Evaluating Radiation Exposure in Patients with Stable Chest Pain in the SCOT-HEART Trial.

Background In the Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart (SCOT-HEART) trial in individuals with stable chest pain, a treatment strategy based on coronary CT angiography (CTA) led to improved outcomes. Purpose To assess 5-year cumulative radiation doses of participants undergoing investigation for suspected angina due to coronary artery disease with or without coronary CTA. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of the SCOT-HEART trial included data from six of 12 recruiting sites and two of three imaging sites. Participants were recruited between November 18, 2010, and September 24, 2014, with follow-up through January 31, 2018. Study participants had been randomized (at a one-to-one ratio) to standard care with CT (n = 1466) or standard care alone (n = 1428). Imaging was performed on a 64-detector (n = 223) or 320-detector row scanner (n = 1466). Radiation dose from CT (dose-length product), SPECT (injected activity), and invasive coronary angiography (ICA; kerma-area product) was assessed for 5 years after enrollment. Effective dose was calculated using conversion factors appropriate for the imaging modality and body region imaged (using 0.026 mSv/mGy · cm for cardiac CT). Results Cumulative radiation dose was assessed in 2894 participants. Median effective dose was 3.0 mSv (IQR, 2.6-3.3 mSv) for coronary calcium scoring, 4.1 mSv (IQR, 2.6-6.1 mSv) for coronary CTA, 7.4 mSv (IQR, 6.2-8.5 mSv) for SPECT, and 4.1 mSv (IQR, 2.5-6.8 mSv) for ICA. After 5 years, total per-participant cumulative dose was higher in the CT group (median, 8.1 mSv; IQR, 5.5-12.4 mSv) compared with standard-care group (median, 0 mSv; IQR, 0-4.5 mSv; P < .001). In participants who underwent any imaging, cumulative radiation exposure was higher in the CT group (n = 1345; median, 8.6 mSv; IQR, 6.1-13.3 mSv) compared with standard-care group (n = 549; median, 6.4 mSv; IQR, 3.4-9.2 mSv; P < .001). Conclusion In the SCOT-HEART trial, the 5-year cumulative radiation dose from cardiac imaging was higher in the coronary CT angiography group compared with the standard-care group, largely because of the radiation exposure from CT. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01149590 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Dodd and Bosserdt in this issue.

Effect of intermittent rifampicin on the pharmacokinetics and safety of raltegravir.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies of raltegravir and rifampicin have not studied the interaction when rifampicin is dosed intermittently. This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetics of twice daily raltegravir and intermittently dosed rifampicin. METHODS: This was a prospective, open, single-arm, three-part, controlled study in healthy volunteers. Over a period of 38 days subjects received 5 days of standard-dose raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) followed by 28 days of standard-dose raltegravir plus rifampicin three times a week followed by 5 days of high-dose (800 mg twice daily) raltegravir plus rifampicin three times a week. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 5, 33 and 38. Raltegravir pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by non-compartmental analysis and reported as geometric means and 90% CIs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01424826. RESULTS: Sixteen subjects (12 females) completed the study. Raltegravir trough plasma concentration (C12) was significantly lower in the presence of rifampicin when dosed at 400 mg twice daily (40%), which was not observed with 800 mg twice daily dosing. Raltegravir Cmax and AUC0-12 were both significantly higher in the presence of rifampicin when dosed at 800 mg twice daily (76% and 84%, respectively), but this dose was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that rifampicin induction of raltegravir is comparable between daily and intermittent rifampicin. In the absence of definitive clinical efficacy data to suggest otherwise, doses of 800 mg of raltegravir twice daily with rifampicin thrice weekly are well tolerated and yield higher AUCs and comparable C12 when compared with raltegravir alone.