Citations

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) occurs most commonly in the knees of young individuals. This condition is known to cause pain and discomfort in the knee and can lead to disability and early knee osteoarthritis. The cause is not well understood, and treatment plans are not well delineated. The Research in Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee (ROCK) group established a multicenter, prospective cohort to better understand this disease. Purpose: To provide a baseline report of the ROCK multicenter prospective cohort and present a descriptive analysis of baseline data for patient characteristics, lesion characteristics, and clinical findings of the first 1000 cases enrolled into the prospective cohort. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were recruited from centers throughout the United States. Baseline data were obtained for patient characteristics, sports participation, patient-reported measures of functional capabilities and limitations, physical examination, diagnostic imaging results, and initial treatment plan. Descriptive statistics were completed for all outcomes of interest. Results: As of November 2020, a total of 27 orthopaedic surgeons from 17 institutions had enrolled 1004 knees with OCD, representing 903 patients (68.9% males; median age, 13.1 years; range, 6.3-25.4 years), into the prospective cohort. Lesions were located on the medial femoral condyle (66.2%), lateral femoral condyle (18.1%), trochlea (9.5%), patella (6.0%), and tibial plateau (0.2%). Most cases involved multisport athletes (68.1%), with the most common primary sport being basketball for males (27.3% of cases) and soccer for females (27.6% of cases). The median Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKCD) score was 59.9 (IQR, 45.6-73.9), and the median Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (Pedi-FABS) score was 21.0 (IQR, 5.0-28.0). Initial treatments were surgical intervention (55.4%) and activity restriction (44.0%). When surgery was performed, surgeons deemed the lesion to be stable at intraoperative assessment in 48.1% of cases. Conclusion: The multicenter ROCK group has been able to enroll the largest knee OCD cohort to date. This information is being used to further understand the pathology of OCD, including its cause, associated comorbidities, and initial presentation and symptoms. The cohort having been established is now being followed longitudinally to better define and elucidate the best treatment algorithms based on these presenting signs and symptoms.

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with hyperlipidaemia and established cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) are at an increased risk of future strokes or other cardiovascular events.[1] In ischaemic stroke survivors, statins and inhibitors of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) reduce recurrent cardiovascular events including stroke.[2–4] With guidelines increasingly advocating lower LDL-C goals, add-on lipid lowering therapies to statins may be needed. Inclisiran, a first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting PCSK9 messenger RNA, when added to maximally tolerated statin therapy, may provide further LDL-C lowering with a convenient, infrequent dosing schedule in pts with established CeVD. Purpose To assess efficacy and safety of inclisiran in pts with established CeVD. Methods Pts with HeFH, ASCVD or its risk equivalents from ORION-9 (NCT03397121]), ORION-10 (NCT03399370), and ORION-11 (NCT03400800) were randomised 1:1 to receive inclisiran sodium 300 mg (equivalent to 284 mg inclisiran) or placebo (pbo) at Days 1, 90 and 6-monthly thereafter to Day 540. This post hoc analysis included pts with established CeVD (ischaemic stroke, and/or carotid artery stenosis by angiography or ultrasound >70%, and/or prior percutaneous or surgical carotid artery revascularisation). Percentage LDL-C change from baseline to Day 510 and corresponding time-averaged percentage change from baseline after Day 90 to Day 540 were evaluated. Safety was assessed over 540 days. Results Of 202 pts with established CeVD, 110 and 92 received inclisiran and pbo, respectively. At baseline, 90.0% (99/110) of pts in inclisiran and 84.8% (78/92) in pbo group reported prior ischaemic stroke(s); others had carotid artery stenosis and/or carotid revascularisation (Table 1). Mean (95% CI) pbo-corrected LDL-C percentage change from baseline at Day 510 with inclisiran was −55.2% (−64.5 to −45.9); corresponding time-averaged change from baseline after Day 90 to Day 540 was −55.2% (−62.4 to −47.9) (P<0.0001 for each; Table 2). Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) were more frequent in the inclisiran vs pbo group but were consistent with the overall pooled (N=3655) population of the combined trials. Clinically relevant TEAEs at the injection site were reported more frequently with inclisiran (3.6% [4/110]) vs pbo (0% [0/92]), but none were severe. Percentage of pts with clinically relevant laboratory measurements was low and similar between treatment groups and consistent with the overall pooled population (Table 2). Conclusions In pts with established CeVD, a twice-yearly dosing with inclisiran (after the initial and 3-month doses) provided sustained additional LDL-C reduction of ∼55%. A modest excess of mild/moderate TEAEs at the injection site were reported with inclisiran. The cardiovascular benefits of inclisiran among patients with established CeVD are being evaluated in ongoing trials. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Abstract Background Approximately 25% of patients (pts) with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have polyvascular disease (PVD), which involves ≥2 coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery beds. PVD is an independent predictor of major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events (MACE) and death.[1,2] Agents that inhibit proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) resulted in reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration and MACE incidence in pts with PVD.[3,4] Inclisiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent targeting PCSK9 messenger RNA that provided effective and sustained reduction in LDL-C concentration and was well tolerated.[5] Purpose To describe the effect inclisiran versus placebo (pbo) in pts with and without PVD. Methods This was a post hoc analysis from the ORION-9 (NCT03397121), ORION-10 (NCT03399370) and ORION-11 (NCT03400800) trials. Pts with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, ASCVD or risk equivalents were randomised 1:1 to receive 300 mg inclisiran sodium (equivalent to 284 mg inclisiran) or pbo at baseline, Day 90, and 6-monthly thereafter. LDL-C percentage change from baseline to Day 510 and corresponding time-averaged change from Day 90 and to Day 540 were evaluated by presence or absence of PVD (intention-to-treat population). Safety was assessed over 540 days (safety population). Results Of 3454 pts, 470 (13.6%) had PVD and 2984 (86.4%) did not. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between treatment arms in both groups (Table 1). A greater proportion of pts with vs without PVD had CV risk factors at baseline. Mean LDL-C concentration at baseline was lower in pts with vs without PVD (Table 1). Mean (95% CI) pbo-corrected LDL-C percentage change from baseline to Day 510 with inclisiran was −48.9 (−55.6 to −42.2) in pts with PVD and −51.5 (−53.9 to −49.1) in pts without PVD (Table 2). Proportions of pts with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) and treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAE) were similar between treatment arms irrespective of PVD status although reported TESAEs were numerically greater in both treatment arms for pts with PVD (Table 2). Clinically relevant TEAEs at the injection site were reported more frequently with inclisiran vs pbo in both groups but all were mild or moderate (Table 2). Proportions of pts with clinically relevant laboratory measurements were low and similar between treatment arms for both groups (Table 2). Conclusions Twice-yearly dosing with inclisiran (after the initial and 3-month doses) provided effective and sustained LDL-C lowering in pts, irrespective of their PVD status, with a safety profile similar to pbo, except for a modest excess of mainly mild TEAEs at the injection site. Notably, TESAEs were reported more frequently in pts with PVD, which was likely due to their more advanced disease. Since pts with PVD are at high risk of CV events, intensive LDL-C lowering may be beneficial to reduce this risk. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland