Holmes, David

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion with the Watchman device is an alternative strategy for stroke risk reduction in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. There are rare case reports of Watchman associated infection. Currently, there is no formal study that evaluated the incidence and outcomes of Watchman-related infections. Methods: All patients who underwent Watchman implantation over a 14 year study period (July 2004 through December 2018) comprised our cohort. Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and post-implantation events were identified. Primary study outcomes included Watchman related infection, other cardiovascular device related infection, bacteremia, and mortality. Results: A total of 181 patients with an average age of 75, and a median CHA2DS2-VASc Score of 4 (interquartile range 2) and a median HAS-BLED Score of 3 (interquartile range 1), were included for analysis. A total of 534.7 patient years of follow up was accrued with an average of 2.9 years per patient. The most common indications for implantation included gastrointestinal bleeding (56 patients; 30.9%) and intracerebral bleeding (51 patients; 28.2%). During follow up, 38 patients (21%) died. Six developed evidence of bacteremia. Only one developed an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) infection that required complete system extraction. None of the cohort developed Watchman-related device infection during the study period. Conclusion: In a single center study spanning a 14 year period, we report no Watchman-related devices infections. This is despite the presence of patients with bacteremia, as well as an ICD infection requiring extraction. These data suggest that Watchman devices are extremely unlikely to become infected.

Background Different approaches to safety event collection influence the determination of liver toxicity within drug development programs. Herein, a description of how fasiglifam-induced liver injury was detected is provided. Methods This eight-trial drug development program was intended to evaluate fasiglifam (25 mg, 50 mg) against placebo or active comparators (glimepiride, sitagliptin) in approximately 11,000 suboptimally controlled patients with type 2 diabetes (terminated Dec 2013 due to liver toxicity). Liver safety had been pre-identified as a concern, and within the phase 3 trials, was measured through (1) adverse event reporting, (2) central predefined liver monitoring schedule with various thresholds for potential drug-induced liver injury, and (3) blinded adjudication of serious liver toxicity by a panel of experts in drug-induced liver injury. A single data monitoring committee provided safety oversight across all trials within the program. Findings Prior to program termination, 7595 of 7602 (99.9%) randomized participants across the eight trials received at least one dose of the study drug (fasiglifam, placebo, or active control). No concerning trends were noted in adverse or serious adverse event frequency, suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction, alanine or aspartate transaminase elevations, or hepatobiliary or gastrointestinal adverse events as reported by local site investigators. However, the predefined central liver safety measurements revealed a greater frequency of possible Hy’s Law cases (5 vs 2) and a 3- to 7-fold greater relative risk in alanine or aspartate transaminase elevation (with respect to upper limit of normal) within fasiglifam recipients compared with placebo/active control: alanine or aspartate transaminase > 3×: relative risk 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.29–4.90), alanine or aspartate transaminase > 5×: relative risk 6.60 (95% confidence interval 3.03–14.38), alanine or aspartate transaminase > 8×: relative risk 6.14 (95% confidence interval 2.18–17.27), and alanine or aspartate transaminase > 10×: relative risk 6.74 (95% confidence interval 2.05, 22.14). All elevations resolved on study drug discontinuation. Drug-induced liver injury was adjudicated as highly likely or probably related in 0.64% of fasiglifam-treated versus 0.06% placebo or active control-treated patients. Conclusion In spite of clear liver toxicity detected with a systematic surveillance program, liver safety signals were not identified from investigator adverse event reporting alone. By integrating key safety monitoring processes within the randomized design of adequately sized clinical trials, the rare but serious liver toxicity signal became clear, leading to timely program termination.

Background— The multicenter PROTECT AF study (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) was conducted to determine whether percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with a filter device (Watchman) was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results— Patients (n=707) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor (age >75 years, hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, or prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) were randomized to either the Watchman device (n=463) or continued warfarin (n=244) in a 2:1 ratio. After device implantation, warfarin was continued for ≈45 days, followed by clopidogrel for 4.5 months and lifelong aspirin. Study discontinuation rates were 15.3% (71/463) and 22.5% (55/244) for the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively. The time in therapeutic range for the warfarin group was 66%. The composite primary efficacy end point included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, and the primary analysis was by intention to treat. After 1588 patient-years of follow-up (mean 2.3±1.1 years), the primary efficacy event rates were 3.0% and 4.3% (percent per 100 patient-years) in the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.44%–1.30% per year), which met the criteria for noninferiority (probability of noninferiority >0.999). There were more primary safety events in the Watchman group (5.5% per year; 95% confidence interval, 4.2%–7.1% per year) than in the control group (3.6% per year; 95% confidence interval, 2.2%–5.3% per year; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–2.70). Conclusions— The “local” strategy of left atrial appendage closure is noninferior to “systemic” anticoagulation with warfarin. PROTECT AF has, for the first time, implicated the left atrial appendage in the pathogenesis of stroke in atrial fibrillation. Clinical Trial Registration:— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00129545.