rate control. After evaluation in the hospital, a patient who has a rapid ventricular response but remains hemodynamically stable, without evidence of heart failure, should be initiated on a rate-controlling medication, such as a beta-blocker or nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker. A resting heart rate goal of < 80 beats per minute (bpm) is recommended for a symptomatic patient with AF. The heart rate goal can be relaxed, to < 110 bpm, in an asymptomatic patient with preserved left ventricular function.^5,6

Rhythm control, indicated in patients who remain symptomatic on rate-controlling medication, can be achieved either with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) or by catheter ablation.^4,5 In stable patients, rhythm control should be considered only after a thorough work-up for a reversible cause of AF, and can be achieved with an oral AAD or, in select patients, through catheter ablation (TABLE 1^3,6). Other indications for chronic rhythm control include treatment of patients with ­tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.⁵

Continuing symptoms when taking rate-controlling medication for atrial fibrillation is one indication for rhythm control with an antiarrhythmic drug or by catheter ablation.

A major study that documented the benefit of early rhythm control evaluated long-term outcomes in 2789 patients with AF who were undergoing catheter ablation.⁷ Patients were randomized to early rhythm control (catheter ablation or AAD) or “usual care”—ie, in this study, rhythm control limited to symptomatic patients. Primary outcomes were death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, and hospitalization with worsening heart failure or acute coronary syndrome. A first primary outcome event occurred in 249 patients (3.9/100 person-years) assigned to early rhythm control, compared to 316 (5.0 per 100 person-years) in the group assigned to usual care.

The study was terminated early (after 5.1 years) because of overwhelming evidence of efficacy (number need to treat = 7). Although early rhythm control was obtained through both catheter ablation and AAD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79; 96% CI, 0.66-0.94; P = .005), success was attributed to the use of catheter ablation for a rhythm-control strategy and its use among patients whose AF was present for < 1 year. Most patients in both treatment groups continued to receive anticoagulation, rate control, and optimization of cardiovascular risk.⁷

Continue to: Notably, direct studies...

Notably, direct studies comparing ablation and AAD have not confirmed the benefit of ablation over AAD in outcomes of all-cause mortality, bleeding, stroke, or cardiac arrest over a 5-year period.⁸

Adverse effects and mortality outcomes with AAD. Concern over using AAD for rhythm control is based mostly on adverse effects and long-term (1-year) mortality outcomes. Long-term AAD therapy has been shown to decrease the recurrence of AF—but without evidence to suggest other mortality benefits.

A meta-analysis of 59 randomized controlled trials reviewed 20,981 patients receiving AAD (including quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, and sotalol) for long-term effects on death, stroke, adverse reactions, and recurrence of AF.⁹ Findings at 10 months suggest that:

• Compared to placebo, amiodarone and sotalol increased the risk of all-cause mortality during the study period.
• There was minimal difference in mortality among patients taking dofetilide or dronedarone, compared to placebo.
• There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about the effect of disopyramide, flecainide, and propafenone on mortality.

Before starting a patient on AAD, the risk of arrhythmias and the potential for these agents to cause toxicity and adverse events should always be discussed.

CASE

You tell Mr. Z that you need to know the status of his comorbidities to make a recommendation about “other” management options, and proceed to take a detailed history.

Recent history. Mr. Z reveals that “today is a good day”: He has had “only 1” episode of palpitations, which resolved on its own. The previous episode, he explains, was 3 days ago, when palpitations were associated with lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He denies chest pains or swelling of the legs.

Physical exam. The patient appears spry, comfortable, and in no acute distress. Vital signs are within normal limits. A body mass index of 28.4 puts him in the “overweight” category. His blood pressure is 118/75 mm Hg.

Continue to: Cardiac examination...

Cardiac examination is significant for an irregular rhythm without murmurs, rubs, or gallops. His lungs are clear bilaterally; his abdomen is soft and nondistended. His extremities show no edema.

Testing. You obtain an electrocardiogram, which demonstrates a controlled ventricular rate of 88 bpm and AF. You order a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, tests of hemoglobin A1C and thyroid-stimulating hormone, lipid panel, echocardiogram, and a chest radiograph.

Results. The chest radiograph is negative for an acute cardiopulmonary process; cardiac size is normal. Aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels are higher than twice the normal limit. The echocardiogram reveals an estimated left ventricular ejection fraction of 55% to 60%; no structural abnormalities are noted.

In which AF patients is catheter ablation indicated?

Ablation is recommended for select patients (TABLE 1^3,6) with symptomatic paroxysmal AF that is refractory to AAD or who are intolerant of AAD.^3,6 It is a reasonable first-line therapy for high-performing athletes in whom AAD would affect athletic performance.^3,10 It is also a reasonable option in select patients > 75 years and as an alternative to AAD therapy.³ Finally, catheter ablation should be considered in symptomatic patients with longstanding persistent AF and congestive heart failure, with or without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.³

CASE

You inform Mr. Z that his symptoms are likely a result of symptomatic paroxysmal AF, which was refractory to flecainide and amiodarone, and that his abnormal liver function test results preclude continued use of amiodarone. You propose Holter monitoring to correlate timing of symptoms with the arrhythmia, but he reports this has been done, and the correlation confirmed, by his previous physician.

You explain that, because the diagnosis of symptomatic paroxysmal AF refractory to AADs has been confirmed, he is categorized as a patient who might benefit from catheter ablation, based on:

• the type of AF (ie, paroxysmal AF is associated with better ablation outcomes)
• persistent symptoms that are refractory to AADs
• his intolerance of AAD
• the length of time since onset of symptoms.

Mr. Z agrees to consider your recommendation.

Continue to: What are the benefits of catheter ablation?

 

 

What are the benefits of catheter ablation?

Ablation can be achieved through radiofrequency (RF) ablation, cryoablation, or newer, laser-based balloon ablation. Primary outcomes used to determine the success of any options for performing ablation include mortality, stroke, and hospitalization. Other endpoints include maintenance of sinus rhythm, freedom from AF, reduction in AF burden (estimated through patients’ report of symptoms, recurrence rate, need for a second ablation procedure, and serial long-term monitoring through an implantable cardiac monitoring device), quality of life, and prevention of AF progression.³

Patient and disease variables (TABLE 2^11-13). The success rate of catheter ablation, defined as freedom from either symptomatic or asymptomatic episodes of AF, is dependent on several factors,^3,14 including:

• type of AF (paroxysmal or persistent)
• duration and degree of symptoms
• age
• sex
• comorbidities, including heart failure and structural heart or lung disease.

Overall, in patients with paroxysmal AF, an estimated 75% are symptom free 1 year after ablation.¹⁵ Patients with persistent and longstanding persistent AF experience a lower success rate.

Ablation is recommended in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that is refractory to antiarrhythmics or when they are intolerant of these drugs.

RF catheter ablation has demonstrated superiority to AAD in reducing the need for cardioversion (relative risk [RR] = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82) and cardiac-related hospitalization (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.72;) at 12 months in patients with nonparoxysmal AF (persistent or longstanding persistent).¹⁶

Effect on mortality. Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, long-term studies of cardiovascular outcomes 5 years post ablation concluded that ablation is associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88; P = .003) and a reduction in hospitalization (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P = .0006); younger (< 65 years) and male patients derive greater benefit.^6,17 Indications for ablation in patients with heart failure are similar to those in patients without heart failure; ablation can therefore be considered for select heart failure patients who remain symptomatic or for whom AAD has failed.³

Older patients. Ablation can be considered for patients > 75 years with symptomatic paroxysmal AF refractory to AAD or who are intolerant of AAD.³ A study that assessed the benefit of catheter ablation reviewed 587 older (> 75 years) patients with AF, of whom 324 were eligible for ablation. Endpoints were maintenance of sinus rhythm, stroke, death, and major bleeding. Return to normal sinus rhythm was an independent factor, associated with a decrease in the risk of mortality among all patient groups that underwent ablation (HR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.2-0.63; P = .0005). Age > 75 years (HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P > .02) and depressed ejection fraction < 40% (HR = 2.38; 95% CI, 1.28-4.4; P = .006) were determined to be unfavorable parameters for survival.¹⁸

Complications and risks

Complications of catheter ablation for AF, although infrequent, can be severe (TABLE 3³). Early mortality, defined as death during initial admission or 30-day readmission, occurs in approximately 0.5% of cases; half of deaths take place during readmission.¹¹

Continue to: Complications vary...

Complications vary, based on the type and site of ablation.^19,20 Cardiac tamponade or perforation, the most life-threatening complications, taken together occur in an estimated 1.9% of patients (odds ratio [OR] = 2.98; 95% CI, 1.36-6.56; P = .007).¹¹ Other in-hospital complications independently predictive of death include any cardiac complications (OR = 12.8; 95% CI, 6.86 to 23.8; P < .001) and neurologic complications (cerebrovascular accident and transient ischemic attack) (OR = 8.72; 95% CI, 2.71-28.1; P < .001).

Other complications that do not cause death but might prolong the hospital stay include pericarditis without effusion, anesthesia-related complications, and vascular-access complications. Patients whose ablation is performed at an institution where the volume of ablations is low are also at higher risk of early mortality (OR = 2.35; 95% CI, 1.33-4.15; P = .003).¹⁶

Recurrence is common (TABLE 2^11-13). Risk of recurrence following ablation is significant; early (within 3 months after ablation) recurrence is seen in 50% of patients.^21,22 However, this is a so-called "blanking period"—ie, a temporary period of inflammatory and proarrhythmic changes that are not predictors of later recurrence. The 5-year post-ablation recurrence rate is approximately 25.5%; longstanding persistent and persistent AF and the presence of comorbidities are major risk factors for recurrence.^13,23

Recurrence is also associated with the type of procedure; pulmonary vein isolation, alone or in combination with another type of procedure, results in higher long-term success.^21,23

Other variables affect outcome (TABLE 2^11-13). Following AF ablation, patients with nonparoxysmal AF at baseline, advanced age, sleep apnea and obesity, left atrial enlargement, and any structural heart disease tend to have a poorer long-term (5-year) outcome (ie, freedom from extended episodes of AF).^3,13,23,24

Patients who undergo repeat procedures have higher arrhythmia-free survival; the highest ablation success rate is for patients with paroxysmal AF.^13,23

Exposure to ionizing radiation. Fluoroscopy is required for multiple components of atrial mapping and ablation during RF ablation, including navigation, visualization, and monitoring of catheter placement. Patients undergoing this particular procedure therefore receive significant exposure to ionizing radiation. A reduction in, even complete elimination of, fluoroscopy has been achieved with:

• nonfluoroscopic 3-dimensional mapping systems²⁵
• intracardiac echocardiography, which utilizes ultrasonographic imaging as the primary visual mode for tracking and manipulating the catheter
• robotic guided navigation.^26-28

Continue to: CASE

CASE

At his return visit, Mr. Z says that he is concerned about, first, undergoing catheter ablation at his age and, second, the risks associated with the procedure. You explain that it is true that ablation is ideal in younger patients who have minimal comorbidities and that the risk of complications increases with age—but that there is no cutoff or absolute age contraindication to ablation.

You tell Mr. Z that you will work with him on risk-factor modification in anticipation of ablation. You also assure him that the decision whether to ablate must be a joint one—between him and a cardiologist experienced both in electrophysiology and in performing this highly technical procedure. And you explain that a highly practiced specialist can identify Mr. Z’s risk factors that might make ablation more difficult to perform and affect the long-term outcome.

With Mr. Z’s agreement, you screen for sleep apnea and start him on a lifestyle modification plan to achieve a more ideal weight, explaining that the risk of recurrence of AF after catheter ablation is increased by obesity and sleep apnea, in addition to age. You explain that, based on his CHA₂DS₂–VASc (congestive heart failure; hypertension; age, ≥ 75 years; diabetes; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolism; vascular disease; age, 65 to 74 years; sex category) score of 3, he will remain on anticoagulation whether or not he has the ablation.

You refer the patient to the nearest high-volume cardiac ablation center.

Last, you caution Mr. Z that, based on his lipid levels, his 10-year risk of heart disease or stroke is elevated. You recommend treatment with a statin agent while he continues his other medications.

Delivering energy to myocardium

Myocardial tissue in pulmonary veins is responsible for most ectopic electrical impulses in patients with drug-refractory AF. The goal of catheter ablation in AF is destruction (scarring) of tissue that is the source of abnormal vein potentials.¹⁵

How RF ablation works. Ablation is most commonly performed using RF energy, a high-frequency form of electrical energy. Electrophysiology studies are carried out at the time of ablation by percutaneous, fluoroscopically guided insertion of 2 to 5 catheters, usually through the femoral or internal jugular vein, which are then positioned within several areas of the heart—usually, the right atrium, bundle of His, right ventricle, and coronary sinus.

Continue to: Electrical current...

Successful ablation is defined as freedom from symptomatic or asymptomatic AF episodes, and depends on AF type; duration and degree of symptoms; and age, sex, and comorbidities.

Electrical current is applied through the catheters from an external generator to stimulate the myocardium and thus determine its electrophysiologic properties. The anatomic and electrical activity of the left atrium and pulmonary veins is then identified, a technique known as electro-anatomical mapping (FIGURE). After arrhythmogenic myocardial tissue is mapped, ablation is carried out with RF energy through the catheter to the pathogenic myocardium from which arrhythmias are initiated or conducted. The result is thermal destruction of tissue and creation of small, shallow lesions that vary in size with the type of catheter and the force of contact pressure applied.^3,29

Other energy sources used in catheter ablation include cryothermal energy, which utilizes liquid nitrous oxide under pressure through a cryocatheter or cryoballoon catheter. Application of cryothermal energy freezes tissue and disrupts cell membranes and any electrical activity. Cryoballoon ablation has been shown to be similarly safe and efficacious as RF ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF.^30,31

Newer laser-based balloon ablations are performed under ultrasonographic guidance and utilize arcs of laser energy delivered to the pathogenic myocardium.³

Thromboembolism prophylaxis

Oral anticoagulation to decrease the risk of stroke is initiated in all patients with AF, based on a thromboembolic risk profile determined by their CHA₂DS₂–VASc score, with anticoagulation recommended when the score is ≥ 2 in men and ≥ 3 in women. Options for anticoagulation include warfarin and one of the novel oral anticoagulants dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban.⁴ Recommendations are as follows³:

• For patients with a CHA₂DS₂–VASc score of ≥ 2 (men) or ≥ 3 (women), anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely, regardless of how successful the ablation procedure is.
• When patients choose to discontinue anticoagulation, they should be counseled in detail about the risk of doing so. The continued need for frequent arrhythmia monitoring should be emphasized.

The route from primary careto catheter ablation

Perform a thorough evaluation. Patients who present to you with palpitations should first undergo a routine workup for AF, followed by confirmation of the diagnosis. Exclude structural heart disease with echocardiography. Undertake monitoring, which is essential to determine whether symptoms are a reflection of the arrhythmia, using noncontinuous or continuous electrocardiographic (EKG) monitoring. Noncontinuous detection devices include:

• scheduled or symptom-initiated EKG
• a Holter monitor, worn for at least 24 hours and as long as 7 days
• trans-telephonic recordings and patient- or automatically activated devices
• an external loop recorder.³²

Continuous EKG monitoring is more permanent (≥ 12 months). This is usually achieved through an implantable loop powered by a battery that lasts as long as 3 years.³

Ablation: Yes or no? Ablation is not recommended to avoid anticoagulation or when anticoagulation is contraindicated.⁵ With regard to specific patient criteria, the ideal patient:

• is symptomatic
• has failed AAD therapy
• does not have pulmonary disease
• has a normal or mildly dilated left atrium or normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.⁵

Continue to: There is no absolute age...

There is no absolute age or comorbidity contraindication to ablation. The patient should be referred to a cardiologist who has received appropriate training in electrophysiology, to identify comorbidities that (1) increase the technical difficulty of the procedure and baseline risk and (2) affect long-term outcome,¹² and who performs the procedure in a center that has considerable experience with catheter ablation.³³

Once the decision is made to perform ablation, you can provide strategies that optimize the outcome (freedom from AF episodes). Those tactics include weight loss and screening evaluation and, if indicated, treatment for sleep apnea.³

Protocol. Prior to the procedure, the patient fasts overnight; they might be asked to taper or discontinue cardiac medications that have electrophysiologic effects. Studies suggest a low risk of bleeding associated with catheter ablation; anticoagulation should therefore continue uninterrupted for patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF^3,4,34,35; however, this practice varies with the cardiologist or electrophysiologist performing ablation.

Patients whose ablation is performed at an institution where the volume of such procedures is low are at higher risk of early mortality.

Because of the length and complexity of the procedure, electro-anatomical mapping and ablation are conducted with the patient under general anesthesia.³ The patient is kept supine, and remains so for 2 to 4 hours afterward to allow for hemostasis at puncture sites.³

Patients might be monitored overnight, although same-day catheter ablation has been shown to be safe and cost-effective in select patients.^36,37 Post ablation, patients follow up with the cardiologist and electrophysiologist. Long-term arrhythmia monitoring is required.³ Anticoagulation is continued for at least 2 months, and is discontinued based on the patient’s risk for stroke, utilizing their CHA₂DS₂–VASc score.^3,4

CASE

At Mr. Z’s 6-month primary care follow-up, he confirms what has been reported to you as the referring physician: He had a successful catheter ablation and continues to have regular follow-up monitoring with the cardiologist. He is no longer taking amiodarone.

At this visit, he reports no recurrence of AF-associated symptoms or detectable AF on cardiac monitoring. He has lost 8 lbs. You counsel to him to continue to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

CORRESPONDENCE
Amimi S. Osayande MD, FAAFP, Northside-Gwinnett Family Medicine Residency Program, Strickland Family Medicine Center, 665 Duluth Highway, Suite 501, Lawrenceville, GA 30046; amimi.osayande@northside.com

CASE

Jack Z, a 75-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension, diabetes controlled by diet, and atrial fibrillation (AF) presents to the family medicine clinic to establish care with you after moving to the community from out of town.

The patient describes a 1-year history of AF. He provides you with an echocardiography report from 6 months ago that shows no evidence of structural heart disease. He takes lisinopril, to control blood pressure; an anticoagulant; a beta-blocker; and amiodarone for rhythm control. Initially, he took flecainide, which was ineffective for rhythm control, before being switched to amiodarone. He had 2 cardioversion procedures, each time after episodes of symptoms. He does not smoke or drink alcohol.

Mr. Z describes worsening palpitations and shortness of breath over the past 9 months. Symptoms now include episodes of exertional fatigue, even when he is not having palpitations. Prior to the episodes of worsening symptoms, he tells you that he lived a “fairly active” life, golfing twice a week.

The patient’s previous primary care physician had encouraged him to talk to his cardiologist about “other options” for managing AF, because levels of his liver enzymes had started to rise (a known adverse effect of amiodarone¹) when measured 3 months ago. He did not undertake that conversation, but asks you now about other treatments for AF.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, characterized by discordant electrical activation of the atria due to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities, or both. The disorder is associated with an increased rate of stroke and heart failure and is independently associated with a 1.5- to 2-fold risk of all-cause mortality.²

In this article, we review the pathophysiology of AF; management, including the role of, and indications for, catheter ablation; and patient- and disease-related factors associated with ablation (including odds of success, complications, risk of recurrence, and continuing need for thromboprophylaxis) that family physicians should consider when contemplating referral to a cardiologist or electrophysiologist for catheter ablation for AF.

What provokes AF?

AF is thought to occur as a result of an interaction among 3 phenomena:

• enhanced automaticity of abnormal atrial tissue
• triggered activity of ectopic foci within 1 or more pulmonary veins, lying within the left atrium
• re-entry, in which there is propagation of electrical impulses from an ectopic beat through another pathway.

Continue to: In patients who progress...

In patients who progress from paroxysmal to persistent AF (see “Subtypes,” below), 2 distinct pathways, facilitated by the presence of abnormal tissue, continuously activate one another, thus maintaining the arrhythmia. Myocardial tissue in the pulmonary veins is responsible for most ectopic electrical impulses in patients with drug-refractory AF (see “Rhythm control”).

Subtypes. For the purpose of planning treatment, AF is classified as:

• Paroxysmal. Terminates spontaneously or with intervention ≤ 7 days after onset.
• Persistent. Continuous and sustained for > 7 days.
• Longstanding persistent. Continuous for > 12 months.
• Permanent. The patient and physician accept that there will be no further attempt to restore or maintain sinus rhythm.

Goals of treatment

Primary management goals in patients with AF are 2-fold: control of symptoms and prevention of thromboembolism. A patient with new-onset AF who presents acutely with inadequate rate control and hemodynamic compromise requires urgent assessment to determine the cause of the arrhythmia and need for cardioversion.³ A symptomatic patient with AF who does not have high-risk features (eg, valvular heart disease, mechanical valves) might be a candidate for rhythm control in addition to rate control.^3,4

Rate control. After evaluation in the hospital, a patient who has a rapid ventricular response but remains hemodynamically stable, without evidence of heart failure, should be initiated on a rate-controlling medication, such as a beta-blocker or nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker. A resting heart rate goal of < 80 beats per minute (bpm) is recommended for a symptomatic patient with AF. The heart rate goal can be relaxed, to < 110 bpm, in an asymptomatic patient with preserved left ventricular function.^5,6

Rhythm control, indicated in patients who remain symptomatic on rate-controlling medication, can be achieved either with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) or by catheter ablation.^4,5 In stable patients, rhythm control should be considered only after a thorough work-up for a reversible cause of AF, and can be achieved with an oral AAD or, in select patients, through catheter ablation (TABLE 1^3,6). Other indications for chronic rhythm control include treatment of patients with ­tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.⁵

Continuing symptoms when taking rate-controlling medication for atrial fibrillation is one indication for rhythm control with an antiarrhythmic drug or by catheter ablation.

A major study that documented the benefit of early rhythm control evaluated long-term outcomes in 2789 patients with AF who were undergoing catheter ablation.⁷ Patients were randomized to early rhythm control (catheter ablation or AAD) or “usual care”—ie, in this study, rhythm control limited to symptomatic patients. Primary outcomes were death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, and hospitalization with worsening heart failure or acute coronary syndrome. A first primary outcome event occurred in 249 patients (3.9/100 person-years) assigned to early rhythm control, compared to 316 (5.0 per 100 person-years) in the group assigned to usual care.

The study was terminated early (after 5.1 years) because of overwhelming evidence of efficacy (number need to treat = 7). Although early rhythm control was obtained through both catheter ablation and AAD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79; 96% CI, 0.66-0.94; P = .005), success was attributed to the use of catheter ablation for a rhythm-control strategy and its use among patients whose AF was present for < 1 year. Most patients in both treatment groups continued to receive anticoagulation, rate control, and optimization of cardiovascular risk.⁷

Continue to: Notably, direct studies...

Notably, direct studies comparing ablation and AAD have not confirmed the benefit of ablation over AAD in outcomes of all-cause mortality, bleeding, stroke, or cardiac arrest over a 5-year period.⁸

Adverse effects and mortality outcomes with AAD. Concern over using AAD for rhythm control is based mostly on adverse effects and long-term (1-year) mortality outcomes. Long-term AAD therapy has been shown to decrease the recurrence of AF—but without evidence to suggest other mortality benefits.

A meta-analysis of 59 randomized controlled trials reviewed 20,981 patients receiving AAD (including quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, and sotalol) for long-term effects on death, stroke, adverse reactions, and recurrence of AF.⁹ Findings at 10 months suggest that:

• Compared to placebo, amiodarone and sotalol increased the risk of all-cause mortality during the study period.
• There was minimal difference in mortality among patients taking dofetilide or dronedarone, compared to placebo.
• There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about the effect of disopyramide, flecainide, and propafenone on mortality.

Before starting a patient on AAD, the risk of arrhythmias and the potential for these agents to cause toxicity and adverse events should always be discussed.

CASE

You tell Mr. Z that you need to know the status of his comorbidities to make a recommendation about “other” management options, and proceed to take a detailed history.

Recent history. Mr. Z reveals that “today is a good day”: He has had “only 1” episode of palpitations, which resolved on its own. The previous episode, he explains, was 3 days ago, when palpitations were associated with lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He denies chest pains or swelling of the legs.

Physical exam. The patient appears spry, comfortable, and in no acute distress. Vital signs are within normal limits. A body mass index of 28.4 puts him in the “overweight” category. His blood pressure is 118/75 mm Hg.

Continue to: Cardiac examination...

Cardiac examination is significant for an irregular rhythm without murmurs, rubs, or gallops. His lungs are clear bilaterally; his abdomen is soft and nondistended. His extremities show no edema.

Testing. You obtain an electrocardiogram, which demonstrates a controlled ventricular rate of 88 bpm and AF. You order a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, tests of hemoglobin A1C and thyroid-stimulating hormone, lipid panel, echocardiogram, and a chest radiograph.

Results. The chest radiograph is negative for an acute cardiopulmonary process; cardiac size is normal. Aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels are higher than twice the normal limit. The echocardiogram reveals an estimated left ventricular ejection fraction of 55% to 60%; no structural abnormalities are noted.

In which AF patients is catheter ablation indicated?

Ablation is recommended for select patients (TABLE 1^3,6) with symptomatic paroxysmal AF that is refractory to AAD or who are intolerant of AAD.^3,6 It is a reasonable first-line therapy for high-performing athletes in whom AAD would affect athletic performance.^3,10 It is also a reasonable option in select patients > 75 years and as an alternative to AAD therapy.³ Finally, catheter ablation should be considered in symptomatic patients with longstanding persistent AF and congestive heart failure, with or without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.³

CASE

You inform Mr. Z that his symptoms are likely a result of symptomatic paroxysmal AF, which was refractory to flecainide and amiodarone, and that his abnormal liver function test results preclude continued use of amiodarone. You propose Holter monitoring to correlate timing of symptoms with the arrhythmia, but he reports this has been done, and the correlation confirmed, by his previous physician.

You explain that, because the diagnosis of symptomatic paroxysmal AF refractory to AADs has been confirmed, he is categorized as a patient who might benefit from catheter ablation, based on:

• the type of AF (ie, paroxysmal AF is associated with better ablation outcomes)
• persistent symptoms that are refractory to AADs
• his intolerance of AAD
• the length of time since onset of symptoms.

Mr. Z agrees to consider your recommendation.

Continue to: What are the benefits of catheter ablation?

 

 

What are the benefits of catheter ablation?

Ablation can be achieved through radiofrequency (RF) ablation, cryoablation, or newer, laser-based balloon ablation. Primary outcomes used to determine the success of any options for performing ablation include mortality, stroke, and hospitalization. Other endpoints include maintenance of sinus rhythm, freedom from AF, reduction in AF burden (estimated through patients’ report of symptoms, recurrence rate, need for a second ablation procedure, and serial long-term monitoring through an implantable cardiac monitoring device), quality of life, and prevention of AF progression.³

Patient and disease variables (TABLE 2^11-13). The success rate of catheter ablation, defined as freedom from either symptomatic or asymptomatic episodes of AF, is dependent on several factors,^3,14 including:

• type of AF (paroxysmal or persistent)
• duration and degree of symptoms
• age
• sex
• comorbidities, including heart failure and structural heart or lung disease.

Overall, in patients with paroxysmal AF, an estimated 75% are symptom free 1 year after ablation.¹⁵ Patients with persistent and longstanding persistent AF experience a lower success rate.

Ablation is recommended in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that is refractory to antiarrhythmics or when they are intolerant of these drugs.

RF catheter ablation has demonstrated superiority to AAD in reducing the need for cardioversion (relative risk [RR] = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82) and cardiac-related hospitalization (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.72;) at 12 months in patients with nonparoxysmal AF (persistent or longstanding persistent).¹⁶

Effect on mortality. Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, long-term studies of cardiovascular outcomes 5 years post ablation concluded that ablation is associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88; P = .003) and a reduction in hospitalization (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P = .0006); younger (< 65 years) and male patients derive greater benefit.^6,17 Indications for ablation in patients with heart failure are similar to those in patients without heart failure; ablation can therefore be considered for select heart failure patients who remain symptomatic or for whom AAD has failed.³

Older patients. Ablation can be considered for patients > 75 years with symptomatic paroxysmal AF refractory to AAD or who are intolerant of AAD.³ A study that assessed the benefit of catheter ablation reviewed 587 older (> 75 years) patients with AF, of whom 324 were eligible for ablation. Endpoints were maintenance of sinus rhythm, stroke, death, and major bleeding. Return to normal sinus rhythm was an independent factor, associated with a decrease in the risk of mortality among all patient groups that underwent ablation (HR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.2-0.63; P = .0005). Age > 75 years (HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P > .02) and depressed ejection fraction < 40% (HR = 2.38; 95% CI, 1.28-4.4; P = .006) were determined to be unfavorable parameters for survival.¹⁸

Complications and risks

Complications of catheter ablation for AF, although infrequent, can be severe (TABLE 3³). Early mortality, defined as death during initial admission or 30-day readmission, occurs in approximately 0.5% of cases; half of deaths take place during readmission.¹¹

Continue to: Complications vary...

Complications vary, based on the type and site of ablation.^19,20 Cardiac tamponade or perforation, the most life-threatening complications, taken together occur in an estimated 1.9% of patients (odds ratio [OR] = 2.98; 95% CI, 1.36-6.56; P = .007).¹¹ Other in-hospital complications independently predictive of death include any cardiac complications (OR = 12.8; 95% CI, 6.86 to 23.8; P < .001) and neurologic complications (cerebrovascular accident and transient ischemic attack) (OR = 8.72; 95% CI, 2.71-28.1; P < .001).

Other complications that do not cause death but might prolong the hospital stay include pericarditis without effusion, anesthesia-related complications, and vascular-access complications. Patients whose ablation is performed at an institution where the volume of ablations is low are also at higher risk of early mortality (OR = 2.35; 95% CI, 1.33-4.15; P = .003).¹⁶

Recurrence is common (TABLE 2^11-13). Risk of recurrence following ablation is significant; early (within 3 months after ablation) recurrence is seen in 50% of patients.^21,22 However, this is a so-called "blanking period"—ie, a temporary period of inflammatory and proarrhythmic changes that are not predictors of later recurrence. The 5-year post-ablation recurrence rate is approximately 25.5%; longstanding persistent and persistent AF and the presence of comorbidities are major risk factors for recurrence.^13,23

Recurrence is also associated with the type of procedure; pulmonary vein isolation, alone or in combination with another type of procedure, results in higher long-term success.^21,23

Other variables affect outcome (TABLE 2^11-13). Following AF ablation, patients with nonparoxysmal AF at baseline, advanced age, sleep apnea and obesity, left atrial enlargement, and any structural heart disease tend to have a poorer long-term (5-year) outcome (ie, freedom from extended episodes of AF).^3,13,23,24

Patients who undergo repeat procedures have higher arrhythmia-free survival; the highest ablation success rate is for patients with paroxysmal AF.^13,23

Exposure to ionizing radiation. Fluoroscopy is required for multiple components of atrial mapping and ablation during RF ablation, including navigation, visualization, and monitoring of catheter placement. Patients undergoing this particular procedure therefore receive significant exposure to ionizing radiation. A reduction in, even complete elimination of, fluoroscopy has been achieved with:

• nonfluoroscopic 3-dimensional mapping systems²⁵
• intracardiac echocardiography, which utilizes ultrasonographic imaging as the primary visual mode for tracking and manipulating the catheter
• robotic guided navigation.^26-28

Continue to: CASE

CASE

At his return visit, Mr. Z says that he is concerned about, first, undergoing catheter ablation at his age and, second, the risks associated with the procedure. You explain that it is true that ablation is ideal in younger patients who have minimal comorbidities and that the risk of complications increases with age—but that there is no cutoff or absolute age contraindication to ablation.

You tell Mr. Z that you will work with him on risk-factor modification in anticipation of ablation. You also assure him that the decision whether to ablate must be a joint one—between him and a cardiologist experienced both in electrophysiology and in performing this highly technical procedure. And you explain that a highly practiced specialist can identify Mr. Z’s risk factors that might make ablation more difficult to perform and affect the long-term outcome.

With Mr. Z’s agreement, you screen for sleep apnea and start him on a lifestyle modification plan to achieve a more ideal weight, explaining that the risk of recurrence of AF after catheter ablation is increased by obesity and sleep apnea, in addition to age. You explain that, based on his CHA₂DS₂–VASc (congestive heart failure; hypertension; age, ≥ 75 years; diabetes; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolism; vascular disease; age, 65 to 74 years; sex category) score of 3, he will remain on anticoagulation whether or not he has the ablation.

You refer the patient to the nearest high-volume cardiac ablation center.

Last, you caution Mr. Z that, based on his lipid levels, his 10-year risk of heart disease or stroke is elevated. You recommend treatment with a statin agent while he continues his other medications.

Delivering energy to myocardium

Myocardial tissue in pulmonary veins is responsible for most ectopic electrical impulses in patients with drug-refractory AF. The goal of catheter ablation in AF is destruction (scarring) of tissue that is the source of abnormal vein potentials.¹⁵

How RF ablation works. Ablation is most commonly performed using RF energy, a high-frequency form of electrical energy. Electrophysiology studies are carried out at the time of ablation by percutaneous, fluoroscopically guided insertion of 2 to 5 catheters, usually through the femoral or internal jugular vein, which are then positioned within several areas of the heart—usually, the right atrium, bundle of His, right ventricle, and coronary sinus.

Continue to: Electrical current...

Successful ablation is defined as freedom from symptomatic or asymptomatic AF episodes, and depends on AF type; duration and degree of symptoms; and age, sex, and comorbidities.

Electrical current is applied through the catheters from an external generator to stimulate the myocardium and thus determine its electrophysiologic properties. The anatomic and electrical activity of the left atrium and pulmonary veins is then identified, a technique known as electro-anatomical mapping (FIGURE). After arrhythmogenic myocardial tissue is mapped, ablation is carried out with RF energy through the catheter to the pathogenic myocardium from which arrhythmias are initiated or conducted. The result is thermal destruction of tissue and creation of small, shallow lesions that vary in size with the type of catheter and the force of contact pressure applied.^3,29

Other energy sources used in catheter ablation include cryothermal energy, which utilizes liquid nitrous oxide under pressure through a cryocatheter or cryoballoon catheter. Application of cryothermal energy freezes tissue and disrupts cell membranes and any electrical activity. Cryoballoon ablation has been shown to be similarly safe and efficacious as RF ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF.^30,31

Newer laser-based balloon ablations are performed under ultrasonographic guidance and utilize arcs of laser energy delivered to the pathogenic myocardium.³

Thromboembolism prophylaxis

Oral anticoagulation to decrease the risk of stroke is initiated in all patients with AF, based on a thromboembolic risk profile determined by their CHA₂DS₂–VASc score, with anticoagulation recommended when the score is ≥ 2 in men and ≥ 3 in women. Options for anticoagulation include warfarin and one of the novel oral anticoagulants dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban.⁴ Recommendations are as follows³:

• For patients with a CHA₂DS₂–VASc score of ≥ 2 (men) or ≥ 3 (women), anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely, regardless of how successful the ablation procedure is.
• When patients choose to discontinue anticoagulation, they should be counseled in detail about the risk of doing so. The continued need for frequent arrhythmia monitoring should be emphasized.

The route from primary careto catheter ablation

Perform a thorough evaluation. Patients who present to you with palpitations should first undergo a routine workup for AF, followed by confirmation of the diagnosis. Exclude structural heart disease with echocardiography. Undertake monitoring, which is essential to determine whether symptoms are a reflection of the arrhythmia, using noncontinuous or continuous electrocardiographic (EKG) monitoring. Noncontinuous detection devices include:

• scheduled or symptom-initiated EKG
• a Holter monitor, worn for at least 24 hours and as long as 7 days
• trans-telephonic recordings and patient- or automatically activated devices
• an external loop recorder.³²

Continuous EKG monitoring is more permanent (≥ 12 months). This is usually achieved through an implantable loop powered by a battery that lasts as long as 3 years.³

Ablation: Yes or no? Ablation is not recommended to avoid anticoagulation or when anticoagulation is contraindicated.⁵ With regard to specific patient criteria, the ideal patient:

• is symptomatic
• has failed AAD therapy
• does not have pulmonary disease
• has a normal or mildly dilated left atrium or normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.⁵

Continue to: There is no absolute age...

There is no absolute age or comorbidity contraindication to ablation. The patient should be referred to a cardiologist who has received appropriate training in electrophysiology, to identify comorbidities that (1) increase the technical difficulty of the procedure and baseline risk and (2) affect long-term outcome,¹² and who performs the procedure in a center that has considerable experience with catheter ablation.³³

Once the decision is made to perform ablation, you can provide strategies that optimize the outcome (freedom from AF episodes). Those tactics include weight loss and screening evaluation and, if indicated, treatment for sleep apnea.³

Protocol. Prior to the procedure, the patient fasts overnight; they might be asked to taper or discontinue cardiac medications that have electrophysiologic effects. Studies suggest a low risk of bleeding associated with catheter ablation; anticoagulation should therefore continue uninterrupted for patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF^3,4,34,35; however, this practice varies with the cardiologist or electrophysiologist performing ablation.

Patients whose ablation is performed at an institution where the volume of such procedures is low are at higher risk of early mortality.

Because of the length and complexity of the procedure, electro-anatomical mapping and ablation are conducted with the patient under general anesthesia.³ The patient is kept supine, and remains so for 2 to 4 hours afterward to allow for hemostasis at puncture sites.³

Patients might be monitored overnight, although same-day catheter ablation has been shown to be safe and cost-effective in select patients.^36,37 Post ablation, patients follow up with the cardiologist and electrophysiologist. Long-term arrhythmia monitoring is required.³ Anticoagulation is continued for at least 2 months, and is discontinued based on the patient’s risk for stroke, utilizing their CHA₂DS₂–VASc score.^3,4

CASE

At Mr. Z’s 6-month primary care follow-up, he confirms what has been reported to you as the referring physician: He had a successful catheter ablation and continues to have regular follow-up monitoring with the cardiologist. He is no longer taking amiodarone.

At this visit, he reports no recurrence of AF-associated symptoms or detectable AF on cardiac monitoring. He has lost 8 lbs. You counsel to him to continue to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

CORRESPONDENCE
Amimi S. Osayande MD, FAAFP, Northside-Gwinnett Family Medicine Residency Program, Strickland Family Medicine Center, 665 Duluth Highway, Suite 501, Lawrenceville, GA 30046; amimi.osayande@northside.com

CASE

Jack Z, a 75-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension, diabetes controlled by diet, and atrial fibrillation (AF) presents to the family medicine clinic to establish care with you after moving to the community from out of town.

The patient describes a 1-year history of AF. He provides you with an echocardiography report from 6 months ago that shows no evidence of structural heart disease. He takes lisinopril, to control blood pressure; an anticoagulant; a beta-blocker; and amiodarone for rhythm control. Initially, he took flecainide, which was ineffective for rhythm control, before being switched to amiodarone. He had 2 cardioversion procedures, each time after episodes of symptoms. He does not smoke or drink alcohol.

Mr. Z describes worsening palpitations and shortness of breath over the past 9 months. Symptoms now include episodes of exertional fatigue, even when he is not having palpitations. Prior to the episodes of worsening symptoms, he tells you that he lived a “fairly active” life, golfing twice a week.

The patient’s previous primary care physician had encouraged him to talk to his cardiologist about “other options” for managing AF, because levels of his liver enzymes had started to rise (a known adverse effect of amiodarone¹) when measured 3 months ago. He did not undertake that conversation, but asks you now about other treatments for AF.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, characterized by discordant electrical activation of the atria due to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities, or both. The disorder is associated with an increased rate of stroke and heart failure and is independently associated with a 1.5- to 2-fold risk of all-cause mortality.²

In this article, we review the pathophysiology of AF; management, including the role of, and indications for, catheter ablation; and patient- and disease-related factors associated with ablation (including odds of success, complications, risk of recurrence, and continuing need for thromboprophylaxis) that family physicians should consider when contemplating referral to a cardiologist or electrophysiologist for catheter ablation for AF.

What provokes AF?

AF is thought to occur as a result of an interaction among 3 phenomena:

• enhanced automaticity of abnormal atrial tissue
• triggered activity of ectopic foci within 1 or more pulmonary veins, lying within the left atrium
• re-entry, in which there is propagation of electrical impulses from an ectopic beat through another pathway.

Continue to: In patients who progress...

In patients who progress from paroxysmal to persistent AF (see “Subtypes,” below), 2 distinct pathways, facilitated by the presence of abnormal tissue, continuously activate one another, thus maintaining the arrhythmia. Myocardial tissue in the pulmonary veins is responsible for most ectopic electrical impulses in patients with drug-refractory AF (see “Rhythm control”).

Subtypes. For the purpose of planning treatment, AF is classified as:

• Paroxysmal. Terminates spontaneously or with intervention ≤ 7 days after onset.
• Persistent. Continuous and sustained for > 7 days.
• Longstanding persistent. Continuous for > 12 months.
• Permanent. The patient and physician accept that there will be no further attempt to restore or maintain sinus rhythm.

Goals of treatment

Primary management goals in patients with AF are 2-fold: control of symptoms and prevention of thromboembolism. A patient with new-onset AF who presents acutely with inadequate rate control and hemodynamic compromise requires urgent assessment to determine the cause of the arrhythmia and need for cardioversion.³ A symptomatic patient with AF who does not have high-risk features (eg, valvular heart disease, mechanical valves) might be a candidate for rhythm control in addition to rate control.^3,4

Rate control. After evaluation in the hospital, a patient who has a rapid ventricular response but remains hemodynamically stable, without evidence of heart failure, should be initiated on a rate-controlling medication, such as a beta-blocker or nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker. A resting heart rate goal of < 80 beats per minute (bpm) is recommended for a symptomatic patient with AF. The heart rate goal can be relaxed, to < 110 bpm, in an asymptomatic patient with preserved left ventricular function.^5,6

Rhythm control, indicated in patients who remain symptomatic on rate-controlling medication, can be achieved either with an antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) or by catheter ablation.^4,5 In stable patients, rhythm control should be considered only after a thorough work-up for a reversible cause of AF, and can be achieved with an oral AAD or, in select patients, through catheter ablation (TABLE 1^3,6). Other indications for chronic rhythm control include treatment of patients with ­tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy.⁵

Continuing symptoms when taking rate-controlling medication for atrial fibrillation is one indication for rhythm control with an antiarrhythmic drug or by catheter ablation.

A major study that documented the benefit of early rhythm control evaluated long-term outcomes in 2789 patients with AF who were undergoing catheter ablation.⁷ Patients were randomized to early rhythm control (catheter ablation or AAD) or “usual care”—ie, in this study, rhythm control limited to symptomatic patients. Primary outcomes were death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, and hospitalization with worsening heart failure or acute coronary syndrome. A first primary outcome event occurred in 249 patients (3.9/100 person-years) assigned to early rhythm control, compared to 316 (5.0 per 100 person-years) in the group assigned to usual care.

The study was terminated early (after 5.1 years) because of overwhelming evidence of efficacy (number need to treat = 7). Although early rhythm control was obtained through both catheter ablation and AAD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.79; 96% CI, 0.66-0.94; P = .005), success was attributed to the use of catheter ablation for a rhythm-control strategy and its use among patients whose AF was present for < 1 year. Most patients in both treatment groups continued to receive anticoagulation, rate control, and optimization of cardiovascular risk.⁷

Continue to: Notably, direct studies...

Notably, direct studies comparing ablation and AAD have not confirmed the benefit of ablation over AAD in outcomes of all-cause mortality, bleeding, stroke, or cardiac arrest over a 5-year period.⁸

Adverse effects and mortality outcomes with AAD. Concern over using AAD for rhythm control is based mostly on adverse effects and long-term (1-year) mortality outcomes. Long-term AAD therapy has been shown to decrease the recurrence of AF—but without evidence to suggest other mortality benefits.

A meta-analysis of 59 randomized controlled trials reviewed 20,981 patients receiving AAD (including quinidine, disopyramide, propafenone, flecainide, metoprolol, amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, and sotalol) for long-term effects on death, stroke, adverse reactions, and recurrence of AF.⁹ Findings at 10 months suggest that:

• Compared to placebo, amiodarone and sotalol increased the risk of all-cause mortality during the study period.
• There was minimal difference in mortality among patients taking dofetilide or dronedarone, compared to placebo.
• There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about the effect of disopyramide, flecainide, and propafenone on mortality.

Before starting a patient on AAD, the risk of arrhythmias and the potential for these agents to cause toxicity and adverse events should always be discussed.

CASE

You tell Mr. Z that you need to know the status of his comorbidities to make a recommendation about “other” management options, and proceed to take a detailed history.

Recent history. Mr. Z reveals that “today is a good day”: He has had “only 1” episode of palpitations, which resolved on its own. The previous episode, he explains, was 3 days ago, when palpitations were associated with lightheadedness and shortness of breath. He denies chest pains or swelling of the legs.

Physical exam. The patient appears spry, comfortable, and in no acute distress. Vital signs are within normal limits. A body mass index of 28.4 puts him in the “overweight” category. His blood pressure is 118/75 mm Hg.

Continue to: Cardiac examination...

Cardiac examination is significant for an irregular rhythm without murmurs, rubs, or gallops. His lungs are clear bilaterally; his abdomen is soft and nondistended. His extremities show no edema.

Testing. You obtain an electrocardiogram, which demonstrates a controlled ventricular rate of 88 bpm and AF. You order a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, tests of hemoglobin A1C and thyroid-stimulating hormone, lipid panel, echocardiogram, and a chest radiograph.

Results. The chest radiograph is negative for an acute cardiopulmonary process; cardiac size is normal. Aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase levels are higher than twice the normal limit. The echocardiogram reveals an estimated left ventricular ejection fraction of 55% to 60%; no structural abnormalities are noted.

In which AF patients is catheter ablation indicated?

Ablation is recommended for select patients (TABLE 1^3,6) with symptomatic paroxysmal AF that is refractory to AAD or who are intolerant of AAD.^3,6 It is a reasonable first-line therapy for high-performing athletes in whom AAD would affect athletic performance.^3,10 It is also a reasonable option in select patients > 75 years and as an alternative to AAD therapy.³ Finally, catheter ablation should be considered in symptomatic patients with longstanding persistent AF and congestive heart failure, with or without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.³

CASE

You inform Mr. Z that his symptoms are likely a result of symptomatic paroxysmal AF, which was refractory to flecainide and amiodarone, and that his abnormal liver function test results preclude continued use of amiodarone. You propose Holter monitoring to correlate timing of symptoms with the arrhythmia, but he reports this has been done, and the correlation confirmed, by his previous physician.

You explain that, because the diagnosis of symptomatic paroxysmal AF refractory to AADs has been confirmed, he is categorized as a patient who might benefit from catheter ablation, based on:

• the type of AF (ie, paroxysmal AF is associated with better ablation outcomes)
• persistent symptoms that are refractory to AADs
• his intolerance of AAD
• the length of time since onset of symptoms.

Mr. Z agrees to consider your recommendation.

Continue to: What are the benefits of catheter ablation?

 

 

What are the benefits of catheter ablation?

Ablation can be achieved through radiofrequency (RF) ablation, cryoablation, or newer, laser-based balloon ablation. Primary outcomes used to determine the success of any options for performing ablation include mortality, stroke, and hospitalization. Other endpoints include maintenance of sinus rhythm, freedom from AF, reduction in AF burden (estimated through patients’ report of symptoms, recurrence rate, need for a second ablation procedure, and serial long-term monitoring through an implantable cardiac monitoring device), quality of life, and prevention of AF progression.³

Patient and disease variables (TABLE 2^11-13). The success rate of catheter ablation, defined as freedom from either symptomatic or asymptomatic episodes of AF, is dependent on several factors,^3,14 including:

• type of AF (paroxysmal or persistent)
• duration and degree of symptoms
• age
• sex
• comorbidities, including heart failure and structural heart or lung disease.

Overall, in patients with paroxysmal AF, an estimated 75% are symptom free 1 year after ablation.¹⁵ Patients with persistent and longstanding persistent AF experience a lower success rate.

Ablation is recommended in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that is refractory to antiarrhythmics or when they are intolerant of these drugs.

RF catheter ablation has demonstrated superiority to AAD in reducing the need for cardioversion (relative risk [RR] = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82) and cardiac-related hospitalization (RR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.72;) at 12 months in patients with nonparoxysmal AF (persistent or longstanding persistent).¹⁶

Effect on mortality. Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, long-term studies of cardiovascular outcomes 5 years post ablation concluded that ablation is associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88; P = .003) and a reduction in hospitalization (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P = .0006); younger (< 65 years) and male patients derive greater benefit.^6,17 Indications for ablation in patients with heart failure are similar to those in patients without heart failure; ablation can therefore be considered for select heart failure patients who remain symptomatic or for whom AAD has failed.³

Older patients. Ablation can be considered for patients > 75 years with symptomatic paroxysmal AF refractory to AAD or who are intolerant of AAD.³ A study that assessed the benefit of catheter ablation reviewed 587 older (> 75 years) patients with AF, of whom 324 were eligible for ablation. Endpoints were maintenance of sinus rhythm, stroke, death, and major bleeding. Return to normal sinus rhythm was an independent factor, associated with a decrease in the risk of mortality among all patient groups that underwent ablation (HR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.2-0.63; P = .0005). Age > 75 years (HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P > .02) and depressed ejection fraction < 40% (HR = 2.38; 95% CI, 1.28-4.4; P = .006) were determined to be unfavorable parameters for survival.¹⁸

Complications and risks

Complications of catheter ablation for AF, although infrequent, can be severe (TABLE 3³). Early mortality, defined as death during initial admission or 30-day readmission, occurs in approximately 0.5% of cases; half of deaths take place during readmission.¹¹

Continue to: Complications vary...

Complications vary, based on the type and site of ablation.^19,20 Cardiac tamponade or perforation, the most life-threatening complications, taken together occur in an estimated 1.9% of patients (odds ratio [OR] = 2.98; 95% CI, 1.36-6.56; P = .007).¹¹ Other in-hospital complications independently predictive of death include any cardiac complications (OR = 12.8; 95% CI, 6.86 to 23.8; P < .001) and neurologic complications (cerebrovascular accident and transient ischemic attack) (OR = 8.72; 95% CI, 2.71-28.1; P < .001).

Other complications that do not cause death but might prolong the hospital stay include pericarditis without effusion, anesthesia-related complications, and vascular-access complications. Patients whose ablation is performed at an institution where the volume of ablations is low are also at higher risk of early mortality (OR = 2.35; 95% CI, 1.33-4.15; P = .003).¹⁶

Recurrence is common (TABLE 2^11-13). Risk of recurrence following ablation is significant; early (within 3 months after ablation) recurrence is seen in 50% of patients.^21,22 However, this is a so-called "blanking period"—ie, a temporary period of inflammatory and proarrhythmic changes that are not predictors of later recurrence. The 5-year post-ablation recurrence rate is approximately 25.5%; longstanding persistent and persistent AF and the presence of comorbidities are major risk factors for recurrence.^13,23

Recurrence is also associated with the type of procedure; pulmonary vein isolation, alone or in combination with another type of procedure, results in higher long-term success.^21,23

Other variables affect outcome (TABLE 2^11-13). Following AF ablation, patients with nonparoxysmal AF at baseline, advanced age, sleep apnea and obesity, left atrial enlargement, and any structural heart disease tend to have a poorer long-term (5-year) outcome (ie, freedom from extended episodes of AF).^3,13,23,24

Patients who undergo repeat procedures have higher arrhythmia-free survival; the highest ablation success rate is for patients with paroxysmal AF.^13,23

Exposure to ionizing radiation. Fluoroscopy is required for multiple components of atrial mapping and ablation during RF ablation, including navigation, visualization, and monitoring of catheter placement. Patients undergoing this particular procedure therefore receive significant exposure to ionizing radiation. A reduction in, even complete elimination of, fluoroscopy has been achieved with:

• nonfluoroscopic 3-dimensional mapping systems²⁵
• intracardiac echocardiography, which utilizes ultrasonographic imaging as the primary visual mode for tracking and manipulating the catheter
• robotic guided navigation.^26-28

Continue to: CASE

CASE

At his return visit, Mr. Z says that he is concerned about, first, undergoing catheter ablation at his age and, second, the risks associated with the procedure. You explain that it is true that ablation is ideal in younger patients who have minimal comorbidities and that the risk of complications increases with age—but that there is no cutoff or absolute age contraindication to ablation.

You tell Mr. Z that you will work with him on risk-factor modification in anticipation of ablation. You also assure him that the decision whether to ablate must be a joint one—between him and a cardiologist experienced both in electrophysiology and in performing this highly technical procedure. And you explain that a highly practiced specialist can identify Mr. Z’s risk factors that might make ablation more difficult to perform and affect the long-term outcome.

With Mr. Z’s agreement, you screen for sleep apnea and start him on a lifestyle modification plan to achieve a more ideal weight, explaining that the risk of recurrence of AF after catheter ablation is increased by obesity and sleep apnea, in addition to age. You explain that, based on his CHA₂DS₂–VASc (congestive heart failure; hypertension; age, ≥ 75 years; diabetes; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolism; vascular disease; age, 65 to 74 years; sex category) score of 3, he will remain on anticoagulation whether or not he has the ablation.

You refer the patient to the nearest high-volume cardiac ablation center.

Last, you caution Mr. Z that, based on his lipid levels, his 10-year risk of heart disease or stroke is elevated. You recommend treatment with a statin agent while he continues his other medications.

Delivering energy to myocardium

Myocardial tissue in pulmonary veins is responsible for most ectopic electrical impulses in patients with drug-refractory AF. The goal of catheter ablation in AF is destruction (scarring) of tissue that is the source of abnormal vein potentials.¹⁵

How RF ablation works. Ablation is most commonly performed using RF energy, a high-frequency form of electrical energy. Electrophysiology studies are carried out at the time of ablation by percutaneous, fluoroscopically guided insertion of 2 to 5 catheters, usually through the femoral or internal jugular vein, which are then positioned within several areas of the heart—usually, the right atrium, bundle of His, right ventricle, and coronary sinus.

Continue to: Electrical current...

Successful ablation is defined as freedom from symptomatic or asymptomatic AF episodes, and depends on AF type; duration and degree of symptoms; and age, sex, and comorbidities.

Electrical current is applied through the catheters from an external generator to stimulate the myocardium and thus determine its electrophysiologic properties. The anatomic and electrical activity of the left atrium and pulmonary veins is then identified, a technique known as electro-anatomical mapping (FIGURE). After arrhythmogenic myocardial tissue is mapped, ablation is carried out with RF energy through the catheter to the pathogenic myocardium from which arrhythmias are initiated or conducted. The result is thermal destruction of tissue and creation of small, shallow lesions that vary in size with the type of catheter and the force of contact pressure applied.^3,29

Other energy sources used in catheter ablation include cryothermal energy, which utilizes liquid nitrous oxide under pressure through a cryocatheter or cryoballoon catheter. Application of cryothermal energy freezes tissue and disrupts cell membranes and any electrical activity. Cryoballoon ablation has been shown to be similarly safe and efficacious as RF ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF.^30,31

Newer laser-based balloon ablations are performed under ultrasonographic guidance and utilize arcs of laser energy delivered to the pathogenic myocardium.³

Thromboembolism prophylaxis

Oral anticoagulation to decrease the risk of stroke is initiated in all patients with AF, based on a thromboembolic risk profile determined by their CHA₂DS₂–VASc score, with anticoagulation recommended when the score is ≥ 2 in men and ≥ 3 in women. Options for anticoagulation include warfarin and one of the novel oral anticoagulants dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban.⁴ Recommendations are as follows³:

• For patients with a CHA₂DS₂–VASc score of ≥ 2 (men) or ≥ 3 (women), anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely, regardless of how successful the ablation procedure is.
• When patients choose to discontinue anticoagulation, they should be counseled in detail about the risk of doing so. The continued need for frequent arrhythmia monitoring should be emphasized.

The route from primary careto catheter ablation

Perform a thorough evaluation. Patients who present to you with palpitations should first undergo a routine workup for AF, followed by confirmation of the diagnosis. Exclude structural heart disease with echocardiography. Undertake monitoring, which is essential to determine whether symptoms are a reflection of the arrhythmia, using noncontinuous or continuous electrocardiographic (EKG) monitoring. Noncontinuous detection devices include:

• scheduled or symptom-initiated EKG
• a Holter monitor, worn for at least 24 hours and as long as 7 days
• trans-telephonic recordings and patient- or automatically activated devices
• an external loop recorder.³²

Continuous EKG monitoring is more permanent (≥ 12 months). This is usually achieved through an implantable loop powered by a battery that lasts as long as 3 years.³

Ablation: Yes or no? Ablation is not recommended to avoid anticoagulation or when anticoagulation is contraindicated.⁵ With regard to specific patient criteria, the ideal patient:

• is symptomatic
• has failed AAD therapy
• does not have pulmonary disease
• has a normal or mildly dilated left atrium or normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.⁵

Continue to: There is no absolute age...

There is no absolute age or comorbidity contraindication to ablation. The patient should be referred to a cardiologist who has received appropriate training in electrophysiology, to identify comorbidities that (1) increase the technical difficulty of the procedure and baseline risk and (2) affect long-term outcome,¹² and who performs the procedure in a center that has considerable experience with catheter ablation.³³

Once the decision is made to perform ablation, you can provide strategies that optimize the outcome (freedom from AF episodes). Those tactics include weight loss and screening evaluation and, if indicated, treatment for sleep apnea.³

Protocol. Prior to the procedure, the patient fasts overnight; they might be asked to taper or discontinue cardiac medications that have electrophysiologic effects. Studies suggest a low risk of bleeding associated with catheter ablation; anticoagulation should therefore continue uninterrupted for patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF^3,4,34,35; however, this practice varies with the cardiologist or electrophysiologist performing ablation.

Patients whose ablation is performed at an institution where the volume of such procedures is low are at higher risk of early mortality.

Because of the length and complexity of the procedure, electro-anatomical mapping and ablation are conducted with the patient under general anesthesia.³ The patient is kept supine, and remains so for 2 to 4 hours afterward to allow for hemostasis at puncture sites.³

Patients might be monitored overnight, although same-day catheter ablation has been shown to be safe and cost-effective in select patients.^36,37 Post ablation, patients follow up with the cardiologist and electrophysiologist. Long-term arrhythmia monitoring is required.³ Anticoagulation is continued for at least 2 months, and is discontinued based on the patient’s risk for stroke, utilizing their CHA₂DS₂–VASc score.^3,4

CASE

At Mr. Z’s 6-month primary care follow-up, he confirms what has been reported to you as the referring physician: He had a successful catheter ablation and continues to have regular follow-up monitoring with the cardiologist. He is no longer taking amiodarone.

At this visit, he reports no recurrence of AF-associated symptoms or detectable AF on cardiac monitoring. He has lost 8 lbs. You counsel to him to continue to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

CORRESPONDENCE
Amimi S. Osayande MD, FAAFP, Northside-Gwinnett Family Medicine Residency Program, Strickland Family Medicine Center, 665 Duluth Highway, Suite 501, Lawrenceville, GA 30046; amimi.osayande@northside.com

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Patients with undifferentiated arthritis (UA) that is defined according to contemporary criteria don’t appear to have the same excess mortality that is associated with rheumatoid arthritis, despite links between the two conditions.

UA has long been considered an earlier phase of RA, so similar management strategies are often used based on the assumption that outcomes and elevated mortality risk were similar between the two, but new findings reported in a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases challenge that assumption.

The change in the definition of UA that accompanied the introduction of new RA criteria in 2010 meant that some of the patients who previously met the criteria for UA now were classified as having RA, and “the remaining contemporary UA population (not fulfilling the 1987/2010 RA criteria) is largely autoantibody negative, presents with monoarthritis or oligoarthritis, and progresses less frequently to RA,” PhD candidate Marloes Verstappen of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center, and coauthors wrote.

As the first large study on excess mortality in patients meeting contemporary criteria for UA, the authors said it suggests that the change in criteria for UA has served to increase the differences in mortality between it and RA.

“Further research and discussions are needed as to whether the management of contemporary UA should be similar to or different from that of RA,” they wrote.

The researchers conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 860 patients who met the conventional criteria for UA – they did not meet the 1987 RA criteria or other diagnosis – at baseline and 561 who met contemporary criteria for UA based on the fact that they did not meet the 1987 or 2010 RA criteria. There were also 762 patients who were diagnosed with RA according to the 1987 criteria, and 828 diagnosed according to the 2010 criteria. All of these patients were diagnosed between 1993 and 2008 and their median follow-up times ranged from 16.0 to 17.3 years, with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up.

The study found that, while there was a trend toward excess mortality in the conventional UA group (standardized mortality ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.27), there was no significant excess mortality in the contemporary UA patients (SMR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.26).

In comparison, patients in both the 1987 RA criteria group and the 2010 criteria group showed significantly higher mortality. Among patients with anti–citrullinated protein antibody–positive disease, even early treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and treat-to-target strategies didn’t reduce the excess mortality.

The study did find some suggestion of excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA and who were anti–citrullinated protein antibody positive, but the number of patients was small.

“Only a few percent of patients presenting with contemporary UA are autoantibody positive; these patients may be considered at increased risk to progress to RA,” the authors wrote.

The data also suggested that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs didn’t alter excess mortality among patients with contemporary UA.

The study was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Foundation and the European Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Use of a tablet-based app to screen patients in primary care resulted in more reporting of depression, intimate partner violence, and injurious falls than screening patients in person, in a new study.

“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”

In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.

The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.

The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.

The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.

“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”

Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.

When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.

Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.

The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
 

Real-world setting supports clinical value 

“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”

“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.

“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.

“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.

“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
 

App allows patients privacy in responses

“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.

“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.

Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.

“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”

The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
 

Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities

“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.

Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.

“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a tablet-based app to screen patients in primary care resulted in more reporting of depression, intimate partner violence, and injurious falls than screening patients in person, in a new study.

“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”

In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.

The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.

The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.

The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.

“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”

Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.

When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.

Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.

The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
 

Real-world setting supports clinical value 

“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”

“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.

“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.

“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.

“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
 

App allows patients privacy in responses

“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.

“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.

Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.

“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”

The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
 

Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities

“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.

Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.

“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a tablet-based app to screen patients in primary care resulted in more reporting of depression, intimate partner violence, and injurious falls than screening patients in person, in a new study.

“Anyone who has been to a doctor’s office recently realizes that everyone there is very busy,” said David P. Miller Jr., MD, lead author of the paper published in JAMA Network Open, in an interview. “For our study, we programmed routine screening questions that nursing staff were asking at every visit into an app [called mPATH] that patients used on check-in.”

In particular, screening for depression, injurious falls, or intimate partner violence in a primary care setting is hampered not only by time constraints, but also staff discomfort and patients’ reluctance to disclose sensitive information, Dr. Miller of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., and colleagues explained in their paper.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers tested the app in three family practices and three internal medicine practices. They compared whether more patients were identified with depression, intimate partner violence, or fall risk in the 60 days of using the tablet-based app, compared with the 60-day period before introduction of the app, when nursing staff asked screening questions verbally. Patients were given the tablet and app to use at check-in, and results went into an electronic health record.

The study population included 23,026 individuals, aged 18 years and older who were seen between June 2019 and February 2020.

The post-app period was shortened to 30 days for the last two enrolled practices to avoid confounding from COVID-19, the researchers noted.

The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of patients who screened positive for a composite of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence.

“We found that [the app] significantly outperformed nursing staff in terms of detecting patients with depression or safety concerns,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “By saving nurses time, we hope they can use the saved time to address patients’ identified concerns.”

Overall, the proportion of patients who screened positive for the composite outcome of depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence increased from 8.7% to 19.5%. Increases were noted across all six participating clinics.

When broken out separately, the proportion of patients who screened positive for depression, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-2 scores of 2 or higher, increased from 1.5% to 4.2% from before to after the introduction of the tablet-based app. The proportion of patients screening positive for fall risk increased from 7.4% to 15.7%, and the proportion who screened positive for intimate partner violence increased from 0.1% to 2.9%.

Patient demographics were similar for the two time periods. Overall, 57.9% of patients were female, 80.5% were non-Hispanic White, and 13.5% were Black or African American. Patients ranged in age from 18-102 years, with a mean age of 59.7 years.

The association of app use on the primary outcome remained the same (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6) after accounting for patient characteristics.
 

Real-world setting supports clinical value 

“One of the strengths of our study is that the mPATH app was delivered as usual care in the primary care clinics,” Dr. Miller said in an interview. “In other words, we relied entirely on clinical staff to hand the app to patients and transmit the screening results to the electronic health record. This allowed us to see how self-administered screening performs in the real world rather than in a research setting,” he said. “Another strength is our large sample size. We included more than 23,000 patients who were seen at one of six community-based primary care practices.”

“A few other studies have compared electronic self-administered screening with verbal screening, mainly in the areas of intimate partner violence or sexual health,” Dr. Miller noted. “However, these studies were administered by research staff and only included patients agreeing to be in a research study, which leaves many people out. What makes our study unique is that the primary care practices were using the self-screening app as part of their routine care,” he said.

“By analyzing deidentified data, we could see how self-administered screening compares to verbal screening among all patients in a real-world setting,” he added.

“We found that self-administered screening significantly outperforms verbal screening by clinical staff. Over twice as many patients with depression, fall risk, or intimate partner violence were identified by the app, compared to verbal screening,” said Dr. Miller. “We hope that clinics will look for ways to incorporate electronic self-screening in their usual processes. Self-administered screening not only saves staff time, but it does a much better job identifying patients with needs,” he said.

“The next step will be identifying the best way to incorporate digital health apps like mPATH into usual workflows,” Dr. Miller said. “We are currently conducting an implementation science trial of the mPATH app to learn this.”
 

App allows patients privacy in responses

“The study is important for assessing the physical and mental well-being of patients at all health care practices in general and in primary care practices in particular, said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., in an interview. “This study provides the data that can be leveraged to provide this type of virtual or electronic options for patients to answer these sensitive questions,” he said.

“It provides them the opportunity to answer the questions truthfully and without fear of being judged by the staff who traditionally ask these questions,” he emphasized.

Dr. Deep was not surprised by the study outcomes.

“Almost all primary care practices administer these questionnaires to their patients, whether at their annual wellness exams or the Medicare wellness exams,” he said. “Many times, the staff asking these questions might introduce some of their personal bias or not ask the questions in a nonjudgmental manner, which may not elicit the right answers from the patients.”

The clinical value of the study is that it prompts physicians and health care organizations to consider adopting other modalities to collect screening information “that is comfortable to the patients, reproducible, patient-friendly, easily accessed by the patients and reviewable by their physicians, and, more importantly is private and maintains patient confidentiality,” said Dr. Deep.
 

Study needs to be replicated in rural, small communities

“I would like to see the study done among more diverse ethnic, age, socioeconomic, education, geographic, and physician practice–size populations,” which would reinforce the value of the tablet-based app if such studies yielded similar results, Dr. Deep said.

Privacy is especially important for practices in smaller communities/rural communities, such as the one where Dr. Deep practices, as everyone knows everyone in these kinds of places, he said.

“I understand that we are all sworn to maintaining patient confidentiality, but that may not be what the patients perceive. That is why I would like to see what the study finds in rural or small communities,” Dr. Deep explained.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miller and coauthor Dr. Ajay Dharod are the coinventors of the mPATH app, and they and Wake Forest University Health Sciences have an ownership interest should the app be commercialized. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.