User login
Diltiazem fails to improve vasomotor dysfunction, angina in ANOCA: EDIT-CMD
In a randomized trial of patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA), 6 weeks of treatment with diltiazem did not improve coronary vasomotor dysfunction – apart from epicardial spasm – or angina symptoms and quality of life.
The trial investigated whether this therapy would improve these outcomes in patients with two mutually exclusive subgroups, or endotypes, of coronary vasomotor dysfunction: coronary artery spasm (epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm) or coronary microvascular dysfunction indicated by coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) values.
Treatment success, the primary study endpoint – defined as normalization of one of the abnormal endotypes and no normal endotype becoming abnormal – was similar after treatment with diltiazem, compared with placebo. Nor were there significant differences for secondary endpoints apart from improvements in epicardial spasm in the two groups.
Tijn Jansen, MD, presented these findings from the EDIT-CMD trial in a featured clinical research session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published online April 2, 2022, in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.
“This first study using repeated coronary function testing provides a platform for future research,” concluded Dr. Jansen, a PhD candidate in the department of cardiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
“We were surprised indeed” that diltiazem did not meet its primary endpoint for successful treatment and did not reduce symptoms or improve quality of life, compared with placebo, unlike results of the CorMicA trial, he said in an interview.
“We did find a treatment success, however, of 21%, which was slightly lower than expected, but it was not better than just giving placebo. This was similar regarding symptoms and quality of life, where we did find an overall improvement with diltiazem, but again not higher than using placebo,” he added. “It seems that giving the diagnosis to these patients itself creates a reduction in symptoms,” that might be caused by a reduction in stress, Dr. Jansen suggested.
The clinical implication, he said, is that more randomized controlled trials in this patient population are needed to permit evidence-based patient-tailored treatment, based on the different endotypes. “It might even be imaginable to test effectiveness in each individual patient using coronary function testing,” he said.
These tests are more and more commonly used in clinical practice, Dr. Jansen noted. “In the Netherlands, we recently launched the NL-CFT registry, which enables the participating centers to perform the CFT with a standardized protocol, with the goal to collect data and increase knowledge in this patient population.”
Heterogeneous population?
“I think probably the reason this trial was negative is [that coronary vasomotor dysfunction is] just too heterogeneous,” assigned discussant, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, commented.
“The problem with effectiveness trials is that you get a very heterogeneous population, and not everything works for everyone,” she said.
“This was a strategy trial – too heterogenous and too small to assess each endotype response,” Dr. Bairey Merz elaborated in an interview.
“Calcium channel blockers [CCBs] will not [effectively] treat all endotypes of coronary microvascular dysfunction,” she added, noting that the 6-month CorMIcA trial demonstrated in a larger, more rigorous trial design that CCBs are effective for epicardial and microvascular spasm.
“If you were going to do this study again, would you allow physicians to do up-titration and/or go a little bit longer?” Dr. Bairey Merz asked Dr. Jansen during the discussion.
“I do think this is a very heterogeneous group,” he agreed. However, the protocol allowed researchers to titrate diltiazem from 120 mg/day to 360 mg/day.
“If I were to do it again,” Dr. Jansen said, “I would focus on one specific endotype, probably epicardial spasm.”
First RCT of diltiazem in patients with ANOCA
Up to 40% of patients undergoing coronary angiography for stable angina do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and 60%-90% of these patients have coronary vasomotor dysfunction, Dr. Jansen noted.
The landmark CorMicA trial showed that diagnosing the specific endotype of coronary vasomotor dysfunction using coronary function testing allows for tailored medication that decreased angina and improved quality of life, the researchers noted.
A recent European Society of Cardiology position paper on ANOCA “recommends the use of various pharmacological treatments including calcium-channel blockers, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, and nitric oxide modulators, of which CCBs have the most prominent role in both endotypes of coronary vasospasms” and coronary microvascular dysfunction, they wrote.
“However, evidence substantiating these recommendations is lacking,” the researchers added, “since it is based on studies in a different population, with small sample sizes, or not placebo controlled.”
To investigate this, between 2019 and 2021, EDIT-CMD enrolled 126 adults aged 18 years and older who had two or more chronic angina episodes per week and no signs of obstructive CAD, who were seen at three hospitals specializing in ANOCA in the Netherlands.
The participants underwent coronary function testing that consisted of an acetylcholine spasm provocation test to evaluate for epicardial spasm and microvascular spasm, and a bolus thermodilution test with adenosine, to assess CFR and IMR. Coronary microvascular dysfunction was defined as CFR less than 2.0 and IMR of 25 or greater.
Of 99 patients with vasospasm or microvascular dysfunction, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive diltiazem (n = 41) or placebo (n = 44) for 6 weeks.
The patients in both groups had a mean age of 58 years, and 29% were male; 22% had previously undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 48% had severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society grade III/IV).
At baseline, about 50% had epicardial spasm, 25% had microvascular spasm and 25% had no spasm, and 54% in the diltiazem group and 73% in the placebo group had microvascular dysfunction.
After 6 weeks, 73 patients (35 in the placebo group and 38 in the diltiazem group) were available for repeat coronary function testing.
For the primary outcome, after 6 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with normalization of one abnormal parameter of coronary vasomotor dysfunction, without any normal parameter becoming abnormal, occurred in 8 patients (21%) in the diltiazem group versus 10 patients (29%) in the placebo group (P = .46)
In secondary outcomes, after 6 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of microvascular dysfunction, in Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores for angina symptoms, or RAND-36 scores for quality of life between patients who received diltiazem vs those who received placebo.
However, more patients in the diltiazem group than in the placebo group progressed from epicardial spasm to microvascular or no spasm (47% vs. 6%; P = .006).
The EDIT-CMD trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr. Jansen has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bairey Merz discloses having a fiduciary role and shares in iRhythm and being on the advisory board for Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a randomized trial of patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA), 6 weeks of treatment with diltiazem did not improve coronary vasomotor dysfunction – apart from epicardial spasm – or angina symptoms and quality of life.
The trial investigated whether this therapy would improve these outcomes in patients with two mutually exclusive subgroups, or endotypes, of coronary vasomotor dysfunction: coronary artery spasm (epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm) or coronary microvascular dysfunction indicated by coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) values.
Treatment success, the primary study endpoint – defined as normalization of one of the abnormal endotypes and no normal endotype becoming abnormal – was similar after treatment with diltiazem, compared with placebo. Nor were there significant differences for secondary endpoints apart from improvements in epicardial spasm in the two groups.
Tijn Jansen, MD, presented these findings from the EDIT-CMD trial in a featured clinical research session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published online April 2, 2022, in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.
“This first study using repeated coronary function testing provides a platform for future research,” concluded Dr. Jansen, a PhD candidate in the department of cardiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
“We were surprised indeed” that diltiazem did not meet its primary endpoint for successful treatment and did not reduce symptoms or improve quality of life, compared with placebo, unlike results of the CorMicA trial, he said in an interview.
“We did find a treatment success, however, of 21%, which was slightly lower than expected, but it was not better than just giving placebo. This was similar regarding symptoms and quality of life, where we did find an overall improvement with diltiazem, but again not higher than using placebo,” he added. “It seems that giving the diagnosis to these patients itself creates a reduction in symptoms,” that might be caused by a reduction in stress, Dr. Jansen suggested.
The clinical implication, he said, is that more randomized controlled trials in this patient population are needed to permit evidence-based patient-tailored treatment, based on the different endotypes. “It might even be imaginable to test effectiveness in each individual patient using coronary function testing,” he said.
These tests are more and more commonly used in clinical practice, Dr. Jansen noted. “In the Netherlands, we recently launched the NL-CFT registry, which enables the participating centers to perform the CFT with a standardized protocol, with the goal to collect data and increase knowledge in this patient population.”
Heterogeneous population?
“I think probably the reason this trial was negative is [that coronary vasomotor dysfunction is] just too heterogeneous,” assigned discussant, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, commented.
“The problem with effectiveness trials is that you get a very heterogeneous population, and not everything works for everyone,” she said.
“This was a strategy trial – too heterogenous and too small to assess each endotype response,” Dr. Bairey Merz elaborated in an interview.
“Calcium channel blockers [CCBs] will not [effectively] treat all endotypes of coronary microvascular dysfunction,” she added, noting that the 6-month CorMIcA trial demonstrated in a larger, more rigorous trial design that CCBs are effective for epicardial and microvascular spasm.
“If you were going to do this study again, would you allow physicians to do up-titration and/or go a little bit longer?” Dr. Bairey Merz asked Dr. Jansen during the discussion.
“I do think this is a very heterogeneous group,” he agreed. However, the protocol allowed researchers to titrate diltiazem from 120 mg/day to 360 mg/day.
“If I were to do it again,” Dr. Jansen said, “I would focus on one specific endotype, probably epicardial spasm.”
First RCT of diltiazem in patients with ANOCA
Up to 40% of patients undergoing coronary angiography for stable angina do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and 60%-90% of these patients have coronary vasomotor dysfunction, Dr. Jansen noted.
The landmark CorMicA trial showed that diagnosing the specific endotype of coronary vasomotor dysfunction using coronary function testing allows for tailored medication that decreased angina and improved quality of life, the researchers noted.
A recent European Society of Cardiology position paper on ANOCA “recommends the use of various pharmacological treatments including calcium-channel blockers, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, and nitric oxide modulators, of which CCBs have the most prominent role in both endotypes of coronary vasospasms” and coronary microvascular dysfunction, they wrote.
“However, evidence substantiating these recommendations is lacking,” the researchers added, “since it is based on studies in a different population, with small sample sizes, or not placebo controlled.”
To investigate this, between 2019 and 2021, EDIT-CMD enrolled 126 adults aged 18 years and older who had two or more chronic angina episodes per week and no signs of obstructive CAD, who were seen at three hospitals specializing in ANOCA in the Netherlands.
The participants underwent coronary function testing that consisted of an acetylcholine spasm provocation test to evaluate for epicardial spasm and microvascular spasm, and a bolus thermodilution test with adenosine, to assess CFR and IMR. Coronary microvascular dysfunction was defined as CFR less than 2.0 and IMR of 25 or greater.
Of 99 patients with vasospasm or microvascular dysfunction, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive diltiazem (n = 41) or placebo (n = 44) for 6 weeks.
The patients in both groups had a mean age of 58 years, and 29% were male; 22% had previously undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 48% had severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society grade III/IV).
At baseline, about 50% had epicardial spasm, 25% had microvascular spasm and 25% had no spasm, and 54% in the diltiazem group and 73% in the placebo group had microvascular dysfunction.
After 6 weeks, 73 patients (35 in the placebo group and 38 in the diltiazem group) were available for repeat coronary function testing.
For the primary outcome, after 6 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with normalization of one abnormal parameter of coronary vasomotor dysfunction, without any normal parameter becoming abnormal, occurred in 8 patients (21%) in the diltiazem group versus 10 patients (29%) in the placebo group (P = .46)
In secondary outcomes, after 6 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of microvascular dysfunction, in Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores for angina symptoms, or RAND-36 scores for quality of life between patients who received diltiazem vs those who received placebo.
However, more patients in the diltiazem group than in the placebo group progressed from epicardial spasm to microvascular or no spasm (47% vs. 6%; P = .006).
The EDIT-CMD trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr. Jansen has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bairey Merz discloses having a fiduciary role and shares in iRhythm and being on the advisory board for Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a randomized trial of patients with angina and no obstructive coronary artery disease (ANOCA), 6 weeks of treatment with diltiazem did not improve coronary vasomotor dysfunction – apart from epicardial spasm – or angina symptoms and quality of life.
The trial investigated whether this therapy would improve these outcomes in patients with two mutually exclusive subgroups, or endotypes, of coronary vasomotor dysfunction: coronary artery spasm (epicardial spasm, microvascular spasm) or coronary microvascular dysfunction indicated by coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR) values.
Treatment success, the primary study endpoint – defined as normalization of one of the abnormal endotypes and no normal endotype becoming abnormal – was similar after treatment with diltiazem, compared with placebo. Nor were there significant differences for secondary endpoints apart from improvements in epicardial spasm in the two groups.
Tijn Jansen, MD, presented these findings from the EDIT-CMD trial in a featured clinical research session at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published online April 2, 2022, in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.
“This first study using repeated coronary function testing provides a platform for future research,” concluded Dr. Jansen, a PhD candidate in the department of cardiology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
“We were surprised indeed” that diltiazem did not meet its primary endpoint for successful treatment and did not reduce symptoms or improve quality of life, compared with placebo, unlike results of the CorMicA trial, he said in an interview.
“We did find a treatment success, however, of 21%, which was slightly lower than expected, but it was not better than just giving placebo. This was similar regarding symptoms and quality of life, where we did find an overall improvement with diltiazem, but again not higher than using placebo,” he added. “It seems that giving the diagnosis to these patients itself creates a reduction in symptoms,” that might be caused by a reduction in stress, Dr. Jansen suggested.
The clinical implication, he said, is that more randomized controlled trials in this patient population are needed to permit evidence-based patient-tailored treatment, based on the different endotypes. “It might even be imaginable to test effectiveness in each individual patient using coronary function testing,” he said.
These tests are more and more commonly used in clinical practice, Dr. Jansen noted. “In the Netherlands, we recently launched the NL-CFT registry, which enables the participating centers to perform the CFT with a standardized protocol, with the goal to collect data and increase knowledge in this patient population.”
Heterogeneous population?
“I think probably the reason this trial was negative is [that coronary vasomotor dysfunction is] just too heterogeneous,” assigned discussant, C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, commented.
“The problem with effectiveness trials is that you get a very heterogeneous population, and not everything works for everyone,” she said.
“This was a strategy trial – too heterogenous and too small to assess each endotype response,” Dr. Bairey Merz elaborated in an interview.
“Calcium channel blockers [CCBs] will not [effectively] treat all endotypes of coronary microvascular dysfunction,” she added, noting that the 6-month CorMIcA trial demonstrated in a larger, more rigorous trial design that CCBs are effective for epicardial and microvascular spasm.
“If you were going to do this study again, would you allow physicians to do up-titration and/or go a little bit longer?” Dr. Bairey Merz asked Dr. Jansen during the discussion.
“I do think this is a very heterogeneous group,” he agreed. However, the protocol allowed researchers to titrate diltiazem from 120 mg/day to 360 mg/day.
“If I were to do it again,” Dr. Jansen said, “I would focus on one specific endotype, probably epicardial spasm.”
First RCT of diltiazem in patients with ANOCA
Up to 40% of patients undergoing coronary angiography for stable angina do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and 60%-90% of these patients have coronary vasomotor dysfunction, Dr. Jansen noted.
The landmark CorMicA trial showed that diagnosing the specific endotype of coronary vasomotor dysfunction using coronary function testing allows for tailored medication that decreased angina and improved quality of life, the researchers noted.
A recent European Society of Cardiology position paper on ANOCA “recommends the use of various pharmacological treatments including calcium-channel blockers, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, statins, and nitric oxide modulators, of which CCBs have the most prominent role in both endotypes of coronary vasospasms” and coronary microvascular dysfunction, they wrote.
“However, evidence substantiating these recommendations is lacking,” the researchers added, “since it is based on studies in a different population, with small sample sizes, or not placebo controlled.”
To investigate this, between 2019 and 2021, EDIT-CMD enrolled 126 adults aged 18 years and older who had two or more chronic angina episodes per week and no signs of obstructive CAD, who were seen at three hospitals specializing in ANOCA in the Netherlands.
The participants underwent coronary function testing that consisted of an acetylcholine spasm provocation test to evaluate for epicardial spasm and microvascular spasm, and a bolus thermodilution test with adenosine, to assess CFR and IMR. Coronary microvascular dysfunction was defined as CFR less than 2.0 and IMR of 25 or greater.
Of 99 patients with vasospasm or microvascular dysfunction, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive diltiazem (n = 41) or placebo (n = 44) for 6 weeks.
The patients in both groups had a mean age of 58 years, and 29% were male; 22% had previously undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 48% had severe angina (Canadian Cardiovascular Society grade III/IV).
At baseline, about 50% had epicardial spasm, 25% had microvascular spasm and 25% had no spasm, and 54% in the diltiazem group and 73% in the placebo group had microvascular dysfunction.
After 6 weeks, 73 patients (35 in the placebo group and 38 in the diltiazem group) were available for repeat coronary function testing.
For the primary outcome, after 6 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with normalization of one abnormal parameter of coronary vasomotor dysfunction, without any normal parameter becoming abnormal, occurred in 8 patients (21%) in the diltiazem group versus 10 patients (29%) in the placebo group (P = .46)
In secondary outcomes, after 6 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of microvascular dysfunction, in Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores for angina symptoms, or RAND-36 scores for quality of life between patients who received diltiazem vs those who received placebo.
However, more patients in the diltiazem group than in the placebo group progressed from epicardial spasm to microvascular or no spasm (47% vs. 6%; P = .006).
The EDIT-CMD trial was sponsored by Abbott. Dr. Jansen has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Bairey Merz discloses having a fiduciary role and shares in iRhythm and being on the advisory board for Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2022
Mavacamten boosts quality of life in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Of patients with symptomatic, obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with the investigational oral agent mavacamten, more than twice as many, compared with placebo, had a very large improvement from baseline in their summary quality of life score after 30 weeks of treatment in a pivotal trial with 194 patients evaluable for this endpoint.
The trial’s health-related quality of life assessment, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed an average improvement of more than 9 points, compared with placebo, in summary KCCQ scores among 98 mavacamten-treated patients, and a nearly 15-point improvement from baseline that represents a “moderate to large” improvement in overall health-related quality of life, John A. Spertus, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Largest drug benefit ever seen in KCCQ
The 9-point average incremental improvement on mavacamten, a selective cardiac myosin inhibitor, compared with placebo-treated patients, is “the largest drug-mediated benefit we’ve ever observed on the KCCQ,” said Dr. Spertus, who spearheaded development of the KCCQ. Concurrently with his report the results also appeared online in the Lancet.
“Given the strength of the data, I’d reach for this drug early” to treat patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), added Dr. Spertus, a professor and cardiovascular outcomes researcher at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and clinical director of outcomes research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, also in Kansas City.
No available treatment for obstructive HCM has had “as vigorous an assessment of impact on health status,” and the study that supplied the data he and his associates analyzed, EXPLORER-HCM, is “the largest trial ever done” in patients with HCM, he added.
Management guidelines for HCM released last year by the ACC and American Heart Association named beta-blockers “first-line” medical therapy for the disorder, with the calcium channel blockers verapamil or diltiazem named as “reasonable alternatives” to beta-blockers. However, these commonly used agents have “limited” evidence supporting health-status benefits in patients with HCM, Dr. Spertus and coauthors wrote in their report.
Longer follow-up needed
“This is an important study,” commented Matthew W. Martinez, MD, director of sports cardiology and a HCM specialist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. But “given the longevity of HCM we need follow-up that goes beyond 30 weeks,” he said as designated discussant for the report.
EXPLORER-HCM randomized 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM at 68 centers in 13 countries during 2018-2019. The 30-week trial’s primary outcome was a composite to assess clinical response, compared with baseline, that included a 1.5-mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction; or a 3.0 mL/kg per min or greater improvement in pVO2 and no worsening of NYHA class.
Patients averaged about 59 years of age, about 60% were men, and their pVO2 at entry averaged about 20 mL/kg per min. About 73% were in NYHA functional class II, with the remainder in functional class III. Patients received mavacamten as a once-daily oral dose that gradually up-titrated during the trial to reach targeted reductions in each patient’s plasma levels of the drug and in their left ventricular outflow tract gradient.
The results showed that, after 30 weeks on treatment, the primary endpoint was reached by 37% of 123 patients on mavacamten and by 17% of 128 patients on placebo, a significant difference in an intention-to-treat analysis. About 70% of patients completed their KCCQ after 30 weeks, which meant that fewer patients were in the quality of life analyses, according to the report that was published in The Lancet .
Based on these results the drug is now under consideration for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, with a decision expected by early 2022.
Benefit fades quickly when mavacamten stops
More detailed analysis of quality of life findings in the new report also showed that, while average KCCQ scores (both overall summary score and clinical summary score) steadily improved with mavacamten treatment, compared with control patients, through 18 weeks on treatment, the scores then roughly plateaued out to 30 weeks. This was followed by a sharp reversal back down to baseline levels and similar to control patients 8 weeks after stopping mavacamten, suggesting that the drug’s benefit quickly fades off treatment and hence must be taken chronically.
The responder analysis showed that 9% of patients on mavacamten had a worsening in their KCCQ overall summary scores by more than 5 points after 30 weeks, compared with 23% of the control patients. In contrast, a very large improvement in KCCQ score, defined as a rise of at least 20 points from baseline after 30 weeks, occurred in 36% of those who received mavacamten and in 15% of the controls. The between-group difference indicates a number needed to treat with mavacamten of roughly five to produce one additional patient with a very large improvement in KCCQ overall summary score, Dr. Spertus noted.
By design, all patients enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. During treatment, seven of the mavacamten-treated patients and two in the control arm had a transient decrease in their left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50%, although this later normalized in all affected patients. “An initial criticism” of the trial was that a significant percentage of mavacamten patients “developed left ventricular dysfunction” noted Dr. Martinez, but Dr. Spertus highlighted the poor apparent correlation between this phenomenon and quality of life self-assessment. Six of the seven patients on mavacamten who had a transient drop in their left ventricular ejection fraction had very large improvements in their KCCQ summary scores, Dr. Spertus reported.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a myocardial disorder characterized by primary left ventricular hypertrophy. Although a complex disease, HCM is broadly defined by pathologically enhanced cardiac actin-myosin interactions that result in hypercontractility, diastolic abnormalities, and dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Mavacamten is a first-in-class, small-molecule, selective allosteric inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase developed to target the underlying pathophysiology of HCM by reducing actin-myosin cross-bridge formation, thereby reducing contractility and improving myocardial energetics.
EXPLORER-HCM was sponsored by MyoKardia, the company developing mavacamten and a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Spertus has been a consultant to MyoKardia, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis. He has received research support from Abbott Vascular, and he holds the copyright for the KCCQ. Dr. Martinez has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Of patients with symptomatic, obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with the investigational oral agent mavacamten, more than twice as many, compared with placebo, had a very large improvement from baseline in their summary quality of life score after 30 weeks of treatment in a pivotal trial with 194 patients evaluable for this endpoint.
The trial’s health-related quality of life assessment, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed an average improvement of more than 9 points, compared with placebo, in summary KCCQ scores among 98 mavacamten-treated patients, and a nearly 15-point improvement from baseline that represents a “moderate to large” improvement in overall health-related quality of life, John A. Spertus, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Largest drug benefit ever seen in KCCQ
The 9-point average incremental improvement on mavacamten, a selective cardiac myosin inhibitor, compared with placebo-treated patients, is “the largest drug-mediated benefit we’ve ever observed on the KCCQ,” said Dr. Spertus, who spearheaded development of the KCCQ. Concurrently with his report the results also appeared online in the Lancet.
“Given the strength of the data, I’d reach for this drug early” to treat patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), added Dr. Spertus, a professor and cardiovascular outcomes researcher at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and clinical director of outcomes research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, also in Kansas City.
No available treatment for obstructive HCM has had “as vigorous an assessment of impact on health status,” and the study that supplied the data he and his associates analyzed, EXPLORER-HCM, is “the largest trial ever done” in patients with HCM, he added.
Management guidelines for HCM released last year by the ACC and American Heart Association named beta-blockers “first-line” medical therapy for the disorder, with the calcium channel blockers verapamil or diltiazem named as “reasonable alternatives” to beta-blockers. However, these commonly used agents have “limited” evidence supporting health-status benefits in patients with HCM, Dr. Spertus and coauthors wrote in their report.
Longer follow-up needed
“This is an important study,” commented Matthew W. Martinez, MD, director of sports cardiology and a HCM specialist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. But “given the longevity of HCM we need follow-up that goes beyond 30 weeks,” he said as designated discussant for the report.
EXPLORER-HCM randomized 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM at 68 centers in 13 countries during 2018-2019. The 30-week trial’s primary outcome was a composite to assess clinical response, compared with baseline, that included a 1.5-mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction; or a 3.0 mL/kg per min or greater improvement in pVO2 and no worsening of NYHA class.
Patients averaged about 59 years of age, about 60% were men, and their pVO2 at entry averaged about 20 mL/kg per min. About 73% were in NYHA functional class II, with the remainder in functional class III. Patients received mavacamten as a once-daily oral dose that gradually up-titrated during the trial to reach targeted reductions in each patient’s plasma levels of the drug and in their left ventricular outflow tract gradient.
The results showed that, after 30 weeks on treatment, the primary endpoint was reached by 37% of 123 patients on mavacamten and by 17% of 128 patients on placebo, a significant difference in an intention-to-treat analysis. About 70% of patients completed their KCCQ after 30 weeks, which meant that fewer patients were in the quality of life analyses, according to the report that was published in The Lancet .
Based on these results the drug is now under consideration for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, with a decision expected by early 2022.
Benefit fades quickly when mavacamten stops
More detailed analysis of quality of life findings in the new report also showed that, while average KCCQ scores (both overall summary score and clinical summary score) steadily improved with mavacamten treatment, compared with control patients, through 18 weeks on treatment, the scores then roughly plateaued out to 30 weeks. This was followed by a sharp reversal back down to baseline levels and similar to control patients 8 weeks after stopping mavacamten, suggesting that the drug’s benefit quickly fades off treatment and hence must be taken chronically.
The responder analysis showed that 9% of patients on mavacamten had a worsening in their KCCQ overall summary scores by more than 5 points after 30 weeks, compared with 23% of the control patients. In contrast, a very large improvement in KCCQ score, defined as a rise of at least 20 points from baseline after 30 weeks, occurred in 36% of those who received mavacamten and in 15% of the controls. The between-group difference indicates a number needed to treat with mavacamten of roughly five to produce one additional patient with a very large improvement in KCCQ overall summary score, Dr. Spertus noted.
By design, all patients enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. During treatment, seven of the mavacamten-treated patients and two in the control arm had a transient decrease in their left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50%, although this later normalized in all affected patients. “An initial criticism” of the trial was that a significant percentage of mavacamten patients “developed left ventricular dysfunction” noted Dr. Martinez, but Dr. Spertus highlighted the poor apparent correlation between this phenomenon and quality of life self-assessment. Six of the seven patients on mavacamten who had a transient drop in their left ventricular ejection fraction had very large improvements in their KCCQ summary scores, Dr. Spertus reported.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a myocardial disorder characterized by primary left ventricular hypertrophy. Although a complex disease, HCM is broadly defined by pathologically enhanced cardiac actin-myosin interactions that result in hypercontractility, diastolic abnormalities, and dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Mavacamten is a first-in-class, small-molecule, selective allosteric inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase developed to target the underlying pathophysiology of HCM by reducing actin-myosin cross-bridge formation, thereby reducing contractility and improving myocardial energetics.
EXPLORER-HCM was sponsored by MyoKardia, the company developing mavacamten and a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Spertus has been a consultant to MyoKardia, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis. He has received research support from Abbott Vascular, and he holds the copyright for the KCCQ. Dr. Martinez has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Of patients with symptomatic, obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with the investigational oral agent mavacamten, more than twice as many, compared with placebo, had a very large improvement from baseline in their summary quality of life score after 30 weeks of treatment in a pivotal trial with 194 patients evaluable for this endpoint.
The trial’s health-related quality of life assessment, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed an average improvement of more than 9 points, compared with placebo, in summary KCCQ scores among 98 mavacamten-treated patients, and a nearly 15-point improvement from baseline that represents a “moderate to large” improvement in overall health-related quality of life, John A. Spertus, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Largest drug benefit ever seen in KCCQ
The 9-point average incremental improvement on mavacamten, a selective cardiac myosin inhibitor, compared with placebo-treated patients, is “the largest drug-mediated benefit we’ve ever observed on the KCCQ,” said Dr. Spertus, who spearheaded development of the KCCQ. Concurrently with his report the results also appeared online in the Lancet.
“Given the strength of the data, I’d reach for this drug early” to treat patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), added Dr. Spertus, a professor and cardiovascular outcomes researcher at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and clinical director of outcomes research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, also in Kansas City.
No available treatment for obstructive HCM has had “as vigorous an assessment of impact on health status,” and the study that supplied the data he and his associates analyzed, EXPLORER-HCM, is “the largest trial ever done” in patients with HCM, he added.
Management guidelines for HCM released last year by the ACC and American Heart Association named beta-blockers “first-line” medical therapy for the disorder, with the calcium channel blockers verapamil or diltiazem named as “reasonable alternatives” to beta-blockers. However, these commonly used agents have “limited” evidence supporting health-status benefits in patients with HCM, Dr. Spertus and coauthors wrote in their report.
Longer follow-up needed
“This is an important study,” commented Matthew W. Martinez, MD, director of sports cardiology and a HCM specialist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. But “given the longevity of HCM we need follow-up that goes beyond 30 weeks,” he said as designated discussant for the report.
EXPLORER-HCM randomized 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM at 68 centers in 13 countries during 2018-2019. The 30-week trial’s primary outcome was a composite to assess clinical response, compared with baseline, that included a 1.5-mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction; or a 3.0 mL/kg per min or greater improvement in pVO2 and no worsening of NYHA class.
Patients averaged about 59 years of age, about 60% were men, and their pVO2 at entry averaged about 20 mL/kg per min. About 73% were in NYHA functional class II, with the remainder in functional class III. Patients received mavacamten as a once-daily oral dose that gradually up-titrated during the trial to reach targeted reductions in each patient’s plasma levels of the drug and in their left ventricular outflow tract gradient.
The results showed that, after 30 weeks on treatment, the primary endpoint was reached by 37% of 123 patients on mavacamten and by 17% of 128 patients on placebo, a significant difference in an intention-to-treat analysis. About 70% of patients completed their KCCQ after 30 weeks, which meant that fewer patients were in the quality of life analyses, according to the report that was published in The Lancet .
Based on these results the drug is now under consideration for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, with a decision expected by early 2022.
Benefit fades quickly when mavacamten stops
More detailed analysis of quality of life findings in the new report also showed that, while average KCCQ scores (both overall summary score and clinical summary score) steadily improved with mavacamten treatment, compared with control patients, through 18 weeks on treatment, the scores then roughly plateaued out to 30 weeks. This was followed by a sharp reversal back down to baseline levels and similar to control patients 8 weeks after stopping mavacamten, suggesting that the drug’s benefit quickly fades off treatment and hence must be taken chronically.
The responder analysis showed that 9% of patients on mavacamten had a worsening in their KCCQ overall summary scores by more than 5 points after 30 weeks, compared with 23% of the control patients. In contrast, a very large improvement in KCCQ score, defined as a rise of at least 20 points from baseline after 30 weeks, occurred in 36% of those who received mavacamten and in 15% of the controls. The between-group difference indicates a number needed to treat with mavacamten of roughly five to produce one additional patient with a very large improvement in KCCQ overall summary score, Dr. Spertus noted.
By design, all patients enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. During treatment, seven of the mavacamten-treated patients and two in the control arm had a transient decrease in their left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50%, although this later normalized in all affected patients. “An initial criticism” of the trial was that a significant percentage of mavacamten patients “developed left ventricular dysfunction” noted Dr. Martinez, but Dr. Spertus highlighted the poor apparent correlation between this phenomenon and quality of life self-assessment. Six of the seven patients on mavacamten who had a transient drop in their left ventricular ejection fraction had very large improvements in their KCCQ summary scores, Dr. Spertus reported.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a myocardial disorder characterized by primary left ventricular hypertrophy. Although a complex disease, HCM is broadly defined by pathologically enhanced cardiac actin-myosin interactions that result in hypercontractility, diastolic abnormalities, and dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Mavacamten is a first-in-class, small-molecule, selective allosteric inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase developed to target the underlying pathophysiology of HCM by reducing actin-myosin cross-bridge formation, thereby reducing contractility and improving myocardial energetics.
EXPLORER-HCM was sponsored by MyoKardia, the company developing mavacamten and a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Spertus has been a consultant to MyoKardia, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis. He has received research support from Abbott Vascular, and he holds the copyright for the KCCQ. Dr. Martinez has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
FROM ACC 2021
Prediabetes linked to higher CVD and CKD rates
in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.
The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’
“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”
Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.
The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.
The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.
The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).
In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.
Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management
The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.
“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.
An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.
in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.
The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’
“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”
Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.
The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.
The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.
The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).
In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.
Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management
The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.
“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.
An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.
in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.
The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’
“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”
Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.
The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.
The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.
The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).
In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.
Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management
The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.
“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.
An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.
FROM ACC 2021
Rivaroxaban cut recurrent limb events in VOYAGER-PAD
After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.
These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.
The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).
The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.
The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.
“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.
An ‘incredibly high’ event rate
“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.
“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”
Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level
“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.
“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”
VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.
In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.
Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding
Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.
“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.
The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.
But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.
“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.
VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.
After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.
These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.
The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).
The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.
The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.
“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.
An ‘incredibly high’ event rate
“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.
“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”
Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level
“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.
“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”
VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.
In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.
Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding
Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.
“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.
The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.
But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.
“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.
VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.
After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.
These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.
The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).
The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.
The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.
“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.
An ‘incredibly high’ event rate
“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.
“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”
Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level
“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.
“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”
VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.
In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.
Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding
Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.
“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.
The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.
But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.
“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.
VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.
FROM ACC 2021
Benefit from cooling temps for cardiac arrest does not differ in randomized trial
The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.
In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.
No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.
Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
31° C and 34° C are equivalent
There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.
Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”
There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.
There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.
The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.
Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).
There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.
Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.
The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed
The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.
Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.
However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.
Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.
The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.
In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.
No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.
Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
31° C and 34° C are equivalent
There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.
Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”
There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.
There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.
The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.
Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).
There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.
Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.
The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed
The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.
Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.
However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.
Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.
The first randomized controlled trial to compare specific temperatures for therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed no differences in major outcomes, according to a single-center, double-blind study.
In the CAPITAL-CHILL trial, cooling temperatures of 31° C and 34° C were compared to explore the hypothesis that a lower temperature would improve major outcomes, explained Michel Le May, MD.
No differences for the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days were observed, he reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The study was completed over a period of almost 7 years in patients presumed to have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and who were unconscious when they reached a center affiliated with the Ottawa Heart Institute, where Dr. Le May directs the regional STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) program. The initial rhythm at the time of the cardiac arrest was not an entry criterion.
Of 389 patients enrolled, the intention-to-treat analysis included 184 randomized to a cooling temperature of 31° C group and 183 to a temperature of 34° C. The assigned target temperature, reached with an endovascular device, was known only by the managing nurses.
31° C and 34° C are equivalent
There was a small numerical disadvantage for the lower temperature assignment, but none reached statistical significance. This was true of the primary outcome (48.4% vs. 45.4% for the higher temperature) and its components of mortality (43.5% vs. 41.0%) and poor neurologic outcome (4.9% vs. 4.4%). Poor neurologic outcome was defined as a Disability Rating Scale score of greater than 5.
Deaths were most common in the early part of the 180-day follow-up in both arms. On a Kaplan-Meier survival graph, Dr. Le May showed curves that he characterized as “almost superimposable.”
There were no significant differences for any subgroup stratifications, such as age 75 years or older versus younger, males versus females, presence versus absence or an initial shockable rhythm, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours versus later, and STEMI versus non-STEMI. In these analyses, the higher temperature was associated with a potential trend for benefit among females and those with a shockable rhythm.
There was no signal for a difference in neurologic outcomes on the Disability Rating Scale or the Modified Rankin Scale. On the latter, for example, 46% of those in the 31° C group and 44% of these in the 34° C group had a score of four or greater at the end of follow-up.
The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. About 80% were male; the average age was roughly 62 years. More than 80% of the cardiac arrests were witnessed with CPR being administered by bystanders in nearly 70%. Nearly 40% had a STEMI.
Interventions were similar. Almost all patients underwent coronary angiography, of which nearly 60% received a percutaneous coronary intervention. More than 50% received a stent. The time from arrest to randomization was slightly longer in the 31° C group (228 vs. 204 minutes). The time to balloon inflation from arrival at the cardiac center was also slightly longer (73 vs. 60 minutes).
There was a trend for an increased rate of seizures in the 31° C group (12.5% vs. 7.1%; P = .08), but other secondary outcomes, including pneumonia (67.8% vs. 63.4%), renal replacement therapy (9.2% vs. 9.3%), and stroke (4.4% vs. 1.6%), were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively.
Bleeding, whether measured by transfusion (19.6% vs. 22.4%) or TIMI major bleed (23.4% vs. 19.7%) were similar in the 31° C and 34° C groups, respectively. Thrombosis, whether measured by stent thrombosis (1.2% vs. 2.2%) or deep venous thrombosis (11.4% vs. 10.9%) were similar in these two groups, respectively.
The length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit was significantly greater in the 31° C group (10 vs. 7 days; P = .004). Some of this increased length of stay can be attributed to the longer rewarming process required for the greater cooling, according to Dr. Le May, but he acknowledged that it is not clear this provides a full explanation.
More trials like CAPITAL-CHILL needed
The validity of these findings is supported by several strengths of the methodology, according to Jeanne E. Poole, MD, director of the arrhythmia service and electrophysiology laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle. This includes the reliance of an endovascular device, which can accelerate the time to the target temperature and assure the precision with which it is reached and maintained.
Dr. Poole did note that many of the primary and secondary measures, including the rates of stroke, seizures, and major bleeds, even though not significantly different, favored the higher temperature. The slightly longer door-to-balloon times might have been a factor. For the higher rate of pneumonia in the 31° C group, she questioned whether the longer period of ventilation linked to a longer period of rewarming might have been a factor.
However, Dr. Poole praised the CAPITAL-CHILL trial for drawing attention to a group of patients for whom survival rates remain “dismally low.” She indicated that these types of high-level trials are needed to look for strategies to improve outcomes.
Dr. Le May and Dr. Poole report no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM ACC 2021
GALACTIC-HF: Novel drug most effective in sickest HFrEF patients
The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.
The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.
Drilling down on ejection fraction
The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.
In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.
The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.
In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.
When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.
Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.
Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.
Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”
Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’
Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.
“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.
“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”
Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.
The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.
The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.
Drilling down on ejection fraction
The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.
In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.
The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.
In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.
When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.
Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.
Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.
Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”
Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’
Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.
“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.
“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”
Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.
The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.
The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.
Drilling down on ejection fraction
The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.
In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.
The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.
In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.
When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.
Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.
Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.
Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”
Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’
Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.
“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.
“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”
Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM ACC 2021
Sotagliflozin’s HFpEF benefit confirmed by new analyses
It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.
The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.
Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’
Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”
“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.
The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.
SCORED randomized 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease to treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy. During a median 16 months of treatment, the combined primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 5.6 events/100 patient years on sotagliflozin and 7.5 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 26% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Nearly a third of the enrolled patients had heart failure, with representation across the range of LVEF.
SOLOIST-WHF randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure. During a median 9 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 51 events/100 patient years in the sotagliflozin-treated patients and a rate of 76 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 33% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:117-28). Both trials stopped prematurely because of sponsorship issues.
In addition to the 4,500 patients with heart failure at entry in both trials, SCORED included a total of more than 6,700 without diagnosed heart failure at baseline, and in this subgroup treatment with sotagliflozin cut the incidence of the primary endpoint by a significant 27% compared with control patients.
A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death
Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.
“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.
He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.
SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K2P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.
It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.
The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.
Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’
Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”
“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.
The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.
SCORED randomized 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease to treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy. During a median 16 months of treatment, the combined primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 5.6 events/100 patient years on sotagliflozin and 7.5 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 26% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Nearly a third of the enrolled patients had heart failure, with representation across the range of LVEF.
SOLOIST-WHF randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure. During a median 9 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 51 events/100 patient years in the sotagliflozin-treated patients and a rate of 76 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 33% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:117-28). Both trials stopped prematurely because of sponsorship issues.
In addition to the 4,500 patients with heart failure at entry in both trials, SCORED included a total of more than 6,700 without diagnosed heart failure at baseline, and in this subgroup treatment with sotagliflozin cut the incidence of the primary endpoint by a significant 27% compared with control patients.
A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death
Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.
“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.
He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.
SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K2P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.
It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.
The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.
Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’
Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”
“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.
The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.
SCORED randomized 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease to treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy. During a median 16 months of treatment, the combined primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 5.6 events/100 patient years on sotagliflozin and 7.5 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 26% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Nearly a third of the enrolled patients had heart failure, with representation across the range of LVEF.
SOLOIST-WHF randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure. During a median 9 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 51 events/100 patient years in the sotagliflozin-treated patients and a rate of 76 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 33% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:117-28). Both trials stopped prematurely because of sponsorship issues.
In addition to the 4,500 patients with heart failure at entry in both trials, SCORED included a total of more than 6,700 without diagnosed heart failure at baseline, and in this subgroup treatment with sotagliflozin cut the incidence of the primary endpoint by a significant 27% compared with control patients.
A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death
Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.
“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.
He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.
SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K2P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.
FROM ACC 2021
Early aspirin withdrawal after PCI: More benefit for women?
A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.
But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.
“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.
The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.
The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.
Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.
“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.
“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.
The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.
The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.
The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.
Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.
Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).
But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).
Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.
The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.
In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).
“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.
The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
Greater reduction in mortality in women?
However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”
However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.
Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.
Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”
“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.
“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.
Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”
She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”
Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”
This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.
But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.
“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.
The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.
The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.
Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.
“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.
“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.
The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.
The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.
The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.
Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.
Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).
But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).
Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.
The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.
In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).
“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.
The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
Greater reduction in mortality in women?
However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”
However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.
Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.
Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”
“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.
“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.
Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”
She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”
Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”
This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.
But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.
“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.
The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.
The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.
Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.
“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.
“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.
The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.
The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.
The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.
Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.
Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).
But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).
Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.
The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.
In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).
“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.
The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
Greater reduction in mortality in women?
However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”
However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.
Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.
Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”
“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.
“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.
Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”
She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”
Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”
This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAFE-PAD: Endovascular paclitaxel-coated devices exonerated in real-world analysis
A cohort analysis using advanced strategies to minimize the impact of confounders has concluded that the current Food and Drug Administration warning about paclitaxel-coated devices used for femoropopliteal endovascular treatment should be lifted, according to investigators of a study called SAFE-PAD.
In early 2019, an FDA letter to clinicians warned that endovascular stents and balloons coated with paclitaxel might increase mortality, recounted the principal investigator of SAFE-PAD, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, director of vascular intervention, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Boston.
An FDA advisory committee that was subsequently convened in 2019 did not elect to remove these devices from the market, but it did call for restrictions and for the collection of more safety data. In the absence of a clear mechanism of risk, and in the context of perceived problems with data suggesting harm, Dr. Secemsky said that there was interest in a conclusive answer.
The problem was that a randomized controlled trial, even if funding were available, was considered impractical, he noted in presenting SAFE-PAD at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
In the initial meta-analysis that suggested an increased mortality risk, no risk was seen in the first year after exposure, and it climbed to only 3.5% after 2 years. As a result, the definitive 2-year study with sufficient power to produce conclusive results was an estimated 40,000 patients. Even if extended to 5 years, 20,000 patients would be needed, according to Dr. Secemsky.
SAFE-PAD born of collaboration
An alternative solution was required, which is why “we became engaged with the FDA to design a real-world study for use in making a regulatory decision,” Dr. Secemsky said.
SAFE-PAD, designed with feedback from the FDA, employed sophisticated methodologies to account for known and unknown confounding in the Medicare cohort data used for this study.
Of 168,553 Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing femoropopliteal artery revascularization with a stent, a balloon, or both at 2,978 institutions, 70,584 (42%) were treated with a paclitaxel drug-coated device (DCD) and the remainder were managed with a non–drug-coated device (NDCD).
The groups were compared with a primary outcome of all-cause mortality in a design to evaluate DCD for noninferiority. Several secondary outcomes, such as repeated lower extremity revascularization, were also evaluated.
To create balanced groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) blinded to outcome was the primary analytic strategy. In addition, several sensitivity analyses were applied, including a technique that tests for the impact of a hypothetical variable that allows adjustment for an unknown confounder.
After a median follow-up of 2.7 years (longest more than 5 years), the cumulative mortality after weighting was 53.8% in the DCD group and 55.1% in the NDCD group. The 5% advantage for the DCD group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.97) ensured noninferiority (P < .001).
On unweighted analysis, the mortality difference favoring DCD was even greater (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82–0.85).
None of the sensitivity analyses – including a multivariable Cox regression analysis, an instrumental variable analysis, and a falsification endpoints analysis that employed myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure – altered the conclusion. The hypothetical variable analysis produced the same result.
“A missing confounder would need to be more prevalent and more strongly associated to outcome than any measured variable in this analysis,” reported Dr. Secemsky, indicating that this ruled out essentially any probability of this occurring.
A subgroup analysis told the same story. By hazard ratio for the outcome of mortality, DCD was consistently favored over NDCD for groups characterized by low risk (HR, 0.98), stent implantation (HR, 0.97), receipt of balloon angioplasty alone (HR, 0.94), having critical limb ischemia (HR, 0.95) or no critical limb ischemia (HR, 0.97), and being managed inpatient (HR, 0.97) or outpatient (HR, 0.95).
The results of SAFE-PAD were simultaneously published with Dr. Secemsky’s ACC presentation.
Value of revascularization questioned
In an accompanying editorial, the coauthors Rita F. Redberg, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Mary M. McDermott, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reiterated the findings and the conclusions, but used the forum to draw attention to the low survival rates.
“Thus, while this well-done observational study provides new information,” they wrote, “a major conclusion should be that mortality is high among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing revascularization [for peripheral artery disease] with any devices.”
‘Very impressive’ methods
Marc P. Bonaca, MD, director of vascular research, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the methods to ensure the validity of the conclusions of this study “very impressive.” In situations where prospective randomized trials are impractical, he suggested that this type of approach might answer an unmet need.
“We have always desired the ability to look at these large datasets with a lot of power to answer important questions,” he said. While “the issue has always been residual confounding,” he expressed interest in further verifications that this type of methodology can serve as a template for data analysis to guide other regulatory decisions.
Dr. Secemsky reports financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook, CSI, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, and Phillips. Dr. Redford reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McDermott reports a financial relationship with Regeneron. Dr. Bonaca reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A cohort analysis using advanced strategies to minimize the impact of confounders has concluded that the current Food and Drug Administration warning about paclitaxel-coated devices used for femoropopliteal endovascular treatment should be lifted, according to investigators of a study called SAFE-PAD.
In early 2019, an FDA letter to clinicians warned that endovascular stents and balloons coated with paclitaxel might increase mortality, recounted the principal investigator of SAFE-PAD, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, director of vascular intervention, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Boston.
An FDA advisory committee that was subsequently convened in 2019 did not elect to remove these devices from the market, but it did call for restrictions and for the collection of more safety data. In the absence of a clear mechanism of risk, and in the context of perceived problems with data suggesting harm, Dr. Secemsky said that there was interest in a conclusive answer.
The problem was that a randomized controlled trial, even if funding were available, was considered impractical, he noted in presenting SAFE-PAD at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
In the initial meta-analysis that suggested an increased mortality risk, no risk was seen in the first year after exposure, and it climbed to only 3.5% after 2 years. As a result, the definitive 2-year study with sufficient power to produce conclusive results was an estimated 40,000 patients. Even if extended to 5 years, 20,000 patients would be needed, according to Dr. Secemsky.
SAFE-PAD born of collaboration
An alternative solution was required, which is why “we became engaged with the FDA to design a real-world study for use in making a regulatory decision,” Dr. Secemsky said.
SAFE-PAD, designed with feedback from the FDA, employed sophisticated methodologies to account for known and unknown confounding in the Medicare cohort data used for this study.
Of 168,553 Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing femoropopliteal artery revascularization with a stent, a balloon, or both at 2,978 institutions, 70,584 (42%) were treated with a paclitaxel drug-coated device (DCD) and the remainder were managed with a non–drug-coated device (NDCD).
The groups were compared with a primary outcome of all-cause mortality in a design to evaluate DCD for noninferiority. Several secondary outcomes, such as repeated lower extremity revascularization, were also evaluated.
To create balanced groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) blinded to outcome was the primary analytic strategy. In addition, several sensitivity analyses were applied, including a technique that tests for the impact of a hypothetical variable that allows adjustment for an unknown confounder.
After a median follow-up of 2.7 years (longest more than 5 years), the cumulative mortality after weighting was 53.8% in the DCD group and 55.1% in the NDCD group. The 5% advantage for the DCD group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.97) ensured noninferiority (P < .001).
On unweighted analysis, the mortality difference favoring DCD was even greater (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82–0.85).
None of the sensitivity analyses – including a multivariable Cox regression analysis, an instrumental variable analysis, and a falsification endpoints analysis that employed myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure – altered the conclusion. The hypothetical variable analysis produced the same result.
“A missing confounder would need to be more prevalent and more strongly associated to outcome than any measured variable in this analysis,” reported Dr. Secemsky, indicating that this ruled out essentially any probability of this occurring.
A subgroup analysis told the same story. By hazard ratio for the outcome of mortality, DCD was consistently favored over NDCD for groups characterized by low risk (HR, 0.98), stent implantation (HR, 0.97), receipt of balloon angioplasty alone (HR, 0.94), having critical limb ischemia (HR, 0.95) or no critical limb ischemia (HR, 0.97), and being managed inpatient (HR, 0.97) or outpatient (HR, 0.95).
The results of SAFE-PAD were simultaneously published with Dr. Secemsky’s ACC presentation.
Value of revascularization questioned
In an accompanying editorial, the coauthors Rita F. Redberg, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Mary M. McDermott, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reiterated the findings and the conclusions, but used the forum to draw attention to the low survival rates.
“Thus, while this well-done observational study provides new information,” they wrote, “a major conclusion should be that mortality is high among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing revascularization [for peripheral artery disease] with any devices.”
‘Very impressive’ methods
Marc P. Bonaca, MD, director of vascular research, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the methods to ensure the validity of the conclusions of this study “very impressive.” In situations where prospective randomized trials are impractical, he suggested that this type of approach might answer an unmet need.
“We have always desired the ability to look at these large datasets with a lot of power to answer important questions,” he said. While “the issue has always been residual confounding,” he expressed interest in further verifications that this type of methodology can serve as a template for data analysis to guide other regulatory decisions.
Dr. Secemsky reports financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook, CSI, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, and Phillips. Dr. Redford reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McDermott reports a financial relationship with Regeneron. Dr. Bonaca reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
A cohort analysis using advanced strategies to minimize the impact of confounders has concluded that the current Food and Drug Administration warning about paclitaxel-coated devices used for femoropopliteal endovascular treatment should be lifted, according to investigators of a study called SAFE-PAD.
In early 2019, an FDA letter to clinicians warned that endovascular stents and balloons coated with paclitaxel might increase mortality, recounted the principal investigator of SAFE-PAD, Eric A. Secemsky, MD, director of vascular intervention, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, Boston.
An FDA advisory committee that was subsequently convened in 2019 did not elect to remove these devices from the market, but it did call for restrictions and for the collection of more safety data. In the absence of a clear mechanism of risk, and in the context of perceived problems with data suggesting harm, Dr. Secemsky said that there was interest in a conclusive answer.
The problem was that a randomized controlled trial, even if funding were available, was considered impractical, he noted in presenting SAFE-PAD at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
In the initial meta-analysis that suggested an increased mortality risk, no risk was seen in the first year after exposure, and it climbed to only 3.5% after 2 years. As a result, the definitive 2-year study with sufficient power to produce conclusive results was an estimated 40,000 patients. Even if extended to 5 years, 20,000 patients would be needed, according to Dr. Secemsky.
SAFE-PAD born of collaboration
An alternative solution was required, which is why “we became engaged with the FDA to design a real-world study for use in making a regulatory decision,” Dr. Secemsky said.
SAFE-PAD, designed with feedback from the FDA, employed sophisticated methodologies to account for known and unknown confounding in the Medicare cohort data used for this study.
Of 168,553 Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing femoropopliteal artery revascularization with a stent, a balloon, or both at 2,978 institutions, 70,584 (42%) were treated with a paclitaxel drug-coated device (DCD) and the remainder were managed with a non–drug-coated device (NDCD).
The groups were compared with a primary outcome of all-cause mortality in a design to evaluate DCD for noninferiority. Several secondary outcomes, such as repeated lower extremity revascularization, were also evaluated.
To create balanced groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) blinded to outcome was the primary analytic strategy. In addition, several sensitivity analyses were applied, including a technique that tests for the impact of a hypothetical variable that allows adjustment for an unknown confounder.
After a median follow-up of 2.7 years (longest more than 5 years), the cumulative mortality after weighting was 53.8% in the DCD group and 55.1% in the NDCD group. The 5% advantage for the DCD group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.97) ensured noninferiority (P < .001).
On unweighted analysis, the mortality difference favoring DCD was even greater (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82–0.85).
None of the sensitivity analyses – including a multivariable Cox regression analysis, an instrumental variable analysis, and a falsification endpoints analysis that employed myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and heart failure – altered the conclusion. The hypothetical variable analysis produced the same result.
“A missing confounder would need to be more prevalent and more strongly associated to outcome than any measured variable in this analysis,” reported Dr. Secemsky, indicating that this ruled out essentially any probability of this occurring.
A subgroup analysis told the same story. By hazard ratio for the outcome of mortality, DCD was consistently favored over NDCD for groups characterized by low risk (HR, 0.98), stent implantation (HR, 0.97), receipt of balloon angioplasty alone (HR, 0.94), having critical limb ischemia (HR, 0.95) or no critical limb ischemia (HR, 0.97), and being managed inpatient (HR, 0.97) or outpatient (HR, 0.95).
The results of SAFE-PAD were simultaneously published with Dr. Secemsky’s ACC presentation.
Value of revascularization questioned
In an accompanying editorial, the coauthors Rita F. Redberg, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and Mary M. McDermott, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reiterated the findings and the conclusions, but used the forum to draw attention to the low survival rates.
“Thus, while this well-done observational study provides new information,” they wrote, “a major conclusion should be that mortality is high among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing revascularization [for peripheral artery disease] with any devices.”
‘Very impressive’ methods
Marc P. Bonaca, MD, director of vascular research, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, called the methods to ensure the validity of the conclusions of this study “very impressive.” In situations where prospective randomized trials are impractical, he suggested that this type of approach might answer an unmet need.
“We have always desired the ability to look at these large datasets with a lot of power to answer important questions,” he said. While “the issue has always been residual confounding,” he expressed interest in further verifications that this type of methodology can serve as a template for data analysis to guide other regulatory decisions.
Dr. Secemsky reports financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cook, CSI, Inari, Janssen, Medtronic, and Phillips. Dr. Redford reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McDermott reports a financial relationship with Regeneron. Dr. Bonaca reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
FROM ACC 2021
Atorvastatin: A potential treatment in COVID-19?
For patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care, giving atorvastatin 20 mg/d did not result in a significant reduction in risk for venous or arterial thrombosis, for treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or for all-cause mortality, compared with placebo in the INSPIRATION-S study.
However, there was a suggestion of benefit in the subgroup of patients who were treated within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.
The study was presented by Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, on May 16 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
He explained that COVID-19 is characterized by an exuberant immune response and that there is a potential for thrombotic events because of enhanced endothelial activation and a prothrombotic state.
“In this context, it is interesting to think about statins as potential agents to be studied in COVID-19, because as well as having lipid-lowering actions, they are also thought to have anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects,” he said.
In the HARP-2 trial of simvastatin in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), published a few years ago, the main results were neutral, but in the subgroup of patients with hyperinflammatory ARDS, there was a reduction in mortality with simvastatin in comparison with placebo, Dr. Bikdeli noted.
Moreover, in a series of observational studies of patients with COVID-19, use of statins was associated with a reduction in mortality among hospitalized patients. However, there are limited high-quality data to guide clinical practice, he said.
The INSPIRATION study, conducted in 11 hospitals in Iran, had a two-by-two factorial design to investigate different anticoagulant strategies and the use of atorvastatin for COVID-19 patients in the ICU.
In the anticoagulation part of the trial, which was published in JAMA in March 2020, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of an intermediate dose and standard dose of enoxaparin.
For the statin part of the trial (INSPIRATION-S), 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo. Patients who had been taking statins beforehand were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups, with around a quarter of patients taking aspirin and more than 90% taking steroids.
Results showed that atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome – a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with ECMO, or mortality within 30 days – which occurred in 32.7% of the statin group versus 36.3% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.84; P = .35).
Atorvastatin was not associated with any significant differences in any of the individual components of the primary composite endpoint. There was also no significant difference in any of the safety endpoints, which included major bleeding and elevations in liver enzyme levels.
Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with the main findings, with one exception.
In the subgroup of patients who presented within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, there was a hint of a potential protective effect with atorvastatin.
In this group of 171 patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 30.9% of those taking atorvastatin versus 40.3% of those taking placebo (OR, 0.60; P = .055).
“This is an interesting observation, and it is plausible, as these patients may be in a different phase of COVID-19 disease. But we need to be cognizant of the multiplicity of comparisons, and this needs to be further investigated in subsequent studies,” Dr. Bikdeli said.
Higher dose in less sick patients a better strategy?
Discussing the study at the ACC presentation, Binita Shah, MD, said the importance of enrolling COVID-19 patients into clinical trials was paramount but that these patients in the ICU may not have been the right population in which to test a statin.
“Maybe for these very sick patients, it is just too late. Trying to rein in the inflammatory cytokine storm and the interaction with thrombosis at this point is very difficult,” Dr. Shah commented.
She suggested that it might be appropriate to try statins in an earlier phase of the disease in order to prevent the inflammatory process, rather than trying to stop it after it had already started.
Dr. Shah also questioned the use of such a low dose of atorvastatin for these patients. “In the cardiovascular literature – at least in ACS [acute coronary syndrome] – high statin doses are used to see short-term benefits. In this very inflammatory milieu, I wonder whether a high-intensity regimen would be more beneficial,” she speculated.
Dr. Bikdeli replied that a low dose of atorvastatin was chosen because early on, several antiviral agents, such as ritonavir, were being used for COVID-19 patients, and these drugs were associated with increases in liver enzyme levels.
“We didn’t want to exacerbate that with high doses of statins,” he said. “But we have now established the safety profile of atorvastatin in these patients, and in retrospect, yes, a higher dose might have been better.”
The INSPIRATION study was funded by the Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Tehran, Iran. Dr. Bikdeli has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care, giving atorvastatin 20 mg/d did not result in a significant reduction in risk for venous or arterial thrombosis, for treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or for all-cause mortality, compared with placebo in the INSPIRATION-S study.
However, there was a suggestion of benefit in the subgroup of patients who were treated within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.
The study was presented by Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, on May 16 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
He explained that COVID-19 is characterized by an exuberant immune response and that there is a potential for thrombotic events because of enhanced endothelial activation and a prothrombotic state.
“In this context, it is interesting to think about statins as potential agents to be studied in COVID-19, because as well as having lipid-lowering actions, they are also thought to have anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects,” he said.
In the HARP-2 trial of simvastatin in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), published a few years ago, the main results were neutral, but in the subgroup of patients with hyperinflammatory ARDS, there was a reduction in mortality with simvastatin in comparison with placebo, Dr. Bikdeli noted.
Moreover, in a series of observational studies of patients with COVID-19, use of statins was associated with a reduction in mortality among hospitalized patients. However, there are limited high-quality data to guide clinical practice, he said.
The INSPIRATION study, conducted in 11 hospitals in Iran, had a two-by-two factorial design to investigate different anticoagulant strategies and the use of atorvastatin for COVID-19 patients in the ICU.
In the anticoagulation part of the trial, which was published in JAMA in March 2020, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of an intermediate dose and standard dose of enoxaparin.
For the statin part of the trial (INSPIRATION-S), 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo. Patients who had been taking statins beforehand were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups, with around a quarter of patients taking aspirin and more than 90% taking steroids.
Results showed that atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome – a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with ECMO, or mortality within 30 days – which occurred in 32.7% of the statin group versus 36.3% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.84; P = .35).
Atorvastatin was not associated with any significant differences in any of the individual components of the primary composite endpoint. There was also no significant difference in any of the safety endpoints, which included major bleeding and elevations in liver enzyme levels.
Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with the main findings, with one exception.
In the subgroup of patients who presented within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, there was a hint of a potential protective effect with atorvastatin.
In this group of 171 patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 30.9% of those taking atorvastatin versus 40.3% of those taking placebo (OR, 0.60; P = .055).
“This is an interesting observation, and it is plausible, as these patients may be in a different phase of COVID-19 disease. But we need to be cognizant of the multiplicity of comparisons, and this needs to be further investigated in subsequent studies,” Dr. Bikdeli said.
Higher dose in less sick patients a better strategy?
Discussing the study at the ACC presentation, Binita Shah, MD, said the importance of enrolling COVID-19 patients into clinical trials was paramount but that these patients in the ICU may not have been the right population in which to test a statin.
“Maybe for these very sick patients, it is just too late. Trying to rein in the inflammatory cytokine storm and the interaction with thrombosis at this point is very difficult,” Dr. Shah commented.
She suggested that it might be appropriate to try statins in an earlier phase of the disease in order to prevent the inflammatory process, rather than trying to stop it after it had already started.
Dr. Shah also questioned the use of such a low dose of atorvastatin for these patients. “In the cardiovascular literature – at least in ACS [acute coronary syndrome] – high statin doses are used to see short-term benefits. In this very inflammatory milieu, I wonder whether a high-intensity regimen would be more beneficial,” she speculated.
Dr. Bikdeli replied that a low dose of atorvastatin was chosen because early on, several antiviral agents, such as ritonavir, were being used for COVID-19 patients, and these drugs were associated with increases in liver enzyme levels.
“We didn’t want to exacerbate that with high doses of statins,” he said. “But we have now established the safety profile of atorvastatin in these patients, and in retrospect, yes, a higher dose might have been better.”
The INSPIRATION study was funded by the Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Tehran, Iran. Dr. Bikdeli has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care, giving atorvastatin 20 mg/d did not result in a significant reduction in risk for venous or arterial thrombosis, for treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or for all-cause mortality, compared with placebo in the INSPIRATION-S study.
However, there was a suggestion of benefit in the subgroup of patients who were treated within 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset.
The study was presented by Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, on May 16 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
He explained that COVID-19 is characterized by an exuberant immune response and that there is a potential for thrombotic events because of enhanced endothelial activation and a prothrombotic state.
“In this context, it is interesting to think about statins as potential agents to be studied in COVID-19, because as well as having lipid-lowering actions, they are also thought to have anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects,” he said.
In the HARP-2 trial of simvastatin in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), published a few years ago, the main results were neutral, but in the subgroup of patients with hyperinflammatory ARDS, there was a reduction in mortality with simvastatin in comparison with placebo, Dr. Bikdeli noted.
Moreover, in a series of observational studies of patients with COVID-19, use of statins was associated with a reduction in mortality among hospitalized patients. However, there are limited high-quality data to guide clinical practice, he said.
The INSPIRATION study, conducted in 11 hospitals in Iran, had a two-by-two factorial design to investigate different anticoagulant strategies and the use of atorvastatin for COVID-19 patients in the ICU.
In the anticoagulation part of the trial, which was published in JAMA in March 2020, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of an intermediate dose and standard dose of enoxaparin.
For the statin part of the trial (INSPIRATION-S), 605 patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo. Patients who had been taking statins beforehand were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups, with around a quarter of patients taking aspirin and more than 90% taking steroids.
Results showed that atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome – a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with ECMO, or mortality within 30 days – which occurred in 32.7% of the statin group versus 36.3% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.84; P = .35).
Atorvastatin was not associated with any significant differences in any of the individual components of the primary composite endpoint. There was also no significant difference in any of the safety endpoints, which included major bleeding and elevations in liver enzyme levels.
Subgroup analyses were mostly consistent with the main findings, with one exception.
In the subgroup of patients who presented within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, there was a hint of a potential protective effect with atorvastatin.
In this group of 171 patients, the primary endpoint occurred in 30.9% of those taking atorvastatin versus 40.3% of those taking placebo (OR, 0.60; P = .055).
“This is an interesting observation, and it is plausible, as these patients may be in a different phase of COVID-19 disease. But we need to be cognizant of the multiplicity of comparisons, and this needs to be further investigated in subsequent studies,” Dr. Bikdeli said.
Higher dose in less sick patients a better strategy?
Discussing the study at the ACC presentation, Binita Shah, MD, said the importance of enrolling COVID-19 patients into clinical trials was paramount but that these patients in the ICU may not have been the right population in which to test a statin.
“Maybe for these very sick patients, it is just too late. Trying to rein in the inflammatory cytokine storm and the interaction with thrombosis at this point is very difficult,” Dr. Shah commented.
She suggested that it might be appropriate to try statins in an earlier phase of the disease in order to prevent the inflammatory process, rather than trying to stop it after it had already started.
Dr. Shah also questioned the use of such a low dose of atorvastatin for these patients. “In the cardiovascular literature – at least in ACS [acute coronary syndrome] – high statin doses are used to see short-term benefits. In this very inflammatory milieu, I wonder whether a high-intensity regimen would be more beneficial,” she speculated.
Dr. Bikdeli replied that a low dose of atorvastatin was chosen because early on, several antiviral agents, such as ritonavir, were being used for COVID-19 patients, and these drugs were associated with increases in liver enzyme levels.
“We didn’t want to exacerbate that with high doses of statins,” he said. “But we have now established the safety profile of atorvastatin in these patients, and in retrospect, yes, a higher dose might have been better.”
The INSPIRATION study was funded by the Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Tehran, Iran. Dr. Bikdeli has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.