Imazio, Massimo

Abstract Inflammation is a key driver of coronary syndromes across the continuum from chronic coronary syndromes to acute coronary syndromes. It contributes to atherogenesis, plaque destabilization, and ischaemic events and influences myocardial injury, repair, and remodelling. Inflammatory activity is further amplified by metabolic and autoimmune comorbidities such as diabetes, obesity, and connective tissue diseases, with obesity representing a major driver of chronic low-grade inflammation through adipose tissue dysfunction and cytokine activation, while psychosocial stress and environmental exposures including air pollution serve as additional triggers. Genetic variations, including human leucocyte antigen genotypes, modulate individual susceptibility to vascular inflammation and myocardial injury. This expert consensus from the European Society of Cardiology’s Association for Acute CardioVascular Care summarizes the current understanding of inflammation across the full spectrum of coronary syndromes, including underlying mechanisms, relevant biomarkers, and imaging approaches that characterize vascular inflammation, and integrates insights from experimental and clinical studies. Importantly, this document provides explicit consensus-based guidance on when, how, and in whom inflammation should be assessed and treated in routine clinical practice. While the causal association between inflammation and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is well established, pharmacological modification of inflammation has produced conflicting evidence. Some agents, such as low-dose colchicine, have demonstrated modest reductions in cardiovascular events, although results across trials have been inconsistent. Other anti-inflammatory therapies have not shown clinical benefit, whereas selective cytokine inhibition with canakinumab has reduced cardiovascular risk at the cost of increased infection rates. The present manuscript also focuses on the evaluation of inflammatory activity in cardiovascular patients in routine clinical practice. It further discusses criteria for patient selection and clinical decision-making regarding the introduction of anti-inflammatory therapy in individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Abstract Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is a form of inflammatory cardiomyopathy associated with significant clinical complications such as high-degree atrioventricular block, ventricular tachycardia, and heart failure as well as sudden cardiac death. It is therefore important to provide an expert consensus statement summarizing the role of different available diagnostic tools and emphasizing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. By integrating clinical information and the results of diagnostic tests, an accurate, validated, and timely diagnosis can be made, while alternative diagnoses can be reasonably excluded. This clinical expert consensus statement reviews the evidence on the management of different CS manifestations and provides advice to practicing clinicians in the field on the role of immunosuppression and the treatment of cardiac complications based on limited published data and the experience of international CS experts. The monitoring and risk stratification of patients with CS is also covered, while controversies and future research needs are explored.

Background Rilonacept, a once‐weekly interleukin‐1 alpha and beta cytokine trap, reduced pericarditis recurrence in the phase 3 study, RHAPSODY (Rilonacept Inhibition of Interleukin‐1 Alpha and Beta for Recurrent Pericarditis: A Pivotal Symptomatology and Outcomes Study). The RHAPSODY long‐term extension further explored recurrent pericarditis natural history and treatment duration decision‐making during 24 additional months of open‐label rilonacept treatment. Methods and Results Seventy‐four patients commenced the long‐term extension, with a median (maximum) total rilonacept duration of 22 (35) months. Individually, 18 months after the most proximal pericarditis recurrence, investigators decided to continue rilonacept on study, suspend rilonacept for off‐treatment observation (rescue allowed), or discontinue the study. The annualized incidence of pericarditis recurrence on rilonacept up to the 18‐month decision milestone was 0.04 events/patient‐year versus 4.4 events/patient‐year prestudy while on oral therapies. At the 18‐month decision milestone, 64% (33/52) continued rilonacept, 15% (8/52) suspended rilonacept for observation, and 21% (11/52) discontinued the study. Among the 33 patients (1/33; 3.0%) continuing rilonacept (median time to recurrence could not be estimated due to too few events), a single recurrence occurred 4 weeks after a treatment interruption. Among patients suspending rilonacept, 75% (6/8) experienced recurrence (median time to recurrence, 11.8 weeks [95% CI, 3.7 weeks to not estimable]). There was a 98% reduction in risk of pericarditis recurrence among patients continuing rilonacept treatment after the 18‐month decision milestone versus those suspending treatment for observation (hazard ratio, 0.02; P <0.0001). Conclusions In the RHAPSODY long‐term extension, continued rilonacept treatment resulted in continued response; treatment suspension at the 18‐month decision milestone was associated with pericarditis recurrence. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03737110.

Background Recurrent pericarditis is characterized by painful flares and inflammation, which negatively impact health‐related quality of life. RHAPSODY (rilonacept inhibition of interleukin‐1 alpha and beta for recurrent pericarditis: a pivotal symptomatology and outcomes study) evaluated the efficacy and safety of rilonacept (IL‐1α and ‐β cytokine trap) in recurrent pericarditis. A secondary analysis of these data evaluated the patient‐reported outcome questionnaire score change during the trial. Methods and Results Participants completed 5 patient‐reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires assessing pericarditis pain, health‐related quality of life, general health status, sleep impact, and overall symptom severity. PRO score changes during the treatment run‐in period (12 weeks) and the blinded randomized withdrawal period (up to 24 weeks) were evaluated using descriptive statistics and mixed model repeated measures analyses. Participants with PRO data from the run‐in period (n=84) and the randomized withdrawal period (n=61; 30 rilonacept, 31 placebo) were included in analyses. Run‐in baseline PRO scores indicated that pericarditis symptoms during pericarditis recurrence impacted health‐related quality of life. All PRO scores significantly improved ( P <0.001) on rilonacept treatment during the run‐in period. For the randomized withdrawal period, PRO scores were maintained for participants receiving rilonacept. For those receiving placebo and who experienced a recurrence, PRO scores deteriorated at the time of recurrence and then improved following rilonacept bailout. At randomized withdrawal Week 24/End of Study, scores of participants who received bailout rilonacept were similar to those of participants who had continued rilonacept. Conclusions These results demonstrate the burden of pericarditis recurrences and the improved physical and emotional health of patients with recurrent pericarditis while on rilonacept treatment. These findings extend prior rilonacept efficacy results, demonstrating improvements in patient‐reported health‐related quality of life, sleep, pain, and global symptom severity while on treatment. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03737110.