Louis D. Fiore

Adverse events associated with testosterone administration.

BACKGROUND Testosterone supplementation has been shown to increase muscle mass and strength in healthy older men. The safety and efficacy of testosterone treatment in older men who have limitations in mobility have not been studied. METHODS Community-dwelling men, 65 years of age or older, with limitations in mobility and a total serum testosterone level of 100 to 350 ng per deciliter (3.5 to 12.1 nmol per liter) or a free serum testosterone level of less than 50 pg per milliliter (173 pmol per liter) were randomly assigned to receive placebo gel or testosterone gel, to be applied daily for 6 months. Adverse events were categorized with the use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities classification. The data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial be discontinued early because there was a significantly higher rate of adverse cardiovascular events in the testosterone group than in the placebo group. RESULTS A total of 209 men (mean age, 74 years) were enrolled at the time the trial was terminated. At baseline, there was a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity among the participants. During the course of the study, the testosterone group had higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, and dermatologic events than did the placebo group. A total of 23 subjects in the testosterone group, as compared with 5 in the placebo group, had cardiovascular-related adverse events. The relative risk of a cardiovascular-related adverse event remained constant throughout the 6-month treatment period. As compared with the placebo group, the testosterone group had significantly greater improvements in leg-press and chest-press strength and in stair climbing while carrying a load. CONCLUSIONS In this population of older men with limitations in mobility and a high prevalence of chronic disease, the application of a testosterone gel was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. The small size of the trial and the unique population prevent broader inferences from being made about the safety of testosterone therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00240981.)

A Comprehensive Care Management Program to Prevent Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospitalizations: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Improving a patients ability to self-monitor and manage changes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of a comprehensive care management program (CCMP) in reducing the risk for COPD hospitalization. DESIGN A randomized, controlled trial comparing CCMP with guideline-based usual care. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00395083) SETTING: 20 Veterans Affairs hospital-based outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS Patients hospitalized for COPD in the past year. INTERVENTION The CCMP included COPD education during 4 individual sessions and 1 group session, an action plan for identification and treatment of exacerbations, and scheduled proactive telephone calls for case management. Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups received a COPD informational booklet; their primary care providers received a copy of COPD guidelines and were advised to manage their patients according to these guidelines. Patients were randomly assigned, stratifying by site based on random, permuted blocks of variable size. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome was time to first COPD hospitalization. Staff blinded to study group performed telephone-based assessment of COPD exacerbations and hospitalizations, and all hospitalizations were blindly adjudicated. Secondary outcomes included non-COPD health care use, all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, disease knowledge, and self-efficacy. RESULTS Of the eligible patients, 209 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 217 to the usual care group. Citing serious safety concerns, the data monitoring committee terminated the intervention before the trials planned completion after 426 (44%) of the planned total of 960 patients were enrolled. Mean follow-up was 250 days. When the study was stopped, the 1-year cumulative incidence of COPD-related hospitalization was 27% in the intervention group and 24% in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.80]; P= 0.62). There were 28 deaths from all causes in the intervention group versus 10 in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 3.00 [CI, 1.46 to 6.17]; P= 0.003). Cause could be assigned in 27 (71%) deaths. Deaths due to COPD accounted for the largest difference: 10 in the intervention group versus 3 in the usual care group (hazard ratio, 3.60 [CI, 0.99 to 13.08]; P= 0.053). LIMITATIONS Available data could not fully explain the excess mortality in the intervention group. Ability to assess the quality of the educational sessions provided by the case managers was limited. CONCLUSION A CCMP in patients with severe COPD had not decreased COPD-related hospitalizations when the trial was stopped prematurely. The CCMP was associated with unanticipated excess mortality, results that differ markedly from similar previous trials. A data monitoring committee should be considered in the design of clinical trials involving behavioral interventions.

Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Trial Comparing Combined Warfarin and Aspirin With Aspirin Alone in Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction Primary Results of the CHAMP Study

Background—Both aspirin and warfarin when used alone are effective in the secondary prevention of vascular events and death after acute myocardial infarction. We tested the hypothesis that aspirin and warfarin therapy, when combined, would be more effective than aspirin monotherapy. Methods and Results—We conducted a randomized open-label study to compare the efficacy of warfarin (target international normalized ratio 1.5 to 2.5 IU) plus aspirin (81 mg daily) with the efficacy of aspirin monotherapy (162 mg daily) in reducing the total mortality in 5059 patients enrolled within 14 days of infarction and followed for a median of 2.7 years. Secondary end points included recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, and major hemorrhage. Four hundred thirty-eight (17.3%) of 2537 patients assigned to the aspirin group and 444 (17.6%) of 2522 patients assigned to the combination group died (log-rank P =0.76). Recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 333 patients (13.1%) taking aspirin and in 336 patients (13.3%) taking combination therapy (log-rank P =0.78). Stroke occurred in 89 patients (3.5%) taking aspirin and in 79 patients (3.1%) taking combination therapy (log-rank P =0.52). Major bleeding occurred more frequently in the combination therapy group than in the aspirin group (1.28 versus 0.72 events per 100 person years of follow-up, respectively;P <0.001). There were 14 individuals with intracranial bleeds in both the aspirin and combination therapy groups. Conclusions—In post–myocardial infarction patients, warfarin therapy (at a mean international normalized ratio of 1.8) combined with low-dose aspirin did not provide a clinical benefit beyond that achievable with aspirin monotherapy.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Clopidogrel plus Aspirin to Prevent Hemodialysis Access Graft Thrombosis

Thrombosis of hemodialysis vascular access grafts represents a major medical and economic burden. Experimental and clinical models suggest a role for antiplatelet agents in the prevention of thrombosis. The study was designed to determine the efficacy of the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel in the prevention of graft thrombosis. The study was a randomized, double-blind trial conducted at 30 hemodialysis units at Veterans Affairs medical centers. Participants undergoing hemodialysis with a polytetrafluoroethylene graft in the arm were randomized to receive either double placebos or aspirin (325 mg) and clopidogrel (75 mg) daily. Participants were to be monitored while receiving study medications for a minimum of 2 yr. The study was stopped after randomization of 200 participants, as recommended by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board because of a significantly increased risk of bleeding among the participants receiving aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. The cumulative incidence of bleeding events was significantly greater for those participants, compared with participants receiving placebos [hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19 to 3.28; P = 0.007]. Twenty-three participants in the placebo group and 44 participants in the active treatment group experienced a bleeding event (P = 0.006). There was no significant benefit of active treatment in the prevention of thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.40; P = 0.45), although there was a trend toward a benefit among participants who had not experienced previous graft thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.26; P = 0.14). In the hemodialysis population, therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel was associated with a significantly increased risk of bleeding and probably would not result in a reduced frequency of graft thrombosis.

Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Clinical Trial Comparing Combined Warfarin and Aspirin With Aspirin Alone in Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background— Both aspirin and warfarin when used alone are effective in the secondary prevention of vascular events and death after acute myocardial infarction. We tested the hypothesis that aspirin and warfarin therapy, when combined, would be more effective than aspirin monotherapy. Methods and Results— We conducted a randomized open-label study to compare the efficacy of warfarin (target international normalized ratio 1.5 to 2.5 IU) plus aspirin (81 mg daily) with the efficacy of aspirin monotherapy (162 mg daily) in reducing the total mortality in 5059 patients enrolled within 14 days of infarction and followed for a median of 2.7 years. Secondary end points included recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, and major hemorrhage. Four hundred thirty-eight (17.3%) of 2537 patients assigned to the aspirin group and 444 (17.6%) of 2522 patients assigned to the combination group died (log-rank P=0.76). Recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 333 patients (13.1%) taking aspirin and in 336 patients (13.3%...

The Association Between Statins and Cancer Incidence in a Veterans Population

BACKGROUND Meta-analyses of trials of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors or statins for cardiovascular disease prevention have failed to show any statistically significant benefit of statins for cancer prevention. However, these trials included relatively young participants, who develop few cancers, and their follow-up periods may have been too short to detect an association between statin use and cancer incidence. We investigated this association in a population of veterans. METHODS We identified patients using antihypertensive medications but no cholesterol-lowering medications (n = 25,594) and patients using statins (n = 37,248) who were enrolled in the Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2005. Age- and multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for cancer incidence, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer, among patients taking statins compared with patients taking antihypertensive medications and among patients grouped by statin dose (as equivalent simvastatin dose). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS The absolute incidence of total cancers was 9.4% among statin users and 13.2% among nonusers (difference = 3.8%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 4.3%, P(difference) < .001). Statin users had a statistically significant lower risk for total cancer than nonusers after adjustment for age (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.80) and multiple potential confounders (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.78). After multivariable adjustment, a statistically significantly decreased risk of all cancers was also associated with increasing statin use (P(trend) < .001). CONCLUSIONS Patients using statins may be at lower risk for developing cancer. Additional observational studies and randomized trials of statins for cancer prevention are warranted.

Long-Acting Risperidone and Oral Antipsychotics in Unstable Schizophrenia

BACKGROUND Long-acting injectable risperidone, a second-generation antipsychotic agent, may improve adherence to treatment and outcomes in schizophrenia, but it has not been tested in a long-term randomized trial involving patients with unstable disease. METHODS We randomly assigned patients in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system who had schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and who had been hospitalized within the previous 2 years or were at imminent risk for hospitalization to 25 to 50 mg of long-acting injectable risperidone every two weeks or to a psychiatrists choice of an oral antipsychotic. All patients were followed for up to 2 years. The primary end point was hospitalization in a VA or non-VA psychiatric hospital. Symptoms, quality of life, and functioning were assessed in blinded videoconference interviews. RESULTS Of 369 participants, 40% were hospitalized at randomization, 55% were hospitalized within the previous 2 years, and 5% were at risk for hospitalization. The rate of hospitalization after randomization was not significantly lower among patients who received long-acting injectable risperidone than among those who received oral antipsychotics (39% after 10.8 months vs. 45% after 11.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 1.20). Psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, scores on the Personal and Social Performance scale of global functioning, and neurologic side effects were not significantly improved with long-acting injectable risperidone as compared with control treatments. Patients who received long-acting injectable risperidone reported more adverse events at the injection site and more extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Long-acting injectable risperidone was not superior to a psychiatrists choice of oral treatment in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder who were hospitalized or at high risk for hospitalization, and it was associated with more local injection-site and extrapyramidal adverse effects. (Supported by the VA Cooperative Studies Program and Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00132314.).

Efficacy and safety of combined anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulant monotherapy after mechanical heart-valve replacement: A metaanalysis

We performed a metaanalysis of five randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of combined oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy versus oral anticoagulants alone after prosthetic heart-valve replacement. The combined regimen reduced embolism and overall mortality by approximately 67% (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.69; p = 0.0032) and 40% (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12; p = 0.11), respectively, but increased the risk of hemorrhage by approximately 65% (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.39; p = 0.0069) and of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage by approximately 250% (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40; p = 0.0058). It is estimated that for every 1.6 patients who had their stroke prevented by combination therapy, there was an excess of one major gastrointestinal bleed. This metaanalysis suggests that the benefits derived from the enhanced antithrombotic potential of combined therapy outweigh the toxic effects resulting from the enhanced anticoagulant potential of this regimen.

Anaphylactoid reactions to vitamin K.

Anaphylactoid reactions in patients receiving intravenously administered vitamin K have been reported in the literature. To summarize the known data on anaphylactoid reactions from administration of vitamin K, we reviewed all published and unpublished reports of this adverse reaction. Published reports were obtained through medline (1966–1999) and EMBASE (1971–1999) searches of the English language literature and review of references from identified case reports. Unpublished reports were obtained using the Spontaneous Reporting System Adverse Reaction database of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between August 1968 and September 1997. All adverse drug reactions to vitamin K were categorized by route of drug administration, dose and standard adverse reaction code. In the FDA reports, we defined anaphylactoid reactions as any adverse drug reaction coded as either anaphylaxis, allergic reaction, apnea, dyspnea, death, heart arrest, hypotension, shock or vasodilatation. Additionally, all fatal and life-threatening FDA reported reactions were reviewed to determine if they could represent an anaphylactoid reaction missed by the above definition.The literature review uncovered a total of 23 cases (3 fatal) of anaphylactoid reactions from intravenous vitamin K. The FDA database contained a total of 2236 adverse drug reactions reported in 1019 patients receiving vitamin K by all routes of administration. Of the 192 patients with reactions reported for intravenous vitamin K, 132 patients (69%%) had a reaction defined as anaphylactoid, with 24 fatalities (18%%) attributed to the vitamin K reaction. There were 21 patients with anaphylactoid reactions and 4 fatalities reported with doses of intravenous vitamin K of less than 5[emsp4 ]mgs. For the 217 patients with reactions reported due to vitamin K via a non-intravenous route of administration, 38 patients had reactions meeting the definition of anaphylactoid (18%%), with 1 fatality (3%%) attributed to the drug.The absolute risk of an anaphylactoid reaction to intravenous vitamin K cannot be determined by this study, but the relatively small number of documented cases despite widespread use of this drug suggest that the reaction is rare. Anaphylactic reactions and case fatality reports were found even when intravenous vitamin K was given at low doses by slow dilute infusion. The pathogenesis of this reaction is unknown and may be multifactorial with etiologies including vasodilation induced by the solubilizing vehicle or immune-mediated processes. We conclude that use of intravenous vitamin K should be limited to patients with serious hemorrhage due to a coagulopathy that is secondary to a relative or absolute deficiency of vitamin K.

Anticoagulant use for atrial fibrillation in the elderly

Objectives: To determine the influence of advanced age on anticoagulant use in subjects with atrial fibrillation and to explore the extent to which risk factors for stroke and contraindications to anticoagulant therapy predict subsequent use.