User login
Combo of SGLT2 inhibitor + GLP-1 RA boosts diabetes survival
WASHINGTON – Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor and a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist had a significant 80% cut in their rate of all-cause death during 1-year follow-up, compared with matched patients treated with an agent from either class alone in an observational, retrospective study of more than 15,000 people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system.
For the study’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, combined treatment with both an agent from the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class and from the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class linked with a significant, roughly 50% cut in events during 1-year follow-up, compared with patients treated with an agent from just one of these two classes, Persio D. Lopez, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
This improvement in the combined endpoint outcome resulted entirely from reduced all-cause mortality. Dual treatment showed no significant association with the incidence of nonfatal MIs or strokes, compared with monotherapy, with rates that were nearly identical regardless of whether patients took one of the agents or both, said Dr. Lopez, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center, both in New York.
Combining classes for hard-to-control diabetes
“We’re not sure what drives combined use” of agents from both drug classes in these types of patients, admitted Dr. Lopez during his talk. “Our hypothesis is that dual treatment is used in patients with harder-to-control diabetes.”
Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, who practices in the VA system but was not involved with the study, agreed that this is the likely explanation for most instances of high-risk VA patients with diabetes who receive agents from both classes.
“I have a few patients” on both classes, usually “patients with higher starting A1c levels who need greater glycemic control,” said Dr. Virani, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.
U.S. use of either drug class, let alone both, in patients with type 2 diabetes is still struggling to gain traction in U.S. practice and remains limited to a minority of these patients, a prescribing pattern reflected in recent VA data. Analysis of more than half a million patients in the VA system with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who received treatment at any of 130 VA medical centers throughout 2020 showed that 11% had received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 8% a GLP-1 RA.
The most frequently used antidiabetes drug classes in these patients were insulin in 36%, biguanides in 47%, and sulfonylureas in 22%.
These data also showed a striking level of variability among the 130 VA centers, with some of the sites prescribing either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 RA to as few as about 3% each of these patients, while other centers had a roughly 10-fold higher prescription rate for each of about 25%-30% of their patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD.
Despite the overall modest level of use of both classes in these types of patients as recently as 2020, no barriers exist at the VA to prescribing an agent from one or both classes “if you provide a good reason” for a patient to receive the drugs, Dr. Virani said in an interview. He also predicted that use of both classes in these patients, including combination treatment, will likely soon expand.
‘A lot of interest’ in combining an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA
“There will be a lot of interest in combing the two classes. It makes intuitive sense [to treat with both classes] because most patients with diabetes need more than one drug” for glycemic control, he noted. “Why not use two classes that each reduce a patient’s risk” for adverse outcomes involving ASCVD, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, added Dr. Virani.
The study run by Dr. Lopez and his associates used data collected in the National VA Database and included 121,156 patients with both type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Using propensity-score matching the researchers compiled three subgroups that each included 5,277 matched patients. One subgroup had patients prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, a second subgroup included patients on a GLP-1 RA, and a third subgroup had patients on agents from both classes. Patient matching relied on age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, hemoglobin A1c level, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.
Patients included in the analysis averaged about 67 years of age; 97% were men, their average body mass index was about 34 kg/m2, their average A1c was about 7.9%, their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55-66 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and their average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 55%. The database provided a median follow-up of 902 days (about 2.5 years). The prespecified primary endpoint focused on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up, but the investigators also ran a 3-year follow-up analysis on a post hoc basis.
The most common SGLT2 inhibitor received by these patients was empagliflozin (Jardiance), used on virtually everyone who received an agent from this class. In contrast, the GLP-1 RA drugs that patients received split more widely. The most prescribed agent was liraglutide (Victoza), followed by semaglutide (Ozempic), and dulaglutide (Trulicity), with fewer than 5% receiving exenatide (Bydureon, Byetta).
[embed:render:related:node:234806]
Regarding other treatments, about 97% of all patients received a statin, about 94% were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, about 90% were on metformin, and roughly 75% were on insulin, aspirin, and a beta-blocker, with smaller numbers on other types of agents.
For the study’s primary endpoint, the 1-year incidence of combined ASCVD events including all-cause death, patients on agents from both classes had a significant 46% reduced rate compared with those on an SGLT2 inhibitor only, and a significant 49% reduced rate, compared with those on a GLP-1 RA only. These between-group separations broadened slightly during 3-year follow-up. Dr. Lopez did not report results of a direct comparison between patients on just an SGLT2 inhibitor and those on just a GLP-1 RA.
For the endpoint of all-cause death, those on combined treatment had a 1-year rate that was 83% below the rate among patients on only an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 81% below the rate among patients who received a GLP-1 RA but not the other class.
Dr. Lopez cautioned that selection bias could have influenced the outcomes of patients who received both classes rather than one or the other, and he also highlighted that the analysis relied on administrative data rather than information gleaned from more detailed medical records or prospectively collected findings and was limited by only including a very small number of women.
“Our results need to be validated in prospective studies,” he declared.
Dr. Lopez and Dr. Virani had no commercial disclosures.
WASHINGTON – Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor and a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist had a significant 80% cut in their rate of all-cause death during 1-year follow-up, compared with matched patients treated with an agent from either class alone in an observational, retrospective study of more than 15,000 people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system.
For the study’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, combined treatment with both an agent from the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class and from the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class linked with a significant, roughly 50% cut in events during 1-year follow-up, compared with patients treated with an agent from just one of these two classes, Persio D. Lopez, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
This improvement in the combined endpoint outcome resulted entirely from reduced all-cause mortality. Dual treatment showed no significant association with the incidence of nonfatal MIs or strokes, compared with monotherapy, with rates that were nearly identical regardless of whether patients took one of the agents or both, said Dr. Lopez, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center, both in New York.
Combining classes for hard-to-control diabetes
“We’re not sure what drives combined use” of agents from both drug classes in these types of patients, admitted Dr. Lopez during his talk. “Our hypothesis is that dual treatment is used in patients with harder-to-control diabetes.”
Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, who practices in the VA system but was not involved with the study, agreed that this is the likely explanation for most instances of high-risk VA patients with diabetes who receive agents from both classes.
“I have a few patients” on both classes, usually “patients with higher starting A1c levels who need greater glycemic control,” said Dr. Virani, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.
U.S. use of either drug class, let alone both, in patients with type 2 diabetes is still struggling to gain traction in U.S. practice and remains limited to a minority of these patients, a prescribing pattern reflected in recent VA data. Analysis of more than half a million patients in the VA system with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who received treatment at any of 130 VA medical centers throughout 2020 showed that 11% had received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 8% a GLP-1 RA.
The most frequently used antidiabetes drug classes in these patients were insulin in 36%, biguanides in 47%, and sulfonylureas in 22%.
These data also showed a striking level of variability among the 130 VA centers, with some of the sites prescribing either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 RA to as few as about 3% each of these patients, while other centers had a roughly 10-fold higher prescription rate for each of about 25%-30% of their patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD.
Despite the overall modest level of use of both classes in these types of patients as recently as 2020, no barriers exist at the VA to prescribing an agent from one or both classes “if you provide a good reason” for a patient to receive the drugs, Dr. Virani said in an interview. He also predicted that use of both classes in these patients, including combination treatment, will likely soon expand.
‘A lot of interest’ in combining an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA
“There will be a lot of interest in combing the two classes. It makes intuitive sense [to treat with both classes] because most patients with diabetes need more than one drug” for glycemic control, he noted. “Why not use two classes that each reduce a patient’s risk” for adverse outcomes involving ASCVD, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, added Dr. Virani.
The study run by Dr. Lopez and his associates used data collected in the National VA Database and included 121,156 patients with both type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Using propensity-score matching the researchers compiled three subgroups that each included 5,277 matched patients. One subgroup had patients prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, a second subgroup included patients on a GLP-1 RA, and a third subgroup had patients on agents from both classes. Patient matching relied on age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, hemoglobin A1c level, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.
Patients included in the analysis averaged about 67 years of age; 97% were men, their average body mass index was about 34 kg/m2, their average A1c was about 7.9%, their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55-66 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and their average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 55%. The database provided a median follow-up of 902 days (about 2.5 years). The prespecified primary endpoint focused on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up, but the investigators also ran a 3-year follow-up analysis on a post hoc basis.
The most common SGLT2 inhibitor received by these patients was empagliflozin (Jardiance), used on virtually everyone who received an agent from this class. In contrast, the GLP-1 RA drugs that patients received split more widely. The most prescribed agent was liraglutide (Victoza), followed by semaglutide (Ozempic), and dulaglutide (Trulicity), with fewer than 5% receiving exenatide (Bydureon, Byetta).
[embed:render:related:node:234806]
Regarding other treatments, about 97% of all patients received a statin, about 94% were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, about 90% were on metformin, and roughly 75% were on insulin, aspirin, and a beta-blocker, with smaller numbers on other types of agents.
For the study’s primary endpoint, the 1-year incidence of combined ASCVD events including all-cause death, patients on agents from both classes had a significant 46% reduced rate compared with those on an SGLT2 inhibitor only, and a significant 49% reduced rate, compared with those on a GLP-1 RA only. These between-group separations broadened slightly during 3-year follow-up. Dr. Lopez did not report results of a direct comparison between patients on just an SGLT2 inhibitor and those on just a GLP-1 RA.
For the endpoint of all-cause death, those on combined treatment had a 1-year rate that was 83% below the rate among patients on only an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 81% below the rate among patients who received a GLP-1 RA but not the other class.
Dr. Lopez cautioned that selection bias could have influenced the outcomes of patients who received both classes rather than one or the other, and he also highlighted that the analysis relied on administrative data rather than information gleaned from more detailed medical records or prospectively collected findings and was limited by only including a very small number of women.
“Our results need to be validated in prospective studies,” he declared.
Dr. Lopez and Dr. Virani had no commercial disclosures.
WASHINGTON – Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor and a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist had a significant 80% cut in their rate of all-cause death during 1-year follow-up, compared with matched patients treated with an agent from either class alone in an observational, retrospective study of more than 15,000 people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system.
For the study’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, combined treatment with both an agent from the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class and from the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class linked with a significant, roughly 50% cut in events during 1-year follow-up, compared with patients treated with an agent from just one of these two classes, Persio D. Lopez, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
This improvement in the combined endpoint outcome resulted entirely from reduced all-cause mortality. Dual treatment showed no significant association with the incidence of nonfatal MIs or strokes, compared with monotherapy, with rates that were nearly identical regardless of whether patients took one of the agents or both, said Dr. Lopez, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center, both in New York.
Combining classes for hard-to-control diabetes
“We’re not sure what drives combined use” of agents from both drug classes in these types of patients, admitted Dr. Lopez during his talk. “Our hypothesis is that dual treatment is used in patients with harder-to-control diabetes.”
Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, who practices in the VA system but was not involved with the study, agreed that this is the likely explanation for most instances of high-risk VA patients with diabetes who receive agents from both classes.
“I have a few patients” on both classes, usually “patients with higher starting A1c levels who need greater glycemic control,” said Dr. Virani, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.
U.S. use of either drug class, let alone both, in patients with type 2 diabetes is still struggling to gain traction in U.S. practice and remains limited to a minority of these patients, a prescribing pattern reflected in recent VA data. Analysis of more than half a million patients in the VA system with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who received treatment at any of 130 VA medical centers throughout 2020 showed that 11% had received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 8% a GLP-1 RA.
The most frequently used antidiabetes drug classes in these patients were insulin in 36%, biguanides in 47%, and sulfonylureas in 22%.
These data also showed a striking level of variability among the 130 VA centers, with some of the sites prescribing either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 RA to as few as about 3% each of these patients, while other centers had a roughly 10-fold higher prescription rate for each of about 25%-30% of their patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD.
Despite the overall modest level of use of both classes in these types of patients as recently as 2020, no barriers exist at the VA to prescribing an agent from one or both classes “if you provide a good reason” for a patient to receive the drugs, Dr. Virani said in an interview. He also predicted that use of both classes in these patients, including combination treatment, will likely soon expand.
‘A lot of interest’ in combining an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA
“There will be a lot of interest in combing the two classes. It makes intuitive sense [to treat with both classes] because most patients with diabetes need more than one drug” for glycemic control, he noted. “Why not use two classes that each reduce a patient’s risk” for adverse outcomes involving ASCVD, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, added Dr. Virani.
The study run by Dr. Lopez and his associates used data collected in the National VA Database and included 121,156 patients with both type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Using propensity-score matching the researchers compiled three subgroups that each included 5,277 matched patients. One subgroup had patients prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, a second subgroup included patients on a GLP-1 RA, and a third subgroup had patients on agents from both classes. Patient matching relied on age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, hemoglobin A1c level, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.
Patients included in the analysis averaged about 67 years of age; 97% were men, their average body mass index was about 34 kg/m2, their average A1c was about 7.9%, their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55-66 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and their average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 55%. The database provided a median follow-up of 902 days (about 2.5 years). The prespecified primary endpoint focused on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up, but the investigators also ran a 3-year follow-up analysis on a post hoc basis.
The most common SGLT2 inhibitor received by these patients was empagliflozin (Jardiance), used on virtually everyone who received an agent from this class. In contrast, the GLP-1 RA drugs that patients received split more widely. The most prescribed agent was liraglutide (Victoza), followed by semaglutide (Ozempic), and dulaglutide (Trulicity), with fewer than 5% receiving exenatide (Bydureon, Byetta).
[embed:render:related:node:234806]
Regarding other treatments, about 97% of all patients received a statin, about 94% were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, about 90% were on metformin, and roughly 75% were on insulin, aspirin, and a beta-blocker, with smaller numbers on other types of agents.
For the study’s primary endpoint, the 1-year incidence of combined ASCVD events including all-cause death, patients on agents from both classes had a significant 46% reduced rate compared with those on an SGLT2 inhibitor only, and a significant 49% reduced rate, compared with those on a GLP-1 RA only. These between-group separations broadened slightly during 3-year follow-up. Dr. Lopez did not report results of a direct comparison between patients on just an SGLT2 inhibitor and those on just a GLP-1 RA.
For the endpoint of all-cause death, those on combined treatment had a 1-year rate that was 83% below the rate among patients on only an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 81% below the rate among patients who received a GLP-1 RA but not the other class.
Dr. Lopez cautioned that selection bias could have influenced the outcomes of patients who received both classes rather than one or the other, and he also highlighted that the analysis relied on administrative data rather than information gleaned from more detailed medical records or prospectively collected findings and was limited by only including a very small number of women.
“Our results need to be validated in prospective studies,” he declared.
Dr. Lopez and Dr. Virani had no commercial disclosures.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157406</fileName> <TBEID>0C041C8C.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C041C8C</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname/> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220414T145550</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220414T152023</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220414T152023</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220414T152023</CMSDate> <articleSource>AT ACC 2022</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Mitchel L. Zoler</byline> <bylineText>MITCHEL L. ZOLER, PHD</bylineText> <bylineFull>MITCHEL L. ZOLER, PHD</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText>MDedge News</bylineTitleText> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>WASHINGTON – Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor an</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>285671</teaserImage> <teaser>Survival of patients with type 2 diabetes and CVD rose by 80% when they received both an SGLT2 inhibitor and GLP-1 RA, compared with either class alone.</teaser> <title>Combining SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 RA boosted T2D survival</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>CARD</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> <journalTitle/> <journalFullTitle>Cardiology news</journalFullTitle> <copyrightStatement/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>endo</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>fp</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>im</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> <term>34</term> <term>15</term> <term>21</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">205</term> <term>224</term> <term>173</term> <term>193</term> <term>301</term> <term>194</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24010a5c.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Persio D. Lopez</description> <description role="drol:credit">Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News</description> </link> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24010a5b.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Salim S. Virani</description> <description role="drol:credit">Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News</description> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>Combining SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 RA boosted T2D survival</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p><span class="dateline">WASHINGTON </span>– Patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with both an sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor and a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist had a significant 80% cut in their rate of all-cause death during 1-year follow-up, compared with matched patients treated with an agent from either class alone in an observational, retrospective study of more than 15,000 people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs health system.</p> <p>For the study’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, combined treatment with both an agent from the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class and from the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class linked with a significant, roughly 50% cut in events during 1-year follow-up, compared with patients treated with an agent from just one of these two classes, Persio D. Lopez, MD, <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/10461/presentation/8414">reported</a></span> at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"285671","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_left","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_left","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Persio D. Lopez, cardiologist, Mount Sinai Morningside and James J. Peters VA Medical Center, New York","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Persio D. Lopez"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_left"}}]]This improvement in the combined endpoint outcome resulted entirely from reduced all-cause mortality. Dual treatment showed no significant association with the incidence of nonfatal MIs or strokes, compared with monotherapy, with rates that were nearly identical regardless of whether patients took one of the agents or both, said Dr. Lopez, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside and the James J. Peters VA Medical Center, both in New York.<br/><br/></p> <h2>Combining classes for hard-to-control diabetes</h2> <p>“We’re not sure what drives combined use” of agents from both drug classes in these types of patients, admitted Dr. Lopez during his talk. “Our hypothesis is that dual treatment is used in patients with harder-to-control diabetes.”</p> <p><span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.bcm.edu/people-search/salim-virani-32458">Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD</a></span>, who practices in the VA system but was not involved with the study, agreed that this is the likely explanation for most instances of high-risk VA patients with diabetes who receive agents from both classes.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"285670","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_right","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_right","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Salim S. Virani, professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Salim S. Virani"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_right"}}]]“I have a few patients” on both classes, usually “patients with higher starting A1c levels who need greater glycemic control,” said Dr. Virani, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and a cardiologist at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston.<br/><br/>U.S. use of either drug class, let alone both, in patients with type 2 diabetes is still struggling to gain traction in U.S. practice and remains limited to a minority of these patients, a prescribing pattern reflected in recent VA data. <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/45/2/372/139194/Utilization-Rates-of-SGLT2-Inhibitors-and-GLP-1">Analysis</a></span> of more than half a million patients in the VA system with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who received treatment at any of 130 VA medical centers throughout 2020 showed that 11% had received an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 8% a GLP-1 RA.<br/><br/>The most frequently used antidiabetes drug classes in these patients were insulin in 36%, biguanides in 47%, and sulfonylureas in 22%.<br/><br/>These data also showed a striking level of variability among the 130 VA centers, with some of the sites prescribing either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 RA to as few as about 3% each of these patients, while other centers had a roughly 10-fold higher prescription rate for each of about 25%-30% of their patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD.<br/><br/>Despite the overall modest level of use of both classes in these types of patients as recently as 2020, no barriers exist at the VA to prescribing an agent from one or both classes “if you provide a good reason” for a patient to receive the drugs, Dr. Virani said in an interview. He also predicted that use of both classes in these patients, including combination treatment, will likely soon expand.<br/><br/></p> <h2>‘A lot of interest’ in combining an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA</h2> <p>“There will be a lot of interest in combing the two classes. It makes intuitive sense [to treat with both classes] because most patients with diabetes need more than one drug” for glycemic control, he noted. “Why not use two classes that each reduce a patient’s risk” for adverse outcomes involving ASCVD, heart failure, and renal dysfunction, added Dr. Virani.</p> <p>The study run by Dr. Lopez and his associates used data collected in the <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.data.va.gov/stories/s/mdjj-7nhd">National VA Database</a></span> and included 121,156 patients with both type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Using propensity-score matching the researchers compiled three subgroups that each included 5,277 matched patients. One subgroup had patients prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, a second subgroup included patients on a GLP-1 RA, and a third subgroup had patients on agents from both classes. Patient matching relied on age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, hemoglobin A1c level, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.<br/><br/>Patients included in the analysis averaged about 67 years of age; 97% were men, their average body mass index was about 34 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, their average A1c was about 7.9%, their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55-66 mL/min per 1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, and their average left ventricular ejection fraction was about 55%. The database provided a median follow-up of 902 days (about 2.5 years). The prespecified primary endpoint focused on events that occurred during the first year of follow-up, but the investigators also ran a 3-year follow-up analysis on a post hoc basis.<br/><br/>The most common SGLT2 inhibitor received by these patients was empagliflozin (Jardiance), used on virtually everyone who received an agent from this class. In contrast, the GLP-1 RA drugs that patients received split more widely. The most prescribed agent was liraglutide (Victoza), followed by semaglutide (Ozempic), and dulaglutide (Trulicity), with fewer than 5% receiving exenatide (Bydureon, Byetta).<br/><br/>Regarding other treatments, about 97% of all patients received a statin, about 94% were on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, about 90% were on metformin, and roughly 75% were on insulin, aspirin, and a beta-blocker, with smaller numbers on other types of agents.<br/><br/>For the study’s primary endpoint, the 1-year incidence of combined ASCVD events including all-cause death, patients on agents from both classes had a significant 46% reduced rate compared with those on an SGLT2 inhibitor only, and a significant 49% reduced rate, compared with those on a GLP-1 RA only. These between-group separations broadened slightly during 3-year follow-up. Dr. Lopez did not report results of a direct comparison between patients on just an SGLT2 inhibitor and those on just a GLP-1 RA.<br/><br/>For the endpoint of all-cause death, those on combined treatment had a 1-year rate that was 83% below the rate among patients on only an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 81% below the rate among patients who received a GLP-1 RA but not the other class.<br/><br/>Dr. Lopez cautioned that selection bias could have influenced the outcomes of patients who received both classes rather than one or the other, and he also highlighted that the analysis relied on administrative data rather than information gleaned from more detailed medical records or prospectively collected findings and was limited by only including a very small number of women.<br/><br/>“Our results need to be validated in prospective studies,” he declared.<br/><br/>Dr. Lopez and Dr. Virani had no commercial disclosures.<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/></p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
AT ACC 2022
New smart device shows highly accurate AFib detection: mAFA II
Screening for heart rhythm disorders with a smartphone app and a wearable device had a high rate of correctly detecting atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a large new study.
The mAFA II study, conducted in a mass low-risk population in China, showed that more than 93% of possible AFib episodes detected by the smartphone app were confirmed to be AFib on further monitoring.
The study also used the app to screen for obstructive sleep apnea and found that sleep apnea was the most common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those identified as having the most severe sleep apnea were 1.5 times more likely to have AFib than those who did not have this condition.
This suggests that tools suitable for detecting both AFib and sleep apnea can work synergistically to further enhance health monitoring, said lead author, Yutao Guo, MD, professor of internal medicine at Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing.
Dr. Guo presented the mAFA II study at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session held in Washington, D.C., and online.
The trial, which involved more than 2.8 million participants, is the largest study to date to demonstrate how wearable consumer technologies can be used to screen for heart problems during everyday activities, Dr. Guo noted.
“Consumer-led screening with these technologies could increase early diagnosis of AFib and facilitate an integrated approach to fully implement clustered risk management to reduce AFib burden and its related complications,” she concluded.
Discussant of the study at the ACC session at which it was presented, Jodie Hurwitz, MD, Director of the Electrophysiology Lab at Medical City Hospital, Dallas, called this “a pretty impressive study. To get a 93.8% confirmation of AFib with these devices is great.”
But Dr. Hurwitz pointed out that the age of patients in the study was relatively young (average 37 years), and the group who really need to use such a device is much older than that.
“The take-home messages from this study are that AFib wearable detection algorithms have the ability to detect true AFib and that they might also be able to detect risk factors (such as sleep apnea) that predispose to AFib possibly even before AFib is present,” Dr. Hurwitz commented.
Moderator of the session, Edward Fry, MD, cardiologist at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, and incoming president of the ACC, described the area of AFib screening with smart devices as “fascinating, especially with the perspective of the scalability of these types of studies.”
The mAFA II study tracked more than 2.8 million people who used a Huawei phone app together with Huawei and Honor smart devices incorporating photoplethysmography (PPG) technology, a light-based method to monitor blood flow and pulse. If an abnormal rhythm was detected, the wearer would be contacted by a clinician to set up an appointment for a clinical assessment.
[embed:render:related:node:253688]
Over the course of 4 years of the study, 12,244 (0.4%) of users received a notification of suspected AFib. Among 5,227 people who chose to follow up with a clinician, AFib was confirmed in 93.8% of patients using standard AFib diagnostic tools, including clinical evaluation, an electrocardiogram, and 24-hour Holter monitoring.
In this study, a subset of the individuals screened for AFib were also screened for signs of sleep apnea using the same PPG technology to detect physiological changes in parameters including oxygenation and respiratory rates. The app is also able to determine whether the individual is awake or asleep. Dr. Guo noted that the PPG algorithm for obstructive sleep apnea risk has been validated, compared with polysomnography or home sleep apnea tests.
Using measurements of apnea (signalled by a reduced respiratory rate) and hypopnea (when oxygenation would decrease), the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) is calculated to determine the severity of the sleep apnea.
Of the 961,931 participants screened for sleep apnea, about 18,000 were notified they may have the condition.
Obstructive sleep apnea was the most reported common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those individuals with the highest risk sleep apnea (more than 80% monitoring measures with AHI greater than or equal to 30 during sleep) resulted in a 1.5-fold increase in prevalent AFib, Dr. Guo reported.
The mAFA II is the latest of several studies to show that AFib can be detected with various smartphone apps and wearable devices. Previous studies have included the Fitbit Heart Study and the Apple Heart Study.
Dr. Hurwitz told this news organization that the electrophysiologist community is enthusiastic about this new smart device technology.
“I sent my sister one so she could determine if she develops AFib: That’s a pretty good endorsement,” she commented, but added that there are still concerns about the rate of false-positive results.
Dr. Hurwitz said she suspected that there will probably be meaningful differences between the different apps and devices, but the algorithms are all proprietary, and the use of photoplethysmography seems to make a big difference.
She noted that the detection of sleep apnea in the current study was a novel approach. “This is important, as sleep apnea is felt to contribute to AFib, and treating it is felt to decrease the frequency of AFib. Perhaps if patients with sleep apnea were treated before they had documented AFib, the AFib burden could be reduced,” she said.
She added that further studies were needed to fine tune the algorithms and to try and identify other factors or heart rate variabilities that may predict future risk of AFib.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Guo reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Screening for heart rhythm disorders with a smartphone app and a wearable device had a high rate of correctly detecting atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a large new study.
The mAFA II study, conducted in a mass low-risk population in China, showed that more than 93% of possible AFib episodes detected by the smartphone app were confirmed to be AFib on further monitoring.
The study also used the app to screen for obstructive sleep apnea and found that sleep apnea was the most common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those identified as having the most severe sleep apnea were 1.5 times more likely to have AFib than those who did not have this condition.
This suggests that tools suitable for detecting both AFib and sleep apnea can work synergistically to further enhance health monitoring, said lead author, Yutao Guo, MD, professor of internal medicine at Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing.
Dr. Guo presented the mAFA II study at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session held in Washington, D.C., and online.
The trial, which involved more than 2.8 million participants, is the largest study to date to demonstrate how wearable consumer technologies can be used to screen for heart problems during everyday activities, Dr. Guo noted.
“Consumer-led screening with these technologies could increase early diagnosis of AFib and facilitate an integrated approach to fully implement clustered risk management to reduce AFib burden and its related complications,” she concluded.
Discussant of the study at the ACC session at which it was presented, Jodie Hurwitz, MD, Director of the Electrophysiology Lab at Medical City Hospital, Dallas, called this “a pretty impressive study. To get a 93.8% confirmation of AFib with these devices is great.”
But Dr. Hurwitz pointed out that the age of patients in the study was relatively young (average 37 years), and the group who really need to use such a device is much older than that.
“The take-home messages from this study are that AFib wearable detection algorithms have the ability to detect true AFib and that they might also be able to detect risk factors (such as sleep apnea) that predispose to AFib possibly even before AFib is present,” Dr. Hurwitz commented.
Moderator of the session, Edward Fry, MD, cardiologist at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, and incoming president of the ACC, described the area of AFib screening with smart devices as “fascinating, especially with the perspective of the scalability of these types of studies.”
The mAFA II study tracked more than 2.8 million people who used a Huawei phone app together with Huawei and Honor smart devices incorporating photoplethysmography (PPG) technology, a light-based method to monitor blood flow and pulse. If an abnormal rhythm was detected, the wearer would be contacted by a clinician to set up an appointment for a clinical assessment.
[embed:render:related:node:253688]
Over the course of 4 years of the study, 12,244 (0.4%) of users received a notification of suspected AFib. Among 5,227 people who chose to follow up with a clinician, AFib was confirmed in 93.8% of patients using standard AFib diagnostic tools, including clinical evaluation, an electrocardiogram, and 24-hour Holter monitoring.
In this study, a subset of the individuals screened for AFib were also screened for signs of sleep apnea using the same PPG technology to detect physiological changes in parameters including oxygenation and respiratory rates. The app is also able to determine whether the individual is awake or asleep. Dr. Guo noted that the PPG algorithm for obstructive sleep apnea risk has been validated, compared with polysomnography or home sleep apnea tests.
Using measurements of apnea (signalled by a reduced respiratory rate) and hypopnea (when oxygenation would decrease), the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) is calculated to determine the severity of the sleep apnea.
Of the 961,931 participants screened for sleep apnea, about 18,000 were notified they may have the condition.
Obstructive sleep apnea was the most reported common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those individuals with the highest risk sleep apnea (more than 80% monitoring measures with AHI greater than or equal to 30 during sleep) resulted in a 1.5-fold increase in prevalent AFib, Dr. Guo reported.
The mAFA II is the latest of several studies to show that AFib can be detected with various smartphone apps and wearable devices. Previous studies have included the Fitbit Heart Study and the Apple Heart Study.
Dr. Hurwitz told this news organization that the electrophysiologist community is enthusiastic about this new smart device technology.
“I sent my sister one so she could determine if she develops AFib: That’s a pretty good endorsement,” she commented, but added that there are still concerns about the rate of false-positive results.
Dr. Hurwitz said she suspected that there will probably be meaningful differences between the different apps and devices, but the algorithms are all proprietary, and the use of photoplethysmography seems to make a big difference.
She noted that the detection of sleep apnea in the current study was a novel approach. “This is important, as sleep apnea is felt to contribute to AFib, and treating it is felt to decrease the frequency of AFib. Perhaps if patients with sleep apnea were treated before they had documented AFib, the AFib burden could be reduced,” she said.
She added that further studies were needed to fine tune the algorithms and to try and identify other factors or heart rate variabilities that may predict future risk of AFib.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Guo reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Screening for heart rhythm disorders with a smartphone app and a wearable device had a high rate of correctly detecting atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a large new study.
The mAFA II study, conducted in a mass low-risk population in China, showed that more than 93% of possible AFib episodes detected by the smartphone app were confirmed to be AFib on further monitoring.
The study also used the app to screen for obstructive sleep apnea and found that sleep apnea was the most common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those identified as having the most severe sleep apnea were 1.5 times more likely to have AFib than those who did not have this condition.
This suggests that tools suitable for detecting both AFib and sleep apnea can work synergistically to further enhance health monitoring, said lead author, Yutao Guo, MD, professor of internal medicine at Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing.
Dr. Guo presented the mAFA II study at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session held in Washington, D.C., and online.
The trial, which involved more than 2.8 million participants, is the largest study to date to demonstrate how wearable consumer technologies can be used to screen for heart problems during everyday activities, Dr. Guo noted.
“Consumer-led screening with these technologies could increase early diagnosis of AFib and facilitate an integrated approach to fully implement clustered risk management to reduce AFib burden and its related complications,” she concluded.
Discussant of the study at the ACC session at which it was presented, Jodie Hurwitz, MD, Director of the Electrophysiology Lab at Medical City Hospital, Dallas, called this “a pretty impressive study. To get a 93.8% confirmation of AFib with these devices is great.”
But Dr. Hurwitz pointed out that the age of patients in the study was relatively young (average 37 years), and the group who really need to use such a device is much older than that.
“The take-home messages from this study are that AFib wearable detection algorithms have the ability to detect true AFib and that they might also be able to detect risk factors (such as sleep apnea) that predispose to AFib possibly even before AFib is present,” Dr. Hurwitz commented.
Moderator of the session, Edward Fry, MD, cardiologist at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, and incoming president of the ACC, described the area of AFib screening with smart devices as “fascinating, especially with the perspective of the scalability of these types of studies.”
The mAFA II study tracked more than 2.8 million people who used a Huawei phone app together with Huawei and Honor smart devices incorporating photoplethysmography (PPG) technology, a light-based method to monitor blood flow and pulse. If an abnormal rhythm was detected, the wearer would be contacted by a clinician to set up an appointment for a clinical assessment.
[embed:render:related:node:253688]
Over the course of 4 years of the study, 12,244 (0.4%) of users received a notification of suspected AFib. Among 5,227 people who chose to follow up with a clinician, AFib was confirmed in 93.8% of patients using standard AFib diagnostic tools, including clinical evaluation, an electrocardiogram, and 24-hour Holter monitoring.
In this study, a subset of the individuals screened for AFib were also screened for signs of sleep apnea using the same PPG technology to detect physiological changes in parameters including oxygenation and respiratory rates. The app is also able to determine whether the individual is awake or asleep. Dr. Guo noted that the PPG algorithm for obstructive sleep apnea risk has been validated, compared with polysomnography or home sleep apnea tests.
Using measurements of apnea (signalled by a reduced respiratory rate) and hypopnea (when oxygenation would decrease), the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) is calculated to determine the severity of the sleep apnea.
Of the 961,931 participants screened for sleep apnea, about 18,000 were notified they may have the condition.
Obstructive sleep apnea was the most reported common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those individuals with the highest risk sleep apnea (more than 80% monitoring measures with AHI greater than or equal to 30 during sleep) resulted in a 1.5-fold increase in prevalent AFib, Dr. Guo reported.
The mAFA II is the latest of several studies to show that AFib can be detected with various smartphone apps and wearable devices. Previous studies have included the Fitbit Heart Study and the Apple Heart Study.
Dr. Hurwitz told this news organization that the electrophysiologist community is enthusiastic about this new smart device technology.
“I sent my sister one so she could determine if she develops AFib: That’s a pretty good endorsement,” she commented, but added that there are still concerns about the rate of false-positive results.
Dr. Hurwitz said she suspected that there will probably be meaningful differences between the different apps and devices, but the algorithms are all proprietary, and the use of photoplethysmography seems to make a big difference.
She noted that the detection of sleep apnea in the current study was a novel approach. “This is important, as sleep apnea is felt to contribute to AFib, and treating it is felt to decrease the frequency of AFib. Perhaps if patients with sleep apnea were treated before they had documented AFib, the AFib burden could be reduced,” she said.
She added that further studies were needed to fine tune the algorithms and to try and identify other factors or heart rate variabilities that may predict future risk of AFib.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Guo reports no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157411</fileName> <TBEID>0C041CA3.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C041CA3</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname/> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220414T133030</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220414T151406</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220414T151406</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220414T151406</CMSDate> <articleSource/> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Sue Hughes</byline> <bylineText>SUE HUGHES</bylineText> <bylineFull>SUE HUGHES</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText/> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>Screening for heart rhythm disorders with a smartphone app and a wearable device had a high rate of correctly detecting atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a large ne</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>269854</teaserImage> <teaser>The study, conducted in a mass low-risk population in China, correctly identified atrial fibrillation in more than 93% of suspected cases detected.</teaser> <title>New smart device shows highly accurate AFib detection: mAFA II</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>card</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>im</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> <term>21</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">185</term> <term>224</term> <term>194</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/2400ee43.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption"/> <description role="drol:credit">wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images</description> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>New smart device shows highly accurate AFib detection: mAFA II</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p>Screening for heart rhythm disorders with a smartphone app and a wearable device had a high rate of correctly detecting atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a large new study.</p> <p>The mAFA II study, conducted in a mass low-risk population in China, showed that more than 93% of possible AFib episodes detected by the smartphone app were confirmed to be AFib on further monitoring.[[{"fid":"269854","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_left","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_left","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Atrial fibrillation illustration","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_left"}}]]<br/><br/>The study also used the app to screen for obstructive sleep apnea and found that sleep apnea was the most common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those identified as having the most severe sleep apnea were 1.5 times more likely to have AFib than those who did not have this condition.<br/><br/>This suggests that tools suitable for detecting both AFib and sleep apnea can work synergistically to further enhance health monitoring, said lead author, Yutao Guo, MD, professor of internal medicine at Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing.<br/><br/>Dr. Guo presented the mAFA II study at the <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewcollection/36421">American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session</a> held in Washington, D.C., and online.<br/><br/>The trial, which involved more than 2.8 million participants, is the largest study to date to demonstrate how wearable consumer technologies can be used to screen for heart problems during everyday activities, Dr. Guo noted.<br/><br/>“Consumer-led screening with these technologies could increase early diagnosis of AFib and facilitate an integrated approach to fully implement clustered risk management to reduce AFib burden and its related complications,” she concluded.<br/><br/>Discussant of the study at the ACC session at which it was presented, Jodie Hurwitz, MD, Director of the Electrophysiology Lab at Medical City Hospital, Dallas, called this “a pretty impressive study. To get a 93.8% confirmation of AFib with these devices is great.”<br/><br/>But Dr. Hurwitz pointed out that the age of patients in the study was relatively young (average 37 years), and the group who really need to use such a device is much older than that.<br/><br/>“The take-home messages from this study are that AFib wearable detection algorithms have the ability to detect true AFib and that they might also be able to detect risk factors (such as sleep apnea) that predispose to AFib possibly even before AFib is present,” Dr. Hurwitz commented.<br/><br/>Moderator of the session, Edward Fry, MD, cardiologist at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, and incoming president of the ACC, described the area of AFib screening with smart devices as “fascinating, especially with the perspective of the scalability of these types of studies.”<br/><br/>The mAFA II study tracked more than 2.8 million people who used a Huawei phone app together with Huawei and Honor smart devices incorporating photoplethysmography (PPG) technology, a light-based method to monitor blood flow and pulse. If an abnormal rhythm was detected, the wearer would be contacted by a clinician to set up an appointment for a clinical assessment.<br/><br/>Over the course of 4 years of the study, 12,244 (0.4%) of users received a notification of suspected AFib. Among 5,227 people who chose to follow up with a clinician, AFib was confirmed in 93.8% of patients using standard AFib diagnostic tools, including clinical evaluation, an electrocardiogram, and 24-hour Holter monitoring.<br/><br/>In this study, a subset of the individuals screened for AFib were also screened for signs of sleep apnea using the same PPG technology to detect physiological changes in parameters including oxygenation and respiratory rates. The app is also able to determine whether the individual is awake or asleep. Dr. Guo noted that the PPG algorithm for obstructive sleep apnea risk has been validated, compared with polysomnography or home sleep apnea tests.<br/><br/>Using measurements of apnea (signalled by a reduced respiratory rate) and hypopnea (when oxygenation would decrease), the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) is calculated to determine the severity of the sleep apnea.<br/><br/>Of the 961,931 participants screened for sleep apnea, about 18,000 were notified they may have the condition. <br/><br/>Obstructive sleep apnea was the most reported common risk factor associated with increased AFib susceptibility, and those individuals with the highest risk sleep apnea (more than 80% monitoring measures with AHI greater than or equal to 30 during sleep) resulted in a 1.5-fold increase in prevalent AFib, Dr. Guo reported.<br/><br/>The mAFA II is the latest of several studies to show that AFib can be detected with various smartphone apps and wearable devices. Previous studies have included the <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/962910">Fitbit Heart Study</a> and the <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910509">Apple Heart Study</a>.<br/><br/>Dr. Hurwitz told this news organization that the electrophysiologist community is enthusiastic about this new smart device technology.<br/><br/>“I sent my sister one so she could determine if she develops AFib: That’s a pretty good endorsement,” she commented, but added that there are still concerns about the rate of false-positive results.<br/><br/>Dr. Hurwitz said she suspected that there will probably be meaningful differences between the different apps and devices, but the algorithms are all proprietary, and the use of photoplethysmography seems to make a big difference.<br/><br/>She noted that the detection of sleep apnea in the current study was a novel approach. “This is important, as sleep apnea is felt to contribute to AFib, and treating it is felt to decrease the frequency of AFib. Perhaps if patients with sleep apnea were treated before they had documented AFib, the AFib burden could be reduced,” she said.<br/><br/>She added that further studies were needed to fine tune the algorithms and to try and identify other factors or heart rate variabilities that may predict future risk of AFib.<br/><br/>The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Dr. Guo reports no disclosures.</p> <p> <em>A version of this article first appeared on <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/971986">Medscape.com</a></span>.</em> </p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
FFR not better, just different from IVUS for revascularizing intermediate stenoses
In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (PCI), outcomes were noninferior at 2 years, but the approaches appear to have different strengths, according to results of the FLAVOUR trial.
For the primary composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months, the approaches performed comparatively, but there were substantial differences in the number of revascularization procedures performed, reported Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
At 24 months, 8.1% of the FFR group and 8.5% of the IVUS group had a primary event. The 0.4% difference was not significantly different and fulfilled the definition of noninferiority (P = .015). When the components of the primary endpoint were compared along with rates of stroke, the rates were also similar and not significantly different.
However, the proportion of patients who received a stent (44.4% vs. 65.3%), the total number of stents per patient (0.6 vs. 0.9), and the total stent length per patient (16.5 vs. 25.2) were significantly lower (all P < .001) in the FFR group.
FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) confirmed the investigators’ hypothesis that an FFR-guided strategy for intermediate coronary stenosis is noninferior to IVUS for outcomes. In addition, patient-reported angina outcomes on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were nearly identical across domains, including angina frequency, physical limitations, and treatment satisfaction.
FFR vs. IVUS differences revealed
However, the more important value of this study might its role in showing how the two approaches differ in ways unrelated to the primary outcome, according to Dr. Koo, chair of cardiology at Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, as well as several experts that commented on the results.
Most notably, the fact that FFR-guided PCI provides similar outcomes at 2 years even though it was associated with a substantially reduced rate of revascularizations is telling about its role relative to IVUS.
“These data confirm how a lot of us are already approaching this,” said an ACC-invited expert, Frederick G. Welt, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “FFR should be used to decide who should get an intervention, and IVUS should be use to optimize the intervention.”
Dr. Koo explained that FFR is an invasive tool that provides a physiological assessment of the degree to which a stenosis is causing ischemia. IVUS is a tool that permits visualization and measurement of plaque severity and characteristics to better optimize PCI. They can both help guide PCI, but they are not necessarily competing strategies. Often, the information they provide is complementary.
In this multicenter trial conducted at 18 centers in Korea and China, 1,682 candidates with de novo stenoses of intermediate severity, defined as 40%-70%, were randomized to FFR- or IVUS-guided PCI. At 24 months, outcomes could be assessed in 832 of the FFR patients and 836 of the IVUS patients, which represented more than 99% of both groups.
[embed:render:related:node:253400]
In the study, the indications for stent placement were predefined for the FFR-guided and IVUS-guided approaches. The criteria to define optimal outcomes post PCI were also predefined. For FFR, this included a postprocedure value of at least 0.88. For IVUS, the definition of optimal outcome included a plaque burden of 55% or less at the stent edge and a minimal stent area of at least 5.5 mm2.
The primary outcome for those with optimal versus suboptimal FFR-guided PCI were similar at all time points. For those with an optimal post-PCI result, the event rate was only slightly higher for those with an optimal relative to a suboptimal result (12.3% vs. 11.8%).
Suboptimal IVUS differs from suboptimal FFR
In contrast, the event rates over the course of follow-up were consistently higher among those with a suboptimal relative to an optimal IVUS-guided PCI. At the end of 2 years, the numerically greater rate of events among those with a suboptimal IVUS-guided PCI was not significant (9.8% vs. 8.5%; P = .212), but the gap was larger than that seen with FFR-guided PCI.
FFR-guided and IVUS-guided PCI performed similarly for the primary outcome across numerous stratifications. These included age older or younger than 65 years, male or female sex, presence or absence of multivessel disease, and presence of diabetes. They were also similar for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as an indication for PCI, which accounted for about 30% of patients, relative to those without ACS.
“I would say that at least some interventionalists in the U.S. would be uncomfortable using FFR in ACS patients,” said Dr. Welt, pointing out a potential difference between how these tools are used to guide PCI. Still, because “there are not a lot of data to compare these technologies,” he expressed appreciation for a study looking at these tools side-by-side.
A similar point was made by Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. With the slightly lower rates of primary events in those treated optimally according to IVUS relative to those treated optimally by FFR (8.5% vs. 12.3%), he suggested IVUS appears better for evaluating the physiology of the stenosis.
Dr. Kirtane pointed out that two-thirds of the lesions were left behind in those guided by FFR versus only about half of the lesions when PCI was guided by IVUS, yet outcomes were similar. He indicated that the data support current practice in which FFR is most commonly used to select PCI patients with intermediate disease for stent placement.
Dr. Koo has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips Volcano. Dr. Welt has financial relationships with Medtronic and Xenter. Dr. Kirtane has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporate, Medtronic, Philips/Spectranetics, Recor Medical, and Regeneron. The study received a research grant from Boston Scientific.
In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (PCI), outcomes were noninferior at 2 years, but the approaches appear to have different strengths, according to results of the FLAVOUR trial.
For the primary composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months, the approaches performed comparatively, but there were substantial differences in the number of revascularization procedures performed, reported Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
At 24 months, 8.1% of the FFR group and 8.5% of the IVUS group had a primary event. The 0.4% difference was not significantly different and fulfilled the definition of noninferiority (P = .015). When the components of the primary endpoint were compared along with rates of stroke, the rates were also similar and not significantly different.
However, the proportion of patients who received a stent (44.4% vs. 65.3%), the total number of stents per patient (0.6 vs. 0.9), and the total stent length per patient (16.5 vs. 25.2) were significantly lower (all P < .001) in the FFR group.
FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) confirmed the investigators’ hypothesis that an FFR-guided strategy for intermediate coronary stenosis is noninferior to IVUS for outcomes. In addition, patient-reported angina outcomes on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were nearly identical across domains, including angina frequency, physical limitations, and treatment satisfaction.
FFR vs. IVUS differences revealed
However, the more important value of this study might its role in showing how the two approaches differ in ways unrelated to the primary outcome, according to Dr. Koo, chair of cardiology at Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, as well as several experts that commented on the results.
Most notably, the fact that FFR-guided PCI provides similar outcomes at 2 years even though it was associated with a substantially reduced rate of revascularizations is telling about its role relative to IVUS.
“These data confirm how a lot of us are already approaching this,” said an ACC-invited expert, Frederick G. Welt, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “FFR should be used to decide who should get an intervention, and IVUS should be use to optimize the intervention.”
Dr. Koo explained that FFR is an invasive tool that provides a physiological assessment of the degree to which a stenosis is causing ischemia. IVUS is a tool that permits visualization and measurement of plaque severity and characteristics to better optimize PCI. They can both help guide PCI, but they are not necessarily competing strategies. Often, the information they provide is complementary.
In this multicenter trial conducted at 18 centers in Korea and China, 1,682 candidates with de novo stenoses of intermediate severity, defined as 40%-70%, were randomized to FFR- or IVUS-guided PCI. At 24 months, outcomes could be assessed in 832 of the FFR patients and 836 of the IVUS patients, which represented more than 99% of both groups.
[embed:render:related:node:253400]
In the study, the indications for stent placement were predefined for the FFR-guided and IVUS-guided approaches. The criteria to define optimal outcomes post PCI were also predefined. For FFR, this included a postprocedure value of at least 0.88. For IVUS, the definition of optimal outcome included a plaque burden of 55% or less at the stent edge and a minimal stent area of at least 5.5 mm2.
The primary outcome for those with optimal versus suboptimal FFR-guided PCI were similar at all time points. For those with an optimal post-PCI result, the event rate was only slightly higher for those with an optimal relative to a suboptimal result (12.3% vs. 11.8%).
Suboptimal IVUS differs from suboptimal FFR
In contrast, the event rates over the course of follow-up were consistently higher among those with a suboptimal relative to an optimal IVUS-guided PCI. At the end of 2 years, the numerically greater rate of events among those with a suboptimal IVUS-guided PCI was not significant (9.8% vs. 8.5%; P = .212), but the gap was larger than that seen with FFR-guided PCI.
FFR-guided and IVUS-guided PCI performed similarly for the primary outcome across numerous stratifications. These included age older or younger than 65 years, male or female sex, presence or absence of multivessel disease, and presence of diabetes. They were also similar for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as an indication for PCI, which accounted for about 30% of patients, relative to those without ACS.
“I would say that at least some interventionalists in the U.S. would be uncomfortable using FFR in ACS patients,” said Dr. Welt, pointing out a potential difference between how these tools are used to guide PCI. Still, because “there are not a lot of data to compare these technologies,” he expressed appreciation for a study looking at these tools side-by-side.
A similar point was made by Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. With the slightly lower rates of primary events in those treated optimally according to IVUS relative to those treated optimally by FFR (8.5% vs. 12.3%), he suggested IVUS appears better for evaluating the physiology of the stenosis.
Dr. Kirtane pointed out that two-thirds of the lesions were left behind in those guided by FFR versus only about half of the lesions when PCI was guided by IVUS, yet outcomes were similar. He indicated that the data support current practice in which FFR is most commonly used to select PCI patients with intermediate disease for stent placement.
Dr. Koo has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips Volcano. Dr. Welt has financial relationships with Medtronic and Xenter. Dr. Kirtane has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporate, Medtronic, Philips/Spectranetics, Recor Medical, and Regeneron. The study received a research grant from Boston Scientific.
In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (PCI), outcomes were noninferior at 2 years, but the approaches appear to have different strengths, according to results of the FLAVOUR trial.
For the primary composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months, the approaches performed comparatively, but there were substantial differences in the number of revascularization procedures performed, reported Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
At 24 months, 8.1% of the FFR group and 8.5% of the IVUS group had a primary event. The 0.4% difference was not significantly different and fulfilled the definition of noninferiority (P = .015). When the components of the primary endpoint were compared along with rates of stroke, the rates were also similar and not significantly different.
However, the proportion of patients who received a stent (44.4% vs. 65.3%), the total number of stents per patient (0.6 vs. 0.9), and the total stent length per patient (16.5 vs. 25.2) were significantly lower (all P < .001) in the FFR group.
FLAVOUR (Fractional Flow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) confirmed the investigators’ hypothesis that an FFR-guided strategy for intermediate coronary stenosis is noninferior to IVUS for outcomes. In addition, patient-reported angina outcomes on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were nearly identical across domains, including angina frequency, physical limitations, and treatment satisfaction.
FFR vs. IVUS differences revealed
However, the more important value of this study might its role in showing how the two approaches differ in ways unrelated to the primary outcome, according to Dr. Koo, chair of cardiology at Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, as well as several experts that commented on the results.
Most notably, the fact that FFR-guided PCI provides similar outcomes at 2 years even though it was associated with a substantially reduced rate of revascularizations is telling about its role relative to IVUS.
“These data confirm how a lot of us are already approaching this,” said an ACC-invited expert, Frederick G. Welt, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “FFR should be used to decide who should get an intervention, and IVUS should be use to optimize the intervention.”
Dr. Koo explained that FFR is an invasive tool that provides a physiological assessment of the degree to which a stenosis is causing ischemia. IVUS is a tool that permits visualization and measurement of plaque severity and characteristics to better optimize PCI. They can both help guide PCI, but they are not necessarily competing strategies. Often, the information they provide is complementary.
In this multicenter trial conducted at 18 centers in Korea and China, 1,682 candidates with de novo stenoses of intermediate severity, defined as 40%-70%, were randomized to FFR- or IVUS-guided PCI. At 24 months, outcomes could be assessed in 832 of the FFR patients and 836 of the IVUS patients, which represented more than 99% of both groups.
[embed:render:related:node:253400]
In the study, the indications for stent placement were predefined for the FFR-guided and IVUS-guided approaches. The criteria to define optimal outcomes post PCI were also predefined. For FFR, this included a postprocedure value of at least 0.88. For IVUS, the definition of optimal outcome included a plaque burden of 55% or less at the stent edge and a minimal stent area of at least 5.5 mm2.
The primary outcome for those with optimal versus suboptimal FFR-guided PCI were similar at all time points. For those with an optimal post-PCI result, the event rate was only slightly higher for those with an optimal relative to a suboptimal result (12.3% vs. 11.8%).
Suboptimal IVUS differs from suboptimal FFR
In contrast, the event rates over the course of follow-up were consistently higher among those with a suboptimal relative to an optimal IVUS-guided PCI. At the end of 2 years, the numerically greater rate of events among those with a suboptimal IVUS-guided PCI was not significant (9.8% vs. 8.5%; P = .212), but the gap was larger than that seen with FFR-guided PCI.
FFR-guided and IVUS-guided PCI performed similarly for the primary outcome across numerous stratifications. These included age older or younger than 65 years, male or female sex, presence or absence of multivessel disease, and presence of diabetes. They were also similar for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as an indication for PCI, which accounted for about 30% of patients, relative to those without ACS.
“I would say that at least some interventionalists in the U.S. would be uncomfortable using FFR in ACS patients,” said Dr. Welt, pointing out a potential difference between how these tools are used to guide PCI. Still, because “there are not a lot of data to compare these technologies,” he expressed appreciation for a study looking at these tools side-by-side.
A similar point was made by Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. With the slightly lower rates of primary events in those treated optimally according to IVUS relative to those treated optimally by FFR (8.5% vs. 12.3%), he suggested IVUS appears better for evaluating the physiology of the stenosis.
Dr. Kirtane pointed out that two-thirds of the lesions were left behind in those guided by FFR versus only about half of the lesions when PCI was guided by IVUS, yet outcomes were similar. He indicated that the data support current practice in which FFR is most commonly used to select PCI patients with intermediate disease for stent placement.
Dr. Koo has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips Volcano. Dr. Welt has financial relationships with Medtronic and Xenter. Dr. Kirtane has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporate, Medtronic, Philips/Spectranetics, Recor Medical, and Regeneron. The study received a research grant from Boston Scientific.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157307</fileName> <TBEID>0C041A90.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C041A90</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname>FLAVOUR trial</storyname> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220414T100758</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220414T133742</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220414T133742</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220414T133742</CMSDate> <articleSource>FROM ACC 2022</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Ted Bosworth</byline> <bylineText>TED BOSWORTH</bylineText> <bylineFull>TED BOSWORTH</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText>MDedge News</bylineTitleText> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType/> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>285645</teaserImage> <teaser>In a head-to-head comparison in the FLAVOUR trial, IVUS- and FFR-guided PCI produced similar outcomes but had differing strengths.</teaser> <title>FFR not better, just different from IVUS for revascularizing intermediate stenoses</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>card</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term>193</term> <term canonical="true">236</term> <term>239</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24010a4d.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Bon-Kwon Koo</description> <description role="drol:credit"/> </link> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/2400de26.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Frederick G.P. Welt</description> <description role="drol:credit"/> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>FFR not better, just different from IVUS for revascularizing intermediate stenoses</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p>In a head-to-head comparison of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and intravenous ultrasound (IVUS) for guiding revascularization during percutaneous intervention (PCI), outcomes were noninferior at 2 years, but the approaches appear to have different strengths, according to results of the FLAVOUR trial. </p> <p>For the primary composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months, the approaches performed comparatively, but there were substantial differences in the number of revascularization procedures performed, reported Bon-Kwon Koo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"285645","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_right","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_right","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Bon-Kwon Koo, Seoul (Korea) National University Hospital","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Bon-Kwon Koo"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_right"}}]]At 24 months, 8.1% of the FFR group and 8.5% of the IVUS group had a primary event. The 0.4% difference was not significantly different and fulfilled the definition of noninferiority (<i>P</i> = .015). When the components of the primary endpoint were compared along with rates of stroke, the rates were also similar and not significantly different. <br/><br/>However, the proportion of patients who received a stent (44.4% vs. 65.3%), the total number of stents per patient (0.6 vs. 0.9), and the total stent length per patient (16.5 vs. 25.2) were significantly lower (all <i>P</i> < .001) in the FFR group. <br/><br/><span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02673424?term=flavour+fractional+flow+reserve&draw=2&rank=1">FLAVOUR</a></span> (Fractional Flow Reserve And IVUS for Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Intermediate Stenosis) confirmed the investigators’ hypothesis that an FFR-guided strategy for intermediate coronary stenosis is noninferior to IVUS for outcomes. In addition, patient reported angina outcomes on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire were nearly identical across domains, including angina frequency, physical limitations, and treatment satisfaction. <br/><br/></p> <h2>FFR vs. IVUS differences revealed</h2> <p>However, the more important value of this study might its role in showing how the two approaches differ in ways unrelated to the primary outcome, according to Dr. Koo, chair of cardiology at Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, as well as several experts that commented on the results.</p> <p>Most notably, the fact that FFR-guided PCI provides similar outcomes at 2 years even though it was associated with a substantially reduced rate of revascularizations is telling about its role relative to IVUS.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"260844","view_mode":"medstat_image_full_text","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_full_text","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Frederick G.P. Welt, professor of medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Frederick G.P. Welt"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_full_text"}}]]“These data confirm how a lot of us are already approaching this,” said an ACC-invited expert, Frederick G. Welt, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “FFR should be used to decide who should get an intervention, and IVUS should be use to optimize the intervention.”<br/><br/>Dr. Koo explained that FFR is an invasive tool that provides a physiological assessment of the degree to which a stenosis is causing ischemia. IVUS is a tool that permits visualization and measurement of plaque severity and characteristics to better optimize PCI. They can both help guide PCI, but they are not necessarily competing strategies. Often, the information they provide is complementary. <br/><br/>In this multicenter trial conducted at 18 centers in Korea and China, 1,682 candidates with de novo stenoses of intermediate severity, defined as 40%-70%, were randomized to FFR- or IVUS-guided PCI. At 24 months, outcomes could be assessed in 832 of the FFR patients and 836 of the IVUS patients, which represented more than 99% of both groups.<br/><br/>In the study, the indications for stent placement were predefined for the FFR-guided and IVUS-guided approaches. The criteria to define optimal outcomes post PCI were also predefined. For FFR, this included a postprocedure value of at least 0.88. For IVUS, the definition of optimal outcome included a plaque burden of 55% or less at the stent edge and a minimal stent area of at least 5.5 mm<sup>2</sup>.<br/><br/>The primary outcome for those with optimal versus suboptimal FFR-guided PCI were similar at all time points. For those with an optimal post-PCI result, the event rate was only slightly higher for those with an optimal relative to a suboptimal result (12.3% vs. 11.8%).<br/><br/><br/><br/></p> <h2>Suboptimal IVUS differs from suboptimal FFR</h2> <p>In contrast, the event rates over the course of follow-up were consistently higher among those with a suboptimal relative to an optimal IVUS-guided PCI. At the end of 2 years, the numerically greater rate of events among those with a suboptimal IVUS-guided PCI was not significant (9.8% vs. 8.5%; <i>P</i> = .212), but the gap was larger than that seen with FFR-guided PCI.</p> <p>FFR-guided and IVUS-guided PCI performed similarly for the primary outcome across numerous stratifications. These included age older or younger than 65 years, male or female sex, presence or absence of multivessel disease, and presence of diabetes. They were also similar for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) as an indication for PCI, which accounted for about 30% of patients, relative to those without ACS.<br/><br/>“I would say that at least some interventionalists in the U.S. would be uncomfortable using FFR in ACS patients,” said Dr. Welt, pointing out a potential difference between how these tools are used to guide PCI. Still, because “there are not a lot of data to compare these technologies,” he expressed appreciation for a study looking at these tools side-by-side.<br/><br/>A similar point was made by Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. With the slightly lower rates of primary events in those treated optimally according to IVUS relative to those treated optimally by FFR (8.5% vs. 12.3%), he suggested IVUS appears better for evaluating the physiology of the stenosis.<br/><br/>Dr. Kirtane pointed out that two-thirds of the lesions were left behind in those guided by FFR versus only about half of the lesions when PCI was guided by IVUS, yet outcomes were similar. He indicated that the data support current practice in which FFR is most commonly used to select PCI patients with intermediate disease for stent placement.</p> <p>Dr. Koo has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips Volcano. Dr. Welt has financial relationships with Medtronic and Xenter. Dr. Kirtane has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems Incorporate, Medtronic, Philips/Spectranetics, Recor Medical, and Regeneron. The study received a research grant from Boston Scientific.</p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
FROM ACC 2022
Empagliflozin rapidly improves acute heart failure symptoms in hospitalized patients
WASHINGTON – Treatment of patients acutely hospitalized for heart failure with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to a rapid incremental increase in patient well-being, compared with control patients who received placebo, that appeared after 2 weeks on treatment in a secondary analysis from 530 randomized patients in the EMPULSE trial.
To Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a coinvestigator for EMPULSE who presented new analysis at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, the message from the quick response of acutely hospitalized patients to empagliflozin was clear: “Use these medications, SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, as early as possible. We’ve seen with other medications that if they are not prescribed during hospitalization it’s unlikely to happen post discharge,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
“To our knowledge, the very early improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] score – a well-known predictor of cardiovascular death and heart failure readmissions – that we observed with empagliflozin at 15 days is the first such observation, and if corroborated by future studies would suggest that initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors during hospitalization for acute heart failure may be a tool for improving the quality of hospital-to-home transitions,” wrote Dr. Kosiborod and his associates in the published version of their report that appeared concurrently with his report at the meeting.
“These data really support initiation [of empagliflozin or another SGLT2 inhibitor] in hospital, presuming that the patient has no contraindications,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and designated discussant for the report.
“The fact that the benefit kicks in so early is really important, because there is a bit of a penalty to wait” to start treatment with an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class, added Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, in Boston.
[embed:render:related:node:248916]
In hospital creates a teachable moment
Starting treatment when a patient is hospitalized is also important as “a teachable moment,” added Dr. Bhatt in an interview. “A physician can say to a patient ‘take this drug, and it will prevent you from returning to the hospital,’ at a time when it’s more likely to be impactful, compared with when a patient is out of the hospital and feeling okay and adherence will likely be much lower.”
The results Dr. Kosiborod reported on quality-of-life parameters measured with the KCCQ expanded on what he and his coinvestigators first reported in 2021 with the primary results from EMPULSE, which enrolled 530 patients at 118 centers in 15 countries during June 2020–February 2021. The trial randomized patients hospitalized for acute heart failure after a brief period of stabilization regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction or presence of diabetes to receive a single, daily dose of 10 mg of empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo starting a median of 3 days after admission. Enrolled patients averaged about 71 years of age, about two-thirds were men, 45% had diabetes, 32% had left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%, and about two-thirds had decompensated chronic heart failure, while a third had acute de novo heart failure.
The primary outcome for EMPULSE was a combined endpoint of “total clinical endpoints” that included all-cause mortality, heart failure events (heart failure hospitalizations, urgent heart failure visits, and unplanned outpatient heart failure visits) or at least a 5-point change from baseline in the KCCQ score. Using a “win ratio” method for analyzing the composite endpoint, the primary analysis showed that treatment with empagliflozin for 90 days boosted the win ratio by a significant 36% relative to placebo (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28[3]: 568-74).
Benefit independent of baseline symptomatic impairment
Among the new secondary analyses that Dr. Kosiborod reported was a post-hoc calculation that divided the study cohort into tertiles of baseline KCCQ score. The results showed that the degree of improvement for the primary, 90-day outcome of “total clinical benefit” compared with placebo was consistent across all three KCCQ-score tertiles, showing that empagliflozin’s benefit was “independent of symptomatic impairment at baseline,” he said.
The degree of improvement was also similar across all the tested domains of the KCCQ, including the overall summary, clinical summary, the physical limitations, and quality-of-life scores. Average improvement in KCCQ total symptom score 15 days after treatment onset was 5.35 points, compared with control patients. On an individual-patient basis, a change in KCCQ score of 5 points or more was previously shown to represent a clinically meaningful change.
“Treatment of patients with heart failure is geared to making patients live longer and stay out of the hospital. Enabling patients to feel better is an equally important goal of management, but not all treatments for heart failure can do that. These data from EMPULSE show that, in addition to other clinical benefits, patients also feel better on an SGLT2 inhibitor after just 2 weeks,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
[embed:render:related:node:240445]
EMPULSE builds on SOLOIST-WHF
EMPULSE is the second trial to show that an SGLT2 inhibitor can safely and effectively treat patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Previously, results from the SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trial, which enrolled 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure, showed that treatment with an investigational, combined SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitor, sotagliflozin, resulted in a significant, 33% relative reduction in the primary outcome compared with placebo after a median 9 months of treatment.
“It’s reassuring to see two different drugs and research groups get essentially the same result, showing that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor is safe and effective in selected patients with no contraindications,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF.
The accumulating evidence for the safety and value of starting an SGLT2 inhibitor when patients are hospitalized for acute heart failure is making this approach increasingly routine for patients who present with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at Saint Luke’s-Mid America Heart Institute, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
“I think we’ll also gradually start using [an SGLT2 inhibitor] in patients hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” he added, based on the findings from SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE, and also recent evidence showing safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients with chronic HFpEF in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, and for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in the PRESERVED-HF trial.
Empagliflozin recently received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration an expanded label indication for treating patients with heart failure with no specification for a level of left ventricular ejection fraction. An outcome trial of dapagliflozin in more than 6,000 patients with HFpEF, DELIVER, is currently ongoing but is expected to report results soon.
“The evidence is already compelling that the benefits outweigh the risk. Results from both SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE show that there are no significant safety concerns” when these agents are used in patients with acute heart failure,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.
EMPULSE was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). SOLOIST-WHF was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon, the companies that have been developing sotagliflozin. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, and he has been a consultant or adviser to or led trials on behalf of numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been an adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies, and he has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and numerous other companies.
WASHINGTON – Treatment of patients acutely hospitalized for heart failure with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to a rapid incremental increase in patient well-being, compared with control patients who received placebo, that appeared after 2 weeks on treatment in a secondary analysis from 530 randomized patients in the EMPULSE trial.
To Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a coinvestigator for EMPULSE who presented new analysis at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, the message from the quick response of acutely hospitalized patients to empagliflozin was clear: “Use these medications, SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, as early as possible. We’ve seen with other medications that if they are not prescribed during hospitalization it’s unlikely to happen post discharge,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
“To our knowledge, the very early improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] score – a well-known predictor of cardiovascular death and heart failure readmissions – that we observed with empagliflozin at 15 days is the first such observation, and if corroborated by future studies would suggest that initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors during hospitalization for acute heart failure may be a tool for improving the quality of hospital-to-home transitions,” wrote Dr. Kosiborod and his associates in the published version of their report that appeared concurrently with his report at the meeting.
“These data really support initiation [of empagliflozin or another SGLT2 inhibitor] in hospital, presuming that the patient has no contraindications,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and designated discussant for the report.
“The fact that the benefit kicks in so early is really important, because there is a bit of a penalty to wait” to start treatment with an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class, added Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, in Boston.
[embed:render:related:node:248916]
In hospital creates a teachable moment
Starting treatment when a patient is hospitalized is also important as “a teachable moment,” added Dr. Bhatt in an interview. “A physician can say to a patient ‘take this drug, and it will prevent you from returning to the hospital,’ at a time when it’s more likely to be impactful, compared with when a patient is out of the hospital and feeling okay and adherence will likely be much lower.”
The results Dr. Kosiborod reported on quality-of-life parameters measured with the KCCQ expanded on what he and his coinvestigators first reported in 2021 with the primary results from EMPULSE, which enrolled 530 patients at 118 centers in 15 countries during June 2020–February 2021. The trial randomized patients hospitalized for acute heart failure after a brief period of stabilization regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction or presence of diabetes to receive a single, daily dose of 10 mg of empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo starting a median of 3 days after admission. Enrolled patients averaged about 71 years of age, about two-thirds were men, 45% had diabetes, 32% had left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%, and about two-thirds had decompensated chronic heart failure, while a third had acute de novo heart failure.
The primary outcome for EMPULSE was a combined endpoint of “total clinical endpoints” that included all-cause mortality, heart failure events (heart failure hospitalizations, urgent heart failure visits, and unplanned outpatient heart failure visits) or at least a 5-point change from baseline in the KCCQ score. Using a “win ratio” method for analyzing the composite endpoint, the primary analysis showed that treatment with empagliflozin for 90 days boosted the win ratio by a significant 36% relative to placebo (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28[3]: 568-74).
Benefit independent of baseline symptomatic impairment
Among the new secondary analyses that Dr. Kosiborod reported was a post-hoc calculation that divided the study cohort into tertiles of baseline KCCQ score. The results showed that the degree of improvement for the primary, 90-day outcome of “total clinical benefit” compared with placebo was consistent across all three KCCQ-score tertiles, showing that empagliflozin’s benefit was “independent of symptomatic impairment at baseline,” he said.
The degree of improvement was also similar across all the tested domains of the KCCQ, including the overall summary, clinical summary, the physical limitations, and quality-of-life scores. Average improvement in KCCQ total symptom score 15 days after treatment onset was 5.35 points, compared with control patients. On an individual-patient basis, a change in KCCQ score of 5 points or more was previously shown to represent a clinically meaningful change.
“Treatment of patients with heart failure is geared to making patients live longer and stay out of the hospital. Enabling patients to feel better is an equally important goal of management, but not all treatments for heart failure can do that. These data from EMPULSE show that, in addition to other clinical benefits, patients also feel better on an SGLT2 inhibitor after just 2 weeks,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
[embed:render:related:node:240445]
EMPULSE builds on SOLOIST-WHF
EMPULSE is the second trial to show that an SGLT2 inhibitor can safely and effectively treat patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Previously, results from the SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trial, which enrolled 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure, showed that treatment with an investigational, combined SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitor, sotagliflozin, resulted in a significant, 33% relative reduction in the primary outcome compared with placebo after a median 9 months of treatment.
“It’s reassuring to see two different drugs and research groups get essentially the same result, showing that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor is safe and effective in selected patients with no contraindications,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF.
The accumulating evidence for the safety and value of starting an SGLT2 inhibitor when patients are hospitalized for acute heart failure is making this approach increasingly routine for patients who present with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at Saint Luke’s-Mid America Heart Institute, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
“I think we’ll also gradually start using [an SGLT2 inhibitor] in patients hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” he added, based on the findings from SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE, and also recent evidence showing safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients with chronic HFpEF in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, and for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in the PRESERVED-HF trial.
Empagliflozin recently received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration an expanded label indication for treating patients with heart failure with no specification for a level of left ventricular ejection fraction. An outcome trial of dapagliflozin in more than 6,000 patients with HFpEF, DELIVER, is currently ongoing but is expected to report results soon.
“The evidence is already compelling that the benefits outweigh the risk. Results from both SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE show that there are no significant safety concerns” when these agents are used in patients with acute heart failure,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.
EMPULSE was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). SOLOIST-WHF was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon, the companies that have been developing sotagliflozin. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, and he has been a consultant or adviser to or led trials on behalf of numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been an adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies, and he has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and numerous other companies.
WASHINGTON – Treatment of patients acutely hospitalized for heart failure with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to a rapid incremental increase in patient well-being, compared with control patients who received placebo, that appeared after 2 weeks on treatment in a secondary analysis from 530 randomized patients in the EMPULSE trial.
To Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a coinvestigator for EMPULSE who presented new analysis at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, the message from the quick response of acutely hospitalized patients to empagliflozin was clear: “Use these medications, SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, as early as possible. We’ve seen with other medications that if they are not prescribed during hospitalization it’s unlikely to happen post discharge,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
“To our knowledge, the very early improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] score – a well-known predictor of cardiovascular death and heart failure readmissions – that we observed with empagliflozin at 15 days is the first such observation, and if corroborated by future studies would suggest that initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors during hospitalization for acute heart failure may be a tool for improving the quality of hospital-to-home transitions,” wrote Dr. Kosiborod and his associates in the published version of their report that appeared concurrently with his report at the meeting.
“These data really support initiation [of empagliflozin or another SGLT2 inhibitor] in hospital, presuming that the patient has no contraindications,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and designated discussant for the report.
“The fact that the benefit kicks in so early is really important, because there is a bit of a penalty to wait” to start treatment with an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class, added Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, in Boston.
[embed:render:related:node:248916]
In hospital creates a teachable moment
Starting treatment when a patient is hospitalized is also important as “a teachable moment,” added Dr. Bhatt in an interview. “A physician can say to a patient ‘take this drug, and it will prevent you from returning to the hospital,’ at a time when it’s more likely to be impactful, compared with when a patient is out of the hospital and feeling okay and adherence will likely be much lower.”
The results Dr. Kosiborod reported on quality-of-life parameters measured with the KCCQ expanded on what he and his coinvestigators first reported in 2021 with the primary results from EMPULSE, which enrolled 530 patients at 118 centers in 15 countries during June 2020–February 2021. The trial randomized patients hospitalized for acute heart failure after a brief period of stabilization regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction or presence of diabetes to receive a single, daily dose of 10 mg of empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo starting a median of 3 days after admission. Enrolled patients averaged about 71 years of age, about two-thirds were men, 45% had diabetes, 32% had left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%, and about two-thirds had decompensated chronic heart failure, while a third had acute de novo heart failure.
The primary outcome for EMPULSE was a combined endpoint of “total clinical endpoints” that included all-cause mortality, heart failure events (heart failure hospitalizations, urgent heart failure visits, and unplanned outpatient heart failure visits) or at least a 5-point change from baseline in the KCCQ score. Using a “win ratio” method for analyzing the composite endpoint, the primary analysis showed that treatment with empagliflozin for 90 days boosted the win ratio by a significant 36% relative to placebo (Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28[3]: 568-74).
Benefit independent of baseline symptomatic impairment
Among the new secondary analyses that Dr. Kosiborod reported was a post-hoc calculation that divided the study cohort into tertiles of baseline KCCQ score. The results showed that the degree of improvement for the primary, 90-day outcome of “total clinical benefit” compared with placebo was consistent across all three KCCQ-score tertiles, showing that empagliflozin’s benefit was “independent of symptomatic impairment at baseline,” he said.
The degree of improvement was also similar across all the tested domains of the KCCQ, including the overall summary, clinical summary, the physical limitations, and quality-of-life scores. Average improvement in KCCQ total symptom score 15 days after treatment onset was 5.35 points, compared with control patients. On an individual-patient basis, a change in KCCQ score of 5 points or more was previously shown to represent a clinically meaningful change.
“Treatment of patients with heart failure is geared to making patients live longer and stay out of the hospital. Enabling patients to feel better is an equally important goal of management, but not all treatments for heart failure can do that. These data from EMPULSE show that, in addition to other clinical benefits, patients also feel better on an SGLT2 inhibitor after just 2 weeks,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
[embed:render:related:node:240445]
EMPULSE builds on SOLOIST-WHF
EMPULSE is the second trial to show that an SGLT2 inhibitor can safely and effectively treat patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Previously, results from the SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trial, which enrolled 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure, showed that treatment with an investigational, combined SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitor, sotagliflozin, resulted in a significant, 33% relative reduction in the primary outcome compared with placebo after a median 9 months of treatment.
“It’s reassuring to see two different drugs and research groups get essentially the same result, showing that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor is safe and effective in selected patients with no contraindications,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF.
The accumulating evidence for the safety and value of starting an SGLT2 inhibitor when patients are hospitalized for acute heart failure is making this approach increasingly routine for patients who present with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at Saint Luke’s-Mid America Heart Institute, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
“I think we’ll also gradually start using [an SGLT2 inhibitor] in patients hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” he added, based on the findings from SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE, and also recent evidence showing safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients with chronic HFpEF in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, and for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in the PRESERVED-HF trial.
Empagliflozin recently received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration an expanded label indication for treating patients with heart failure with no specification for a level of left ventricular ejection fraction. An outcome trial of dapagliflozin in more than 6,000 patients with HFpEF, DELIVER, is currently ongoing but is expected to report results soon.
“The evidence is already compelling that the benefits outweigh the risk. Results from both SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE show that there are no significant safety concerns” when these agents are used in patients with acute heart failure,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.
EMPULSE was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). SOLOIST-WHF was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon, the companies that have been developing sotagliflozin. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, and he has been a consultant or adviser to or led trials on behalf of numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been an adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies, and he has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and numerous other companies.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157329</fileName> <TBEID>0C041B59.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C041B59</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname/> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220413T120318</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220413T144528</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220413T144528</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220413T144528</CMSDate> <articleSource>AT ACC 2022</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Mitchel L. Zoler</byline> <bylineText>MITCHEL L. ZOLER, PHD</bylineText> <bylineFull>MITCHEL L. ZOLER, PHD</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText>MDedge News</bylineTitleText> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>WASHINGTON – Treatment of patients acutely hospitalized for heart failure with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to a rapid incremental increase in patient </metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>285596</teaserImage> <teaser>Empagliflozin showed symptomatic benefits in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure after 2 weeks in a secondary analysis from the EMPULSE trial.</teaser> <title>Empagliflozin rapidly improves acute heart failure symptoms in hospitalized patients</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>CARD</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> <journalTitle/> <journalFullTitle>Cardiology news</journalFullTitle> <copyrightStatement/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>endo</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>fp</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>im</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> <term>34</term> <term>15</term> <term>21</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">224</term> <term>205</term> <term>236</term> <term>185</term> <term>194</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24010a26.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Mikhail N. Kosiborod</description> <description role="drol:credit">Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News</description> </link> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24010a27.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Deepak L. Bhatt</description> <description role="drol:credit">Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News</description> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>Empagliflozin rapidly improves acute heart failure symptoms in hospitalized patients</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p><span class="dateline">WASHINGTON </span>– Treatment of patients acutely hospitalized for heart failure with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to a rapid incremental increase in patient well-being, compared with control patients who received placebo, that appeared after 2 weeks on treatment in a secondary analysis from 530 randomized patients in the EMPULSE trial.</p> <p>To <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://doctors.saintlukeskc.org/provider/Mikhail+N+Kosiborod/1458591">Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD</a></span>, a coinvestigator for <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04157751">EMPULSE</a></span> who presented new analysis at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, the message from the quick response of acutely hospitalized patients to empagliflozin was clear: “Use these medications, SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, as early as possible. We’ve seen with other medications that if they are not prescribed during hospitalization it’s unlikely to happen post discharge,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"285596","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_right","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_right","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Mikhail N. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and Co-Director of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Mikhail N. Kosiborod"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_right"}}]]“To our knowledge, the very early improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] score – a well-known predictor of cardiovascular death and heart failure readmissions – that we observed with empagliflozin at 15 days is the first such observation, and if corroborated by future studies would suggest that initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors during hospitalization for acute heart failure may be a tool for improving the quality of hospital-to-home transitions,” wrote Dr. Kosiborod and his associates in the <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059725">published</a></span> version of their report that appeared concurrently with his report at the meeting.<br/><br/>“These data really support initiation [of empagliflozin or another SGLT2 inhibitor] in hospital, presuming that the patient has no contraindications,” commented <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://physiciandirectory.brighamandwomens.org/details/416/deepak-bhatt-cardiovascular_medicine-boston">Deepak L. Bhatt, MD</a></span>, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and designated discussant for the report.<br/><br/>“The fact that the benefit kicks in so early is really important, because there is a bit of a penalty to wait” to start treatment with an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class, added Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, in Boston.<br/><br/><br/><br/></p> <h2>In hospital creates a teachable moment</h2> <p>Starting treatment when a patient is hospitalized is also important as “a teachable moment,” added Dr. Bhatt in an interview. “A physician can say to a patient ‘take this drug, and it will prevent you from returning to the hospital,’ at a time when it’s more likely to be impactful, compared with when a patient is out of the hospital and feeling okay and adherence will likely be much lower.”</p> <p>[[{"fid":"285597","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_left","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_left","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Deepak L. Bhatt, Executive Director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, in Boston","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Deepak L. Bhatt"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_left"}}]]The results Dr. Kosiborod reported on quality-of-life parameters measured with the <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/108301/download">KCCQ</a></span> expanded on what he and his coinvestigators first reported in 2021 with the primary results from EMPULSE, which enrolled 530 patients at 118 centers in 15 countries during June 2020–February 2021. The trial randomized patients hospitalized for acute heart failure after a brief period of stabilization regardless of their left ventricular ejection fraction or presence of diabetes to receive a single, daily dose of 10 mg of empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo starting a median of 3 days after admission. Enrolled patients averaged about 71 years of age, about two-thirds were men, 45% had diabetes, 32% had left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%, and about two-thirds had decompensated chronic heart failure, while a third had acute de novo heart failure.<br/><br/>The primary outcome for EMPULSE was a combined endpoint of “total clinical endpoints” that included all-cause mortality, heart failure events (heart failure hospitalizations, urgent heart failure visits, and unplanned outpatient heart failure visits) or at least a 5-point change from baseline in the KCCQ score. Using a “<span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/33/2/176/439013?login=false">win ratio</a></span>” method for analyzing the composite endpoint, the primary analysis showed that treatment with empagliflozin for 90 days boosted the win ratio by a significant 36% relative to placebo (<span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01659-1#Sec2">Nature Med. 2022 Mar;28[3]: 568-74</a></span>).<br/><br/></p> <h2>Benefit independent of baseline symptomatic impairment</h2> <p>Among the new secondary analyses that Dr. Kosiborod reported was a post-hoc calculation that divided the study cohort into tertiles of baseline KCCQ score. The results showed that the degree of improvement for the primary, 90-day outcome of “total clinical benefit” compared with placebo was consistent across all three KCCQ-score tertiles, showing that empagliflozin’s benefit was “independent of symptomatic impairment at baseline,” he said.</p> <p>The degree of improvement was also similar across all the tested domains of the KCCQ, including the overall summary, clinical summary, the physical limitations, and quality-of-life scores. Average improvement in KCCQ total symptom score 15 days after treatment onset was 5.35 points, compared with control patients. On an individual-patient basis, a change in KCCQ score of 5 points or more was <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.542">previously shown</a></span> to represent a clinically meaningful change.<br/><br/>“Treatment of patients with heart failure is geared to making patients live longer and stay out of the hospital. Enabling patients to feel better is an equally important goal of management, but not all treatments for heart failure can do that. These data from EMPULSE show that, in addition to other clinical benefits, patients also feel better on an SGLT2 inhibitor after just 2 weeks,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.<br/><br/></p> <h2>EMPULSE builds on SOLOIST-WHF</h2> <p>EMPULSE is the second trial to show that an SGLT2 inhibitor can safely and effectively treat patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Previously, <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2030183">results</a></span> from the <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03521934?term=soloist-whf&draw=2&rank=1">SOLOIST-WHF</a></span> pivotal trial, which enrolled 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure, showed that treatment with an investigational, combined SGLT2 and SGLT1 inhibitor, sotagliflozin, resulted in a significant, 33% relative reduction in the primary outcome compared with placebo after a median 9 months of treatment.</p> <p>“It’s reassuring to see two different drugs and research groups get essentially the same result, showing that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor is safe and effective in selected patients with no contraindications,” said Dr. Bhatt, who was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF.<br/><br/>The accumulating evidence for the safety and value of starting an SGLT2 inhibitor when patients are hospitalized for acute heart failure is making this approach increasingly routine for patients who present with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at Saint Luke’s-Mid America Heart Institute, said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.<br/><br/>“I think we’ll also gradually start using [an SGLT2 inhibitor] in patients hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” he added, based on the findings from SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE, and also recent evidence showing safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients with chronic HFpEF in the <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03057951?term=emperor-preserved&draw=2&rank=1">EMPEROR-Preserved</a></span> trial, and for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in the <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01536-x">PRESERVED-HF</a></span> trial.<br/><br/>Empagliflozin recently received from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration an expanded <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-treatment-wider-range-patients-heart-failure?msclkid=542fd98cb80311ec825931c102e1897c">label indication</a></span> for treating patients with heart failure with no specification for a level of left ventricular ejection fraction. An outcome trial of dapagliflozin in more than 6,000 patients with HFpEF, <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03619213?term=deliver+and+dapagliflozin&draw=2&rank=1">DELIVER</a></span>, is currently ongoing but is expected to report results soon.<br/><br/>“The evidence is already compelling that the benefits outweigh the risk. Results from both SOLOIST-WHF and EMPULSE show that there are no significant safety concerns” when these agents are used in patients with acute heart failure,” Dr. Kosiborod declared.<br/><br/>EMPULSE was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). SOLOIST-WHF was sponsored by Sanofi and Lexicon, the companies that have been developing sotagliflozin. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, and he has been a consultant or adviser to or led trials on behalf of numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt has been an adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies, and he has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and numerous other companies.<span class="end"/></p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
AT ACC 2022
TAVI device shows less deterioration than surgery 5 years out
Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.
For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.
In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).
As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.
The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.
In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.
[embed:render:related:node:252484]
More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years
In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.
SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.
When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.
There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).
In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
SVD linked to doubling of mortality
SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).
The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.
“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.
This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.
Several experts agreed that this is important new information.
“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.
Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.
Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.
“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”
Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.
Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.
For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.
In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).
As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.
The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.
In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.
[embed:render:related:node:252484]
More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years
In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.
SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.
When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.
There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).
In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
SVD linked to doubling of mortality
SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).
The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.
“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.
This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.
Several experts agreed that this is important new information.
“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.
Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.
Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.
“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”
Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.
Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.
For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes.
In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; P = .0095).
As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.
The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier PARTNER 2A study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were compared with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.
In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.
[embed:render:related:node:252484]
More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years
In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial and the SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.
SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.
When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb.
There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; P = .049).
In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; P = .067).
SVD linked to doubling of mortality
SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; P < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; P = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; P = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; P < .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; P = .002 for SAVR).
The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.
“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said.
This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.
Several experts agreed that this is important new information.
“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.
Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.
Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn.
“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”
Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157282</fileName> <TBEID>0C041A16.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C041A16</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname>Evolut versus SAVR</storyname> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220412T082246</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220412T101906</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220412T101906</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220412T101906</CMSDate> <articleSource>FROM ACC 2022</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Ted Bosworth</byline> <bylineText>TED BOSWORTH</bylineText> <bylineFull>TED BOSWORTH</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText>MDedge News</bylineTitleText> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery,</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>285569</teaserImage> <teaser>A transcatheter aortic valve – CoreValve Evolut – is associated for first time with less deterioration than surgical repair at 5 years.</teaser> <title>TAVI device shows less deterioration than surgery 5 years out</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>card</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>mdsurg</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> <journalTitle/> <journalFullTitle/> <copyrightStatement>2018 Frontline Medical Communications Inc.,</copyrightStatement> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> <term>52226</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">236</term> <term>224</term> <term>185</term> <term>336</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24010a17.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Michael J. Reardon</description> <description role="drol:credit"/> </link> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/2400e2cd.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Athena Poppas</description> <description role="drol:credit"/> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>TAVI device shows less deterioration than surgery 5 years out</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p>Structural aortic valve deterioration (SVD) at 5 years is lower following repair with a contemporary transcatheter implantation (TAVI) device than with surgery, according to a pooled analysis of major trials.</p> <p>For healthier patients with a relatively long life expectancy, this is important information for deciding whether to undergo TAVI or surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR), Michael J. Reardon, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"285569","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_right","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_right","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Michael J. Reardon, Chair of Cardiovascular Research, Houston Methodist Hospital","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Michael J. Reardon"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_right"}}]]“Every week I get this question about which repair is more durable,” said Dr. Reardon, whose study was not only designed to compare device deterioration but to evaluate the effect of SVD on major outcomes. <br/><br/>In this analysis, the rates of SVD were compared for the self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut device and SAVR. The SVD curves separated within the first year. At 5 years, the differences were highly significant favoring TAVI (2.57% vs. 4.38%; <i>P </i>= .0095). <br/><br/>As part of this analysis, the impact of SVD was also assessed independent of type of repair. At 5 years, those with SVD relative to those without had an approximately twofold increase in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of aortic valve worsening. These risks were elevated regardless of type of valve repair.<br/><br/>The data presented by Dr. Reardon can be considered device specific. The earlier <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510972036438X?via%3Dihub">PARTNER 2A</a></span> study comparing older- and newer-generation TAVI devices with SAVR produced a different result. When a second-generation balloon-expandable SAPIEN XT device and a third-generation SAPIEN 3 device were <span class="Hyperlink">compared</span> with surgery, neither device achieved lower SVD rates relative to SAVR.<br/><br/>In PARTNER 2A, the SVD rate for the older device was nearly three times greater than SAVR (1.61 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years). The numerically higher SVD rates for the newer device (0.68 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-years) was not statistically different, but the TAVI device was not superior.<br/><br/></p> <h2>More than 4,000 patients evaluated at 5 years</h2> <p>In the analysis presented by Dr. Reardon, data were pooled from the randomized <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01240902">CoreValve U.S. High-Risk Pivotal Trial</a></span> and the <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01586910">SURTAVI Intermediate Risk Trial</a></span>. Together, these studies randomized 971 patients to surgery and 1,128 patients to TAVI. Data on an additional 2,663 patients treated with the Evolut valve in two registries were added to the randomized trial data, providing data on 4,762 total patients with 5-year follow-up.</p> <p>SVD was defined by two criteria. The first was a mean gradient increase of at least 10 mm Hg plus a mean overall gradient of at least 20 mm Hg as measured with echocardiography and assessed, when possible, by an independent core laboratory. The second was new-onset or increased intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation of at least moderate severity.<br/><br/>When graphed over time, the SVD curves separated in favor of TAVI after about 6 months of follow-up. The shape of the curves also differed. Unlike the steady rise in SVD observed in the surgery group, the SVD rate in the TAVI group remained below 1% for almost 4 years before beginning to climb. <br/><br/>There was greater relative benefit for the TAVI device in patients with annular diameters of 23 mm or less. Unlike the rise in SVD rates that began about 6 months after SAVR, the SVD rates in the TAVI patients remained at 0% for more than 2 years. At 5 years, the differences remained significant favoring TAVI (1.39% vs. 5.86%; <i>P</i> = .049). <br/><br/>In those with larger annular diameters, there was still a consistently lower SVD rate over time for TAVI relative to SAVR, but the trend for an advantage at 5 years fell just short of significance (2.48% vs. 3.96%; <i>P</i> = .067).<br/><br/></p> <h2>SVD linked to doubling of mortality</h2> <p>SVD worsened outcomes. When all data surgery and TAVI data were pooled, the hazard ratios corresponded with about a doubling of risk for major adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality (HR, 1.98; <i>P</i> < .001), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.82; <i>P</i> = .008), and hospitalization for aortic valve disease or worsening heart failure (HR, 2.11; <i>P</i> = .01). The relative risks were similar in the two treatment groups, including the risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 2.24; <i>P </i>< .001 for TAVI vs. HR, 2.45; <em>P</em> = .002 for SAVR).</p> <p>The predictors for SVD on multivariate analysis included female sex, increased body surface area, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, and a prior diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.<br/><br/>Design improvements in TAVI devices are likely to explain these results, said Dr. Reardon, chair of cardiovascular research at Houston Methodist Hospital.<br/><br/>“The CoreValve/Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding bioprosthesis is the first and only transcatheter bioprosthesis to demonstrate lower rates of SVD, compared with surgery,” Dr. Reardon said. <br/><br/>This analysis validated the risks posed by the definition of SVD applied in this study, which appears to be a practical tool for tracking valve function and patient risk. Dr. Reardon also said that the study confirms the value of serial Doppler transthoracic echocardiography as a tool for monitoring SVD.<br/><br/>Several experts agreed that this is important new information.<br/><br/>“This is a remarkable series of findings,” said James McClurken, MD, who is a cardiovascular surgeon affiliated with Temple University, Philadelphia, and practices in Doylestown, Penn. By both demonstrating the prognostic importance of SVD and showing differences between the study device and SAVR, this trial will yield practical data to inform patients about relative risks and benefits.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"263417","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_right","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_right","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Athena Poppas of the ACC","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Athena Poppas"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_right"}}]]Athena Poppas, MD, the new president of the ACC and a professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I., called this study “practice changing” for the same reasons. She also thinks it has valuable data for guiding choice of intervention.<br/><br/>Overall, the data are likely to change thinking about the role of TAVI and surgery in younger, fit patients, according to Megan Coylewright, MD, chief of cardiology at Erlanger Cardiology, Chattanooga, Tenn. <br/><br/>“There are patients [in need of aortic valve repair] with a long life expectancy who have been told you have to have a surgical repair because we know they last longer,” she said. Although she said that relative outcomes after longer follow-up remain unknown, “I think this does throw that comment into question.”</p> <p>Dr. Reardon has financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Gore Medical. Dr. Poppas and McClurken reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Coylewright reported financial relationships with Abbott, Alleviant, Boston Scientific, Cardiosmart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Occlutech. The study received financial support from Medtronic.</p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
FROM ACC 2022
Renal denervation BP benefits remain at 3 years: SPYRAL HTN-ON
Radiofrequency renal denervation provided progressive reductions in blood pressure at 3 years in patients on antihypertensive medication, but this did not translate into fewer antihypertensive drugs, new results from the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial show.
At 36 months, 24-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 10.0 mm Hg (P = .003) and 5.9 mm Hg (P = .005) lower, respectively, in patients who underwent renal denervation with Medtronic’s Symplicity Spyral radiofrequency catheter, compared with patients treated with a sham procedure.
The number of antihypertensive drugs, however, increased in both groups from an average of two at baseline and 6 months to three at 3 years (P = .76).
Based on the number of drugs, class, and dose, medication burden increased significantly in the sham group at 12 months (6.5 vs. 4.9; P = .04) and trended higher at 3 years (10.3 vs. 7.6; P = .26).
The procedure appeared safe, with no renal safety events in the denervation group and only three safety events overall at 36 months. One cardiovascular death occurred 693 days after a sham procedure and one patient had a hypertensive crisis and stroke 427 days after renal denervation and was discharged in stable condition, according to results published in The Lancet.
“Given the long-term safety and efficacy of renal denervation, it may provide an alternative adjunctive treatment modality in the management of hypertension,” Felix Mahfoud, MD, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany, said during a presentation of the study at the recent American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session.
The results are specific to the Symplicity Spyral catheter, which is investigational in the United States and may not be generalizable to other renal denervation devices, he added.
“The fact you have been able to accomplish this really is quite a feat,” said discussant Martin Leon, MD, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. “I would argue that the results at 36 months are at least as important as the ones at 6 months.”
He observed that one of the promises of renal denervation, however, is that it would be able to reduce patients’ drug burden with fewer drugs and lesser doses.
“At least in this trial, there was very little effect in terms of significantly reducing the pharmacologic burden,” Dr. Leon said. “So, it would be difficult for me to be able to say to patients that receiving renal denervation will reduce the number of medications you would need to treat. In fact, it increased from two to three drugs over the course of follow-up.”
The objective of the trial was not to reduce medication burden but to get blood pressure (BP) controlled in patients with an average baseline office reading of 164.4/99.5 mm Hg, Dr. Mahfoud replied. “We have shown that office systolic blood pressure decreased by around 20 millimeters of mercury in combination with drugs, so it may be seen as an alternative to antihypertensive medication in patients who are in need of getting blood pressure control.”
Dr. Leon responded that the BP control differences are “very dramatic and certainly very important” but that the word adjunctive can be tricky. “I’m trying to understand if it’s the independent or isolated effect of the renal denervation or if it’s a sensitivity to the biological or physiologic milieux which enhances the efficacy of the adjunctive drugs, especially with the fact that over time, it looked like you had increasing effects at some distance from the initial index procedure.”
Dr. Mahfoud said that previous work has shown that renal denervation reduces plasma renin activity and aldosterone concentrations. “It’s not fully understood, but I guess there are synergistic effects of denervation in combination with drugs.”
Sham-controlled evidence
As previously reported, significant BP reductions at 6 months in SPYRAL HTN-ON provided proof of concept and helped revive enthusiasm for the procedure after failing to meet the primary endpoint in the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Results from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry have shown benefits out to 3 years, but sham-controlled data have been lacking.
The trial enrolled 80 patients with an office systolic BP of 150-180 mm Hg and diastolic of 90 mm Hg or greater and 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP of 140-170 mm Hg, who were on up to three antihypertensive medications.
Medication changes were allowed beginning at 6 months; patients and physicians were unblinded at 12 months. Between 24 and 36 months, 13 patients assigned to the sham procedure crossed over to denervation treatment. Medication adherence at 3 years was 77% in the denervation group versus 93% in the sham group.
At 3 years, the renal denervation group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in several ambulatory BP measures, compared with the sham group, including: 24-hour systolic (10.0 mm Hg), morning systolic (11.0 mm Hg), daytime systolic (8.9 mm Hg), and night-time systolic (11.8 mm Hg).
Renal denervation led to an 8.2 mm Hg greater fall in office systolic BP, but this failed to reach statistical significance (P = .07).
Almost twice as many patients in the denervation group achieved a 24-hour systolic BP less than 140 mm Hg than in the sham group (83.3%, vs. 43.8%; P = .002), Dr. Mahfoud reported.
[embed:render:related:node:215857]
“Although renal denervation appears to effectively lower blood pressure, participants in the renal denervation group did not quite reach guideline-recommended blood pressure thresholds,” Harini Sarathy, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Liann Abu Salman, MD, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, point out in an accompanying editorial. “This result could have been due to a degree of physician inertia or differential prescribing of blood pressure medications for the intervention group, compared with the sham control group, wherein physicians might have considered renal denervation to be the fourth antihypertensive medication.”
The editorialists also note that nearly a third of the sham group (13 of 42) underwent renal denervation. “The differentially missing BP readings at 24 months for the sham group are a cause for concern, although the absence of any meaningful differences in results after imputation is somewhat reassuring.”
A 10 mm Hg reduction in BP after 36 months would be expected to translate to a significant reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, they say. The sustained reductions in several systolic readings also speak to the “always-on distinctiveness” that renal denervation proponents claim.
“In the stark absence of novel antihypertensive drug development, renal denervation is seemingly poised to be an effective supplement, if not an alternative, to complex antihypertensive regimens with frequent dosing schedules,” they conclude. “We look forward to results of the Expansion trial in providing more definitive answers regarding whether this translates to meaningful protection from target organ damage.”
Dr. Mahfoud observed that BP control worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted BP results, but that in-person follow-up visits were still performed. Other limitations are a lack of information on patients’ exercise, diet, and smoking habits and that blood and urine testing assessed medication adherence at discrete time points, but adherence over an extended period of time is uncertain.
Dr. Mahfoud reports research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie and scientific support and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, and ReCor Medical. The study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Sarathy and Dr. Salman report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiofrequency renal denervation provided progressive reductions in blood pressure at 3 years in patients on antihypertensive medication, but this did not translate into fewer antihypertensive drugs, new results from the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial show.
At 36 months, 24-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 10.0 mm Hg (P = .003) and 5.9 mm Hg (P = .005) lower, respectively, in patients who underwent renal denervation with Medtronic’s Symplicity Spyral radiofrequency catheter, compared with patients treated with a sham procedure.
The number of antihypertensive drugs, however, increased in both groups from an average of two at baseline and 6 months to three at 3 years (P = .76).
Based on the number of drugs, class, and dose, medication burden increased significantly in the sham group at 12 months (6.5 vs. 4.9; P = .04) and trended higher at 3 years (10.3 vs. 7.6; P = .26).
The procedure appeared safe, with no renal safety events in the denervation group and only three safety events overall at 36 months. One cardiovascular death occurred 693 days after a sham procedure and one patient had a hypertensive crisis and stroke 427 days after renal denervation and was discharged in stable condition, according to results published in The Lancet.
“Given the long-term safety and efficacy of renal denervation, it may provide an alternative adjunctive treatment modality in the management of hypertension,” Felix Mahfoud, MD, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany, said during a presentation of the study at the recent American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session.
The results are specific to the Symplicity Spyral catheter, which is investigational in the United States and may not be generalizable to other renal denervation devices, he added.
“The fact you have been able to accomplish this really is quite a feat,” said discussant Martin Leon, MD, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. “I would argue that the results at 36 months are at least as important as the ones at 6 months.”
He observed that one of the promises of renal denervation, however, is that it would be able to reduce patients’ drug burden with fewer drugs and lesser doses.
“At least in this trial, there was very little effect in terms of significantly reducing the pharmacologic burden,” Dr. Leon said. “So, it would be difficult for me to be able to say to patients that receiving renal denervation will reduce the number of medications you would need to treat. In fact, it increased from two to three drugs over the course of follow-up.”
The objective of the trial was not to reduce medication burden but to get blood pressure (BP) controlled in patients with an average baseline office reading of 164.4/99.5 mm Hg, Dr. Mahfoud replied. “We have shown that office systolic blood pressure decreased by around 20 millimeters of mercury in combination with drugs, so it may be seen as an alternative to antihypertensive medication in patients who are in need of getting blood pressure control.”
Dr. Leon responded that the BP control differences are “very dramatic and certainly very important” but that the word adjunctive can be tricky. “I’m trying to understand if it’s the independent or isolated effect of the renal denervation or if it’s a sensitivity to the biological or physiologic milieux which enhances the efficacy of the adjunctive drugs, especially with the fact that over time, it looked like you had increasing effects at some distance from the initial index procedure.”
Dr. Mahfoud said that previous work has shown that renal denervation reduces plasma renin activity and aldosterone concentrations. “It’s not fully understood, but I guess there are synergistic effects of denervation in combination with drugs.”
Sham-controlled evidence
As previously reported, significant BP reductions at 6 months in SPYRAL HTN-ON provided proof of concept and helped revive enthusiasm for the procedure after failing to meet the primary endpoint in the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Results from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry have shown benefits out to 3 years, but sham-controlled data have been lacking.
The trial enrolled 80 patients with an office systolic BP of 150-180 mm Hg and diastolic of 90 mm Hg or greater and 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP of 140-170 mm Hg, who were on up to three antihypertensive medications.
Medication changes were allowed beginning at 6 months; patients and physicians were unblinded at 12 months. Between 24 and 36 months, 13 patients assigned to the sham procedure crossed over to denervation treatment. Medication adherence at 3 years was 77% in the denervation group versus 93% in the sham group.
At 3 years, the renal denervation group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in several ambulatory BP measures, compared with the sham group, including: 24-hour systolic (10.0 mm Hg), morning systolic (11.0 mm Hg), daytime systolic (8.9 mm Hg), and night-time systolic (11.8 mm Hg).
Renal denervation led to an 8.2 mm Hg greater fall in office systolic BP, but this failed to reach statistical significance (P = .07).
Almost twice as many patients in the denervation group achieved a 24-hour systolic BP less than 140 mm Hg than in the sham group (83.3%, vs. 43.8%; P = .002), Dr. Mahfoud reported.
[embed:render:related:node:215857]
“Although renal denervation appears to effectively lower blood pressure, participants in the renal denervation group did not quite reach guideline-recommended blood pressure thresholds,” Harini Sarathy, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Liann Abu Salman, MD, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, point out in an accompanying editorial. “This result could have been due to a degree of physician inertia or differential prescribing of blood pressure medications for the intervention group, compared with the sham control group, wherein physicians might have considered renal denervation to be the fourth antihypertensive medication.”
The editorialists also note that nearly a third of the sham group (13 of 42) underwent renal denervation. “The differentially missing BP readings at 24 months for the sham group are a cause for concern, although the absence of any meaningful differences in results after imputation is somewhat reassuring.”
A 10 mm Hg reduction in BP after 36 months would be expected to translate to a significant reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, they say. The sustained reductions in several systolic readings also speak to the “always-on distinctiveness” that renal denervation proponents claim.
“In the stark absence of novel antihypertensive drug development, renal denervation is seemingly poised to be an effective supplement, if not an alternative, to complex antihypertensive regimens with frequent dosing schedules,” they conclude. “We look forward to results of the Expansion trial in providing more definitive answers regarding whether this translates to meaningful protection from target organ damage.”
Dr. Mahfoud observed that BP control worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted BP results, but that in-person follow-up visits were still performed. Other limitations are a lack of information on patients’ exercise, diet, and smoking habits and that blood and urine testing assessed medication adherence at discrete time points, but adherence over an extended period of time is uncertain.
Dr. Mahfoud reports research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie and scientific support and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, and ReCor Medical. The study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Sarathy and Dr. Salman report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Radiofrequency renal denervation provided progressive reductions in blood pressure at 3 years in patients on antihypertensive medication, but this did not translate into fewer antihypertensive drugs, new results from the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial show.
At 36 months, 24-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 10.0 mm Hg (P = .003) and 5.9 mm Hg (P = .005) lower, respectively, in patients who underwent renal denervation with Medtronic’s Symplicity Spyral radiofrequency catheter, compared with patients treated with a sham procedure.
The number of antihypertensive drugs, however, increased in both groups from an average of two at baseline and 6 months to three at 3 years (P = .76).
Based on the number of drugs, class, and dose, medication burden increased significantly in the sham group at 12 months (6.5 vs. 4.9; P = .04) and trended higher at 3 years (10.3 vs. 7.6; P = .26).
The procedure appeared safe, with no renal safety events in the denervation group and only three safety events overall at 36 months. One cardiovascular death occurred 693 days after a sham procedure and one patient had a hypertensive crisis and stroke 427 days after renal denervation and was discharged in stable condition, according to results published in The Lancet.
“Given the long-term safety and efficacy of renal denervation, it may provide an alternative adjunctive treatment modality in the management of hypertension,” Felix Mahfoud, MD, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany, said during a presentation of the study at the recent American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session.
The results are specific to the Symplicity Spyral catheter, which is investigational in the United States and may not be generalizable to other renal denervation devices, he added.
“The fact you have been able to accomplish this really is quite a feat,” said discussant Martin Leon, MD, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. “I would argue that the results at 36 months are at least as important as the ones at 6 months.”
He observed that one of the promises of renal denervation, however, is that it would be able to reduce patients’ drug burden with fewer drugs and lesser doses.
“At least in this trial, there was very little effect in terms of significantly reducing the pharmacologic burden,” Dr. Leon said. “So, it would be difficult for me to be able to say to patients that receiving renal denervation will reduce the number of medications you would need to treat. In fact, it increased from two to three drugs over the course of follow-up.”
The objective of the trial was not to reduce medication burden but to get blood pressure (BP) controlled in patients with an average baseline office reading of 164.4/99.5 mm Hg, Dr. Mahfoud replied. “We have shown that office systolic blood pressure decreased by around 20 millimeters of mercury in combination with drugs, so it may be seen as an alternative to antihypertensive medication in patients who are in need of getting blood pressure control.”
Dr. Leon responded that the BP control differences are “very dramatic and certainly very important” but that the word adjunctive can be tricky. “I’m trying to understand if it’s the independent or isolated effect of the renal denervation or if it’s a sensitivity to the biological or physiologic milieux which enhances the efficacy of the adjunctive drugs, especially with the fact that over time, it looked like you had increasing effects at some distance from the initial index procedure.”
Dr. Mahfoud said that previous work has shown that renal denervation reduces plasma renin activity and aldosterone concentrations. “It’s not fully understood, but I guess there are synergistic effects of denervation in combination with drugs.”
Sham-controlled evidence
As previously reported, significant BP reductions at 6 months in SPYRAL HTN-ON provided proof of concept and helped revive enthusiasm for the procedure after failing to meet the primary endpoint in the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Results from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry have shown benefits out to 3 years, but sham-controlled data have been lacking.
The trial enrolled 80 patients with an office systolic BP of 150-180 mm Hg and diastolic of 90 mm Hg or greater and 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP of 140-170 mm Hg, who were on up to three antihypertensive medications.
Medication changes were allowed beginning at 6 months; patients and physicians were unblinded at 12 months. Between 24 and 36 months, 13 patients assigned to the sham procedure crossed over to denervation treatment. Medication adherence at 3 years was 77% in the denervation group versus 93% in the sham group.
At 3 years, the renal denervation group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in several ambulatory BP measures, compared with the sham group, including: 24-hour systolic (10.0 mm Hg), morning systolic (11.0 mm Hg), daytime systolic (8.9 mm Hg), and night-time systolic (11.8 mm Hg).
Renal denervation led to an 8.2 mm Hg greater fall in office systolic BP, but this failed to reach statistical significance (P = .07).
Almost twice as many patients in the denervation group achieved a 24-hour systolic BP less than 140 mm Hg than in the sham group (83.3%, vs. 43.8%; P = .002), Dr. Mahfoud reported.
[embed:render:related:node:215857]
“Although renal denervation appears to effectively lower blood pressure, participants in the renal denervation group did not quite reach guideline-recommended blood pressure thresholds,” Harini Sarathy, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Liann Abu Salman, MD, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, point out in an accompanying editorial. “This result could have been due to a degree of physician inertia or differential prescribing of blood pressure medications for the intervention group, compared with the sham control group, wherein physicians might have considered renal denervation to be the fourth antihypertensive medication.”
The editorialists also note that nearly a third of the sham group (13 of 42) underwent renal denervation. “The differentially missing BP readings at 24 months for the sham group are a cause for concern, although the absence of any meaningful differences in results after imputation is somewhat reassuring.”
A 10 mm Hg reduction in BP after 36 months would be expected to translate to a significant reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, they say. The sustained reductions in several systolic readings also speak to the “always-on distinctiveness” that renal denervation proponents claim.
“In the stark absence of novel antihypertensive drug development, renal denervation is seemingly poised to be an effective supplement, if not an alternative, to complex antihypertensive regimens with frequent dosing schedules,” they conclude. “We look forward to results of the Expansion trial in providing more definitive answers regarding whether this translates to meaningful protection from target organ damage.”
Dr. Mahfoud observed that BP control worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted BP results, but that in-person follow-up visits were still performed. Other limitations are a lack of information on patients’ exercise, diet, and smoking habits and that blood and urine testing assessed medication adherence at discrete time points, but adherence over an extended period of time is uncertain.
Dr. Mahfoud reports research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie and scientific support and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, and ReCor Medical. The study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Sarathy and Dr. Salman report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157348</fileName> <TBEID>0C041B7C.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C041B7C</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname/> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220411T144303</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220411T145938</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220411T145938</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220411T145938</CMSDate> <articleSource>FROM ACC 2022</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Patrice Wendling</byline> <bylineText>PATRICE WENDLING</bylineText> <bylineFull>PATRICE WENDLING</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText/> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>Radiofrequency renal denervation provided progressive reductions in blood pressure at 3 years in patients on antihypertensive medication, but this did not trans</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>259181</teaserImage> <teaser>Results from the sham-controlled trial suggest renal denervation may provide an alternative “adjunctive treatment” in the management of hypertension.</teaser> <title>Renal denervation BP benefits remain at 3 years: SYPRAL HTN-ON</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>card</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>endo</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>im</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> <term>34</term> <term>21</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">229</term> <term>236</term> <term>194</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/2400da4a.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Felix Mahmoud</description> <description role="drol:credit">Ted Bosworth/MDedge News</description> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>Renal denervation BP benefits remain at 3 years: SYPRAL HTN-ON</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p>Radiofrequency renal denervation provided progressive reductions in blood pressure at 3 years in patients on antihypertensive medication, but this did not translate into fewer antihypertensive drugs, new results from the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial show.</p> <p>At 36 months, 24-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 10.0 mm Hg (<em>P</em> = .003) and 5.9 mm Hg (<em>P</em> = .005) lower, respectively, in patients who underwent renal denervation with Medtronic’s Symplicity Spyral radiofrequency catheter, compared with patients treated with a sham procedure.<br/><br/>The number of antihypertensive drugs, however, increased in both groups from an average of two at baseline and 6 months to three at 3 years (<em>P</em> = .76).<br/><br/>Based on the number of drugs, class, and dose, medication burden increased significantly in the sham group at 12 months (6.5 vs. 4.9; <em>P</em> = .04) and trended higher at 3 years (10.3 vs. 7.6; <em>P</em> = .26).<br/><br/>The procedure appeared safe, with no renal safety events in the denervation group and only three safety events overall at 36 months. One cardiovascular death occurred 693 days after a sham procedure and one patient had a hypertensive crisis and stroke 427 days after renal denervation and was discharged in stable condition, according to results <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00455-X">published</a> in The Lancet.<br/><br/>“Given the long-term safety and efficacy of renal denervation, it may provide an alternative adjunctive treatment modality in the management of hypertension,” Felix Mahfoud, MD, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany, said during a presentation of the study at the recent American College of Cardiology <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewcollection/36421">(ACC) 2022</a> Scientific Session.[[{"fid":"259181","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_left","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_left","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Felix Mahmoud, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg, Germany.","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"Ted Bosworth/MDedge News","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Felix Mahmoud"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_left"}}]]<br/><br/>The results are specific to the Symplicity Spyral catheter, which is investigational in the United States and may not be generalizable to other renal denervation devices, he added.<br/><br/>“The fact you have been able to accomplish this really is quite a feat,” said discussant Martin Leon, MD, New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center. “I would argue that the results at 36 months are at least as important as the ones at 6 months.”<br/><br/>He observed that one of the promises of renal denervation, however, is that it would be able to reduce patients’ drug burden with fewer drugs and lesser doses.<br/><br/>“At least in this trial, there was very little effect in terms of significantly reducing the pharmacologic burden,” Dr. Leon said. “So, it would be difficult for me to be able to say to patients that receiving renal denervation will reduce the number of medications you would need to treat. In fact, it increased from two to three drugs over the course of follow-up.”<br/><br/>The objective of the trial was not to reduce medication burden but to get blood pressure (BP) controlled in patients with an average baseline office reading of 164.4/99.5 mm Hg, Dr. Mahfoud replied. “We have shown that office systolic blood pressure decreased by around 20 millimeters of mercury in combination with drugs, so it may be seen as an alternative to antihypertensive medication in patients who are in need of getting blood pressure control.”<br/><br/>Dr. Leon responded that the BP control differences are “very dramatic and certainly very important” but that the word adjunctive can be tricky. “I’m trying to understand if it’s the independent or isolated effect of the renal denervation or if it’s a sensitivity to the biological or physiologic milieux which enhances the efficacy of the adjunctive drugs, especially with the fact that over time, it looked like you had increasing effects at some distance from the initial index procedure.”<br/><br/>Dr. Mahfoud said that previous work has shown that renal denervation reduces plasma renin activity and aldosterone concentrations. “It’s not fully understood, but I guess there are synergistic effects of denervation in combination with drugs.”<br/><br/></p> <h2>Sham-controlled evidence </h2> <p>As previously reported, significant BP reductions at <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/897122">6 months</a> in SPYRAL HTN-ON provided proof of concept and helped revive enthusiasm for the procedure after failing to meet the primary endpoint in the <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/822740">SYMPLICITY HTN-3</a> trial. Results from the <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/932342">Global SYMPLICITY Registry</a> have shown benefits out to 3 years, but sham-controlled data have been lacking.</p> <p>The trial enrolled 80 patients with an office systolic BP of 150-180 mm Hg and diastolic of 90 mm Hg or greater and 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP of 140-170 mm Hg, who were on up to three antihypertensive medications.<br/><br/>Medication changes were allowed beginning at 6 months; patients and physicians were unblinded at 12 months. Between 24 and 36 months, 13 patients assigned to the sham procedure crossed over to denervation treatment. Medication adherence at 3 years was 77% in the denervation group versus 93% in the sham group.<br/><br/>At 3 years, the renal denervation group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in several ambulatory BP measures, compared with the sham group, including: 24-hour systolic (10.0 mm Hg), morning systolic (11.0 mm Hg), daytime systolic (8.9 mm Hg), and night-time systolic (11.8 mm Hg).<br/><br/>Renal denervation led to an 8.2 mm Hg greater fall in office systolic BP, but this failed to reach statistical significance (<em>P</em> = .07).<br/><br/>Almost twice as many patients in the denervation group achieved a 24-hour systolic BP less than 140 mm Hg than in the sham group (83.3%, vs. 43.8%; <em>P</em> = .002), Dr. Mahfoud reported.<br/><br/>“Although renal denervation appears to effectively lower blood pressure, participants in the renal denervation group did not quite reach guideline-recommended blood pressure thresholds,” Harini Sarathy, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Liann Abu Salman, MD, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, point out in an <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00614-6">accompanying</a></span> editorial. “This result could have been due to a degree of physician inertia or differential prescribing of blood pressure medications for the intervention group, compared with the sham control group, wherein physicians might have considered renal denervation to be the fourth antihypertensive medication.”<br/><br/>The editorialists also note that nearly a third of the sham group (13 of 42) underwent renal denervation. “The differentially missing BP readings at 24 months for the sham group are a cause for concern, although the absence of any meaningful differences in results after imputation is somewhat reassuring.”<br/><br/>A 10 mm Hg reduction in BP after 36 months would be expected to translate to a significant reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, they say. The sustained reductions in several systolic readings also speak to the “always-on distinctiveness” that renal denervation proponents claim.<br/><br/>“In the stark absence of novel antihypertensive drug development, renal denervation is seemingly poised to be an effective supplement, if not an alternative, to complex antihypertensive regimens with frequent dosing schedules,” they conclude. “We look forward to results of the Expansion trial in providing more definitive answers regarding whether this translates to meaningful protection from target organ damage.”<br/><br/>Dr. Mahfoud observed that BP control worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have impacted BP results, but that in-person follow-up visits were still performed. Other limitations are a lack of information on patients’ exercise, diet, and smoking habits and that blood and urine testing assessed medication adherence at discrete time points, but adherence over an extended period of time is uncertain.<br/><br/>Dr. Mahfoud reports research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie and scientific support and speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, and ReCor Medical. The study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Sarathy and Dr. Salman report no relevant financial relationships. </p> <p> <em>A version of this article first appeared on <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/971883">Medscape.com</a></span>.</em> </p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
FROM ACC 2022
DIAMOND: Adding patiromer helps optimize HF meds, foils hyperkalemia
Several of the core medications for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) come with a well-known risk of causing hyperkalemia, to which many clinicians respond by pulling back on dosing or withdrawing the culprit drug.
But accompanying renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting agents with the potassium-sequestrant patiromer (Veltassa, Vifor Pharma) appears to shield patients against hyperkalemia enough that they can take more RASI medications at higher doses, suggests a randomized, a controlled study.
The DIAMOND trial’s HFrEF patients, who had current or a history of RASI-related hyperkalemia, added either patiromer or placebo to their guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), which includes, even emphasizes, the culprit medication. They include ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).
Those taking patiromer tolerated more intense RASI therapy – including MRAs, which are especially prone to causing hyperkalemia – than the patients assigned to placebo. They also maintained lower potassium concentrations and experienced fewer clinically important hyperkalemia episodes, reported Javed Butler, MD, MPH, MBA, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The apparent benefit from patiromer came in part from an advantage for a composite hyperkalemia-event endpoint that included mortality, Dr. Butler noted. That advantage seemed to hold regardless of age, sex, body mass index, HFrEF symptom severity, or initial natriuretic peptide levels.
Patients who took patiromer, compared with those who took placebo, showed a 37% reduction in risk for hyperkalemia (P = .006), defined as potassium levels exceeding 5.5 mEq/L, over a median follow-up of 27 weeks. They were 38% less likely to have their MRA dosage reduced to below target level (P = .006).
More patients in the patiromer group than in the control group attained at least 50% of target dosage for MRAs and ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or ARNIs (92% vs. 87%; P = .015).
Patients with HFrEF are unlikely to achieve best possible outcomes without GDMT optimization, but failure to optimize is often attributed to hyperkalemia concerns. DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, suggests that, by adding the potassium sequestrant to GDMT, “you can simultaneously control potassium and optimize RASI therapy.” Many clinicians seem to believe they can achieve only one or the other.
DIAMOND was too underpowered to show whether preventing hyperkalemia with patiromer could improve clinical outcomes. But failure to optimize RASI medication in HFrEF can worsen risk for heart failure events and death. So “it stands to reason that optimization of RASI therapy without a concomitant risk of hyperkalemia may, in the long run, lead to better outcomes for these patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Given the drug’s ability to keep potassium levels in check during RASI therapy, Dr. Butler said, “hypokalemia should not be a reason for suboptimal therapy.”
Patiromer and other potassium sequestrants have been available in the United States and Europe for 4-6 years, but their value as adjuncts to RASI medication in HFrEF or other heart failure has been unclear.
“There’s a good opportunity to expand the use of the drug. The question is, in whom and when?” James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
Some HFrEF patients on GDMT “should be treated with patiromer. The bigger question is, should we give someone who has a history of hyperkalemia another chance at GDMT before we treat them with patiromer? Because they may not necessarily develop hyperkalemia a second time,” said Dr. Januzzi, who was on the DIAMOND endpoint-adjudication committee.
Among the most notable findings of the trial, he said, is that the number of people who developed hyperkalemia on RASI medication, although significantly elevated, “wasn’t as high as they expected it would be,” he said. “The data from DIAMOND argue that if a really significant majority does not become hyperkalemic on rechallenge, jumping straight to a potassium-binding drug may be premature.”
Physicians across specialties can differ in how they interpret potassium-level elevation and can use various cut points to flag when to stop RASI medication or at least hold back on up-titration, Dr. Butler observed. “Cardiologists have a different threshold of potassium that they tolerate than say, for instance, a nephrologist.”
Useful, then, might be a way to tell which patients are most likely to develop hyperkalemia with RASI up-titration and so might benefit from a potassium-binding agent right away. But DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, “does not necessarily define any patient phenotype or any potassium level where we would say that you should use a potassium binder.”
The trial entered 1,642 patients with HFrEF and current or past RASI-related hyperkalemia to a 12-week run-in phase for optimization of GDMT with patiromer. The trial was conducted at nearly 400 centers in 21 countries.
RASI medication could be optimized in 85% of the cohort, from which 878 patients were randomly assigned either to continue optimized GDMT with patiromer or to have the potassium-sequestrant replaced with a placebo.
The patients on patiromer showed a 0.03-mEq/L mean rise in serum potassium levels from randomization to the end of the study, the primary endpoint, compared with a 0.13 mEq/L mean increase for those in the control group (P < .001), Dr. Butler reported.
The win ratio for a RASI-use score hierarchically featuring cardiovascular death and CV hospitalization for hyperkalemia at several levels of severity was 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.564; P = .048), favoring the patiromer group. The win ratio solely for hyperkalemia-related events also favored patients on patiromer, at 1.53 (95% CI, 1.23-1.91; P < .001).
Patiromer also seemed well tolerated, Dr. Butler said.
Hyperkalemia is “one of the most common excuses” from clinicians for failing to up-titrate RASI medicine in patients with heart failure, Dr. Januzzi said. DIAMOND was less about patiromer itself than about ways “to facilitate better GDMT, where we’re really falling short of the mark. During the run-in phase they were able to get the vast majority of individuals to target, which to me is a critically important point, and emblematic of the need for things that facilitate this kind of excellent care.”
DIAMOND was funded by Vifor Pharma. Dr. Butler disclosed receiving consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sequana Medical, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Januzzi disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Imbria, Jana Care, Novartis, Prevencio, and Roche Diagnostics; serving on a data safety monitoring board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Beyer, CVRx, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America; and receiving research grants from Abbott Laboratories, Janssen, and Vifor Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Several of the core medications for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) come with a well-known risk of causing hyperkalemia, to which many clinicians respond by pulling back on dosing or withdrawing the culprit drug.
But accompanying renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting agents with the potassium-sequestrant patiromer (Veltassa, Vifor Pharma) appears to shield patients against hyperkalemia enough that they can take more RASI medications at higher doses, suggests a randomized, a controlled study.
The DIAMOND trial’s HFrEF patients, who had current or a history of RASI-related hyperkalemia, added either patiromer or placebo to their guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), which includes, even emphasizes, the culprit medication. They include ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).
Those taking patiromer tolerated more intense RASI therapy – including MRAs, which are especially prone to causing hyperkalemia – than the patients assigned to placebo. They also maintained lower potassium concentrations and experienced fewer clinically important hyperkalemia episodes, reported Javed Butler, MD, MPH, MBA, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The apparent benefit from patiromer came in part from an advantage for a composite hyperkalemia-event endpoint that included mortality, Dr. Butler noted. That advantage seemed to hold regardless of age, sex, body mass index, HFrEF symptom severity, or initial natriuretic peptide levels.
Patients who took patiromer, compared with those who took placebo, showed a 37% reduction in risk for hyperkalemia (P = .006), defined as potassium levels exceeding 5.5 mEq/L, over a median follow-up of 27 weeks. They were 38% less likely to have their MRA dosage reduced to below target level (P = .006).
More patients in the patiromer group than in the control group attained at least 50% of target dosage for MRAs and ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or ARNIs (92% vs. 87%; P = .015).
Patients with HFrEF are unlikely to achieve best possible outcomes without GDMT optimization, but failure to optimize is often attributed to hyperkalemia concerns. DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, suggests that, by adding the potassium sequestrant to GDMT, “you can simultaneously control potassium and optimize RASI therapy.” Many clinicians seem to believe they can achieve only one or the other.
DIAMOND was too underpowered to show whether preventing hyperkalemia with patiromer could improve clinical outcomes. But failure to optimize RASI medication in HFrEF can worsen risk for heart failure events and death. So “it stands to reason that optimization of RASI therapy without a concomitant risk of hyperkalemia may, in the long run, lead to better outcomes for these patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Given the drug’s ability to keep potassium levels in check during RASI therapy, Dr. Butler said, “hypokalemia should not be a reason for suboptimal therapy.”
Patiromer and other potassium sequestrants have been available in the United States and Europe for 4-6 years, but their value as adjuncts to RASI medication in HFrEF or other heart failure has been unclear.
“There’s a good opportunity to expand the use of the drug. The question is, in whom and when?” James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
Some HFrEF patients on GDMT “should be treated with patiromer. The bigger question is, should we give someone who has a history of hyperkalemia another chance at GDMT before we treat them with patiromer? Because they may not necessarily develop hyperkalemia a second time,” said Dr. Januzzi, who was on the DIAMOND endpoint-adjudication committee.
Among the most notable findings of the trial, he said, is that the number of people who developed hyperkalemia on RASI medication, although significantly elevated, “wasn’t as high as they expected it would be,” he said. “The data from DIAMOND argue that if a really significant majority does not become hyperkalemic on rechallenge, jumping straight to a potassium-binding drug may be premature.”
Physicians across specialties can differ in how they interpret potassium-level elevation and can use various cut points to flag when to stop RASI medication or at least hold back on up-titration, Dr. Butler observed. “Cardiologists have a different threshold of potassium that they tolerate than say, for instance, a nephrologist.”
Useful, then, might be a way to tell which patients are most likely to develop hyperkalemia with RASI up-titration and so might benefit from a potassium-binding agent right away. But DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, “does not necessarily define any patient phenotype or any potassium level where we would say that you should use a potassium binder.”
The trial entered 1,642 patients with HFrEF and current or past RASI-related hyperkalemia to a 12-week run-in phase for optimization of GDMT with patiromer. The trial was conducted at nearly 400 centers in 21 countries.
RASI medication could be optimized in 85% of the cohort, from which 878 patients were randomly assigned either to continue optimized GDMT with patiromer or to have the potassium-sequestrant replaced with a placebo.
The patients on patiromer showed a 0.03-mEq/L mean rise in serum potassium levels from randomization to the end of the study, the primary endpoint, compared with a 0.13 mEq/L mean increase for those in the control group (P < .001), Dr. Butler reported.
The win ratio for a RASI-use score hierarchically featuring cardiovascular death and CV hospitalization for hyperkalemia at several levels of severity was 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.564; P = .048), favoring the patiromer group. The win ratio solely for hyperkalemia-related events also favored patients on patiromer, at 1.53 (95% CI, 1.23-1.91; P < .001).
Patiromer also seemed well tolerated, Dr. Butler said.
Hyperkalemia is “one of the most common excuses” from clinicians for failing to up-titrate RASI medicine in patients with heart failure, Dr. Januzzi said. DIAMOND was less about patiromer itself than about ways “to facilitate better GDMT, where we’re really falling short of the mark. During the run-in phase they were able to get the vast majority of individuals to target, which to me is a critically important point, and emblematic of the need for things that facilitate this kind of excellent care.”
DIAMOND was funded by Vifor Pharma. Dr. Butler disclosed receiving consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sequana Medical, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Januzzi disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Imbria, Jana Care, Novartis, Prevencio, and Roche Diagnostics; serving on a data safety monitoring board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Beyer, CVRx, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America; and receiving research grants from Abbott Laboratories, Janssen, and Vifor Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Several of the core medications for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) come with a well-known risk of causing hyperkalemia, to which many clinicians respond by pulling back on dosing or withdrawing the culprit drug.
But accompanying renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting agents with the potassium-sequestrant patiromer (Veltassa, Vifor Pharma) appears to shield patients against hyperkalemia enough that they can take more RASI medications at higher doses, suggests a randomized, a controlled study.
The DIAMOND trial’s HFrEF patients, who had current or a history of RASI-related hyperkalemia, added either patiromer or placebo to their guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), which includes, even emphasizes, the culprit medication. They include ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).
Those taking patiromer tolerated more intense RASI therapy – including MRAs, which are especially prone to causing hyperkalemia – than the patients assigned to placebo. They also maintained lower potassium concentrations and experienced fewer clinically important hyperkalemia episodes, reported Javed Butler, MD, MPH, MBA, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The apparent benefit from patiromer came in part from an advantage for a composite hyperkalemia-event endpoint that included mortality, Dr. Butler noted. That advantage seemed to hold regardless of age, sex, body mass index, HFrEF symptom severity, or initial natriuretic peptide levels.
Patients who took patiromer, compared with those who took placebo, showed a 37% reduction in risk for hyperkalemia (P = .006), defined as potassium levels exceeding 5.5 mEq/L, over a median follow-up of 27 weeks. They were 38% less likely to have their MRA dosage reduced to below target level (P = .006).
More patients in the patiromer group than in the control group attained at least 50% of target dosage for MRAs and ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or ARNIs (92% vs. 87%; P = .015).
Patients with HFrEF are unlikely to achieve best possible outcomes without GDMT optimization, but failure to optimize is often attributed to hyperkalemia concerns. DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, suggests that, by adding the potassium sequestrant to GDMT, “you can simultaneously control potassium and optimize RASI therapy.” Many clinicians seem to believe they can achieve only one or the other.
DIAMOND was too underpowered to show whether preventing hyperkalemia with patiromer could improve clinical outcomes. But failure to optimize RASI medication in HFrEF can worsen risk for heart failure events and death. So “it stands to reason that optimization of RASI therapy without a concomitant risk of hyperkalemia may, in the long run, lead to better outcomes for these patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Given the drug’s ability to keep potassium levels in check during RASI therapy, Dr. Butler said, “hypokalemia should not be a reason for suboptimal therapy.”
Patiromer and other potassium sequestrants have been available in the United States and Europe for 4-6 years, but their value as adjuncts to RASI medication in HFrEF or other heart failure has been unclear.
“There’s a good opportunity to expand the use of the drug. The question is, in whom and when?” James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
Some HFrEF patients on GDMT “should be treated with patiromer. The bigger question is, should we give someone who has a history of hyperkalemia another chance at GDMT before we treat them with patiromer? Because they may not necessarily develop hyperkalemia a second time,” said Dr. Januzzi, who was on the DIAMOND endpoint-adjudication committee.
Among the most notable findings of the trial, he said, is that the number of people who developed hyperkalemia on RASI medication, although significantly elevated, “wasn’t as high as they expected it would be,” he said. “The data from DIAMOND argue that if a really significant majority does not become hyperkalemic on rechallenge, jumping straight to a potassium-binding drug may be premature.”
Physicians across specialties can differ in how they interpret potassium-level elevation and can use various cut points to flag when to stop RASI medication or at least hold back on up-titration, Dr. Butler observed. “Cardiologists have a different threshold of potassium that they tolerate than say, for instance, a nephrologist.”
Useful, then, might be a way to tell which patients are most likely to develop hyperkalemia with RASI up-titration and so might benefit from a potassium-binding agent right away. But DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, “does not necessarily define any patient phenotype or any potassium level where we would say that you should use a potassium binder.”
The trial entered 1,642 patients with HFrEF and current or past RASI-related hyperkalemia to a 12-week run-in phase for optimization of GDMT with patiromer. The trial was conducted at nearly 400 centers in 21 countries.
RASI medication could be optimized in 85% of the cohort, from which 878 patients were randomly assigned either to continue optimized GDMT with patiromer or to have the potassium-sequestrant replaced with a placebo.
The patients on patiromer showed a 0.03-mEq/L mean rise in serum potassium levels from randomization to the end of the study, the primary endpoint, compared with a 0.13 mEq/L mean increase for those in the control group (P < .001), Dr. Butler reported.
The win ratio for a RASI-use score hierarchically featuring cardiovascular death and CV hospitalization for hyperkalemia at several levels of severity was 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.564; P = .048), favoring the patiromer group. The win ratio solely for hyperkalemia-related events also favored patients on patiromer, at 1.53 (95% CI, 1.23-1.91; P < .001).
Patiromer also seemed well tolerated, Dr. Butler said.
Hyperkalemia is “one of the most common excuses” from clinicians for failing to up-titrate RASI medicine in patients with heart failure, Dr. Januzzi said. DIAMOND was less about patiromer itself than about ways “to facilitate better GDMT, where we’re really falling short of the mark. During the run-in phase they were able to get the vast majority of individuals to target, which to me is a critically important point, and emblematic of the need for things that facilitate this kind of excellent care.”
DIAMOND was funded by Vifor Pharma. Dr. Butler disclosed receiving consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sequana Medical, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Januzzi disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Imbria, Jana Care, Novartis, Prevencio, and Roche Diagnostics; serving on a data safety monitoring board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Beyer, CVRx, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America; and receiving research grants from Abbott Laboratories, Janssen, and Vifor Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157272</fileName> <TBEID>0C041A0D.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C041A0D</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname/> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220407T142619</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220408T105758</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220408T105758</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220408T105758</CMSDate> <articleSource>FROM ACC 2022</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Steve Stiles</byline> <bylineText>STEVE STILES</bylineText> <bylineFull>STEVE STILES</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText/> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType>News</newsDocType> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>Several of the core medications for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) come with a well-known risk of causing hyperkalemia, to w</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage>285504</teaserImage> <teaser>Hyperkalemia is no reason for suboptimal guideline-directed heart failure medical therapy, given availability of at least one potassium-binding drug that seems to offer protection, researchers say.</teaser> <title>DIAMOND: Adding patiromer helps optimize HF meds, foils hyperkalemia</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>card</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>im</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>fp</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> <term>21</term> <term>15</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term canonical="true">224</term> <term>258</term> </topics> <links> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/24010a01.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. Javed Butler</description> <description role="drol:credit">Catherine Hackett/MDedge News</description> </link> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/jpeg">images/2400f8f1.jpg</altRep> <description role="drol:caption">Dr. James L. Januzzi</description> <description role="drol:credit">Courtesy Massachusetts General Hospital</description> </link> <link> <itemClass qcode="ninat:picture"/> <altRep contenttype="image/png">images/240109f4.png</altRep> <description role="drol:caption"/> <description role="drol:credit"/> </link> </links> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>DIAMOND: Adding patiromer helps optimize HF meds, foils hyperkalemia</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p>Several of the core medications for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) come with a well-known risk of causing hyperkalemia, to which many clinicians respond by pulling back on dosing or withdrawing the culprit drug.</p> <p>But accompanying renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting agents with the potassium-sequestrant patiromer (Veltassa, Vifor Pharma) appears to shield patients against hyperkalemia enough that they can take more RASI medications at higher doses, suggests a randomized, a controlled study.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"285504","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_left","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_left","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. Javed Butler, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas.","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"Catherine Hackett/MDedge News","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. Javed Butler"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_left"}}]]The <a href="https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03888066">DIAMOND</a> trial’s HFrEF patients, who had current or a history of RASI-related hyperkalemia, added either patiromer or placebo to their guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), which includes, even emphasizes, the culprit medication. They include ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).<br/><br/>Those taking patiromer tolerated more intense RASI therapy – including MRAs, which are especially prone to causing hyperkalemia – than the patients assigned to placebo. They also maintained lower potassium concentrations and experienced fewer clinically important hyperkalemia episodes, reported Javed Butler, MD, MPH, MBA, Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. <br/><br/>The apparent benefit from patiromer came in part from an advantage for a composite hyperkalemia-event endpoint that included mortality, Dr. Butler noted. That advantage seemed to hold regardless of age, sex, body mass index, HFrEF symptom severity, or initial natriuretic peptide levels.<br/><br/>Patients who took patiromer, compared with those who took placebo, showed a 37% reduction in risk for hyperkalemia (<em>P</em> = .006), defined as potassium levels exceeding 5.5 mEq/L, over a median follow-up of 27 weeks. They were 38% less likely to have their MRA dosage reduced to below target level (<em>P</em> = .006).<br/><br/>More patients in the patiromer group than in the control group attained at least 50% of target dosage for MRAs and ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or ARNIs (92% vs. 87%; <em>P</em> = .015).<br/><br/>Patients with HFrEF are unlikely to achieve best possible outcomes without GDMT optimization, but failure to optimize is often attributed to hyperkalemia concerns. DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, suggests that, by adding the potassium sequestrant to GDMT, “you can simultaneously control potassium and optimize RASI therapy.” Many clinicians seem to believe they can achieve only one or the other.<br/><br/>DIAMOND was too underpowered to show whether preventing hyperkalemia with patiromer could improve clinical outcomes. But failure to optimize RASI medication in HFrEF can worsen risk for heart failure events and death. So “it stands to reason that optimization of RASI therapy without a concomitant risk of hyperkalemia may, in the long run, lead to better outcomes for these patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.<br/><br/>Given the drug’s ability to keep potassium levels in check during RASI therapy, Dr. Butler said, “hypokalemia should not be a reason for suboptimal therapy.”<br/><br/>Patiromer and other potassium sequestrants have been <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/853049">available in the United States</a> and Europe for 4-6 years, but their value as adjuncts to RASI medication in HFrEF or other heart failure has been unclear.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"275409","view_mode":"medstat_image_flush_right","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_flush_right","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Dr. James L. Januzzi, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"Courtesy Massachusetts General Hospital","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":"Dr. James L. Januzzi"},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_flush_right"}}]]“There’s a good opportunity to expand the use of the drug. The question is, in whom and when?” James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.<br/><br/>Some HFrEF patients on GDMT “should be treated with patiromer. The bigger question is, should we give someone who has a history of hyperkalemia another chance at GDMT before we treat them with patiromer? Because they may not necessarily develop hyperkalemia a second time,” said Dr. Januzzi, who was on the DIAMOND endpoint-adjudication committee.<br/><br/>Among the most notable findings of the trial, he said, is that the number of people who developed hyperkalemia on RASI medication, although significantly elevated, “wasn’t as high as they expected it would be,” he said. “The data from DIAMOND argue that if a really significant majority does not become hyperkalemic on rechallenge, jumping straight to a potassium-binding drug may be premature.”<br/><br/>Physicians across specialties can differ in how they interpret potassium-level elevation and can use various cut points to flag when to stop RASI medication or at least hold back on up-titration, Dr. Butler observed. “Cardiologists have a different threshold of potassium that they tolerate than say, for instance, a nephrologist.”<br/><br/>Useful, then, might be a way to tell which patients are most likely to develop hyperkalemia with RASI up-titration and so might benefit from a potassium-binding agent right away. But DIAMOND, Dr. Butler said, “does not necessarily define any patient phenotype or any potassium level where we would say that you should use a potassium binder.”<br/><br/>The trial entered 1,642 patients with HFrEF and current or past RASI-related hyperkalemia to a 12-week run-in phase for optimization of GDMT with patiromer. The trial was conducted at nearly 400 centers in 21 countries.<br/><br/>RASI medication could be optimized in 85% of the cohort, from which 878 patients were randomly assigned either to continue optimized GDMT with patiromer or to have the potassium-sequestrant replaced with a placebo.<br/><br/>The patients on patiromer showed a 0.03-mEq/L mean rise in serum potassium levels from randomization to the end of the study, the primary endpoint, compared with a 0.13 mEq/L mean increase for those in the control group (<em>P</em> < .001), Dr. Butler reported.<br/><br/>The win ratio for a RASI-use score hierarchically featuring cardiovascular death and CV hospitalization for hyperkalemia at several levels of severity was 1.25 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.564; <em>P</em> = .048), favoring the patiromer group. The win ratio solely for hyperkalemia-related events also favored patients on patiromer, at 1.53 (95% CI, 1.23-1.91; <em>P</em> < .001).<br/><br/>Patiromer also seemed well tolerated, Dr. Butler said.<br/><br/>[[{"fid":"285503","view_mode":"medstat_image_full_text","fields":{"format":"medstat_image_full_text","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"Adverse event outcomes in DIAMOND","field_file_image_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_caption[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","attributes":{"class":"media-element file-medstat_image_full_text"}}]]Hyperkalemia is “one of the most common excuses” from clinicians for failing to up-titrate RASI medicine in patients with heart failure, Dr. Januzzi said. DIAMOND was less about patiromer itself than about ways “to facilitate better GDMT, where we’re really falling short of the mark. During the run-in phase they were able to get the vast majority of individuals to target, which to me is a critically important point, and emblematic of the need for things that facilitate this kind of excellent care.”<br/><br/>DIAMOND was funded by Vifor Pharma. Dr. Butler disclosed receiving consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sequana Medical, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Januzzi disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Abbott Laboratories, Imbria, Jana Care, Novartis, Prevencio, and Roche Diagnostics; serving on a data safety monitoring board for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Beyer, CVRx, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America; and receiving research grants from Abbott Laboratories, Janssen, and Vifor Pharma. </p> <p> <em>A version of this article first appeared on <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/971616">Medscape.com</a></span>.</em> </p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
FROM ACC 2022
Extraction of infected implanted cardiac devices rare, despite guidelines
The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.
The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.
Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.
Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality
The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.
This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.
For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”
The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.
With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.
Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.
Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.
In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.
The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction
About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).
Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.
Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.
The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.
“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction
It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.
Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.
“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.
“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.
More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”
While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.
“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.
Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.
The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.
The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.
Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.
Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality
The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.
This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.
For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”
The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.
With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.
Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.
Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.
In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.
The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction
About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).
Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.
Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.
The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.
“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction
It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.
Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.
“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.
“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.
More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”
While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.
“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.
Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.
The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.
The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” Sean D. Pokorney, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.
Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical.
Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days.
Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality
The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame.
This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; P = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.
For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; P < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”
The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%.
With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.
Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported.
Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a cohort study conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.
In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic.
The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.
Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction
About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (P < .001 for both).
Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.
Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem.
The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.
“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.
Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction
It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.
Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.
“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.
“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.
More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”
While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.
“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said.
Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.
<!--$RCSfile: InCopy_agile.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.35 $-->
<!--$RCSfile: drupal.xsl,v $ $Revision: 1.7 $-->
<root generator="drupal.xsl" gversion="1.7"> <header> <fileName>157258</fileName> <TBEID>0C04197D.SIG</TBEID> <TBUniqueIdentifier>MD_0C04197D</TBUniqueIdentifier> <newsOrJournal>News</newsOrJournal> <publisherName>Frontline Medical Communications</publisherName> <storyname>CIED Infections</storyname> <articleType>2</articleType> <TBLocation>QC Done-All Pubs</TBLocation> <QCDate>20220406T145319</QCDate> <firstPublished>20220406T145734</firstPublished> <LastPublished>20220406T145734</LastPublished> <pubStatus qcode="stat:"/> <embargoDate/> <killDate/> <CMSDate>20220406T145734</CMSDate> <articleSource>FROM ACC 2022</articleSource> <facebookInfo/> <meetingNumber>3377-22</meetingNumber> <byline>Ted Bosworth</byline> <bylineText>TED BOSWORTH</bylineText> <bylineFull>TED BOSWORTH</bylineFull> <bylineTitleText>MDedge News</bylineTitleText> <USOrGlobal/> <wireDocType/> <newsDocType/> <journalDocType/> <linkLabel/> <pageRange/> <citation/> <quizID/> <indexIssueDate/> <itemClass qcode="ninat:text"/> <provider qcode="provider:imng"> <name>IMNG Medical Media</name> <rightsInfo> <copyrightHolder> <name>Frontline Medical News</name> </copyrightHolder> <copyrightNotice>Copyright (c) 2015 Frontline Medical News, a Frontline Medical Communications Inc. company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, copied, or otherwise reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</copyrightNotice> </rightsInfo> </provider> <abstract/> <metaDescription>The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only</metaDescription> <articlePDF/> <teaserImage/> <teaser>Prompt extraction for implantable device infections is guideline recommended but not often performed.</teaser> <title>Extraction of infected implanted cardiac devices rare, despite guidelines</title> <deck/> <disclaimer/> <AuthorList/> <articleURL/> <doi/> <pubMedID/> <publishXMLStatus/> <publishXMLVersion>1</publishXMLVersion> <useEISSN>0</useEISSN> <urgency/> <pubPubdateYear/> <pubPubdateMonth/> <pubPubdateDay/> <pubVolume/> <pubNumber/> <wireChannels/> <primaryCMSID/> <CMSIDs/> <keywords/> <seeAlsos/> <publications_g> <publicationData> <publicationCode>card</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>chph</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>fp</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>im</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>mdsurg</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> <journalTitle/> <journalFullTitle/> <copyrightStatement>2018 Frontline Medical Communications Inc.,</copyrightStatement> </publicationData> <publicationData> <publicationCode>mdemed</publicationCode> <pubIssueName/> <pubArticleType/> <pubTopics/> <pubCategories/> <pubSections/> <journalTitle/> <journalFullTitle/> <copyrightStatement/> </publicationData> </publications_g> <publications> <term canonical="true">5</term> <term>6</term> <term>15</term> <term>21</term> <term>52226</term> <term>58877</term> </publications> <sections> <term canonical="true">53</term> <term>39313</term> </sections> <topics> <term>185</term> <term>224</term> <term canonical="true">236</term> <term>328</term> <term>194</term> <term>336</term> </topics> <links/> </header> <itemSet> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>Main</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title>Extraction of infected implanted cardiac devices rare, despite guidelines</title> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> <p>The rates of infection involving cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIEDs), like pacemakers and cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), are substantial, but only a minority of patients in the United States receive the guideline-directed recommendation of device removal, according to data from a Medicare population.</p> <p>The study was conducted on the hypothesis that adherence to guidelines were low, “but we were surprised by how low the extraction rates turned out to be,” <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.dukehealth.org/find-doctors-physicians/sean-pokorney-md-mba">Sean D. Pokorney, MD</a></span>, an electrophysiologist at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.<br/><br/>The major U.S. and European guidelines are uniform in recommending complete extraction for a CIED infection. The American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society and two out of the three other guidelines cited by Dr. Pokorney not only recommend extraction but specify prompt extraction.<br/><br/>Neither complete extraction nor prompt extraction are typical. <br/><br/>Of the 11,619 CIED infection cases identified in the Medicare database, 18.2% underwent extraction within 30 days of diagnosis. Only 13% were extracted within 6 days. <br/><br/></p> <h2>Lack of extraction may cause avoidable mortality</h2> <p>The result is likely to be avoidable mortality. Among those with extraction within 30 days, 80% were still alive 1 year later. Survival at 1 year fell to 67.6% in those without an extraction within this time frame. <br/><br/>This translated to a 22% lower rate of death at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.78; <em>P</em> = .008) in those who underwent extraction within 30 days.<br/><br/>For those in whom the device was extracted within 7 days, the associated HR for death at 1 year was more than 40% lower (HR, 0.59; <em>P</em> < .001), reported Dr. Pokorney, who characterized these reductions as occurring in “a dose-response fashion.”<br/><br/>The very high risk of relapse despite antibiotics is the reason that “there is a class 1 indication for complete hardware removal,” Dr. Pokorney. He cited five studies that addressed this question. With partial device removal or medical therapy alone, relapse was consistently 50% or greater. In one study, it was 67%. In another it was 100%. <br/><br/>With complete removal, the rate of infection relapse was 1% or lower in four. In the fifth, the rate was 4.2%.<br/><br/>Infections can occur early or late after implantation, but cases accumulate over time. In the Medicare data sample, infection rates climbed from 0.3% at 1 year to 0.6% at 2 years and then to 1.1% at 3 years, Dr. Pokorney reported. <br/><br/>Other studies have also shown a steady increase in the proportion of implanted devices associated with infection over time. In a <span class="Hyperlink"><a href="https://www.jacc.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jacep.2019.06.016">cohort study</a></span> conducted in Olmstead County, Minnesota, the cumulative probability of a CIED infection reached 6.2% after 15 years and 11.7% after 25 years. While about half of these were infections localized to the device pocket, the others were potentially life-threatening systemic infections, according to Dr. Pokorney, who cited this study.<br/><br/>In his analysis of the Medicare data, all fee-for-service patients receiving a first CIED implant over a period of 14 years were included. The 14-year period ended just before the COVID-19 epidemic. <br/><br/>The more than 11,000 CIED infections were identified in 1,065,549 total CIED patients. Most (72%) had received a pacemaker. Of the others , more than half received an ICD and the others received a cardiac resynchronization device. The median age was 78 years.<br/><br/></p> <h2>Female and Black patients even less likely to undergo extraction</h2> <p>About half (49.1%) of the overall study population was female, but females represented only about 40% of those who developed an infection. Blacks represented just under 8% of the population but nearly 16% of the CIED infections. Both females and Blacks were significantly less likely than the overall study population to undergo extraction for their infection (<em>P</em> < .001 for both).</p> <p>Perhaps predictably, patients with comorbidities were more likely to develop CIED infections. For example, 87% of those with infection, versus only 64.9% of the overall population, were in heart failure at the time of implantation. Diabetes (68.3% vs. 49.3%), ischemic heart disease (91.9% vs. 79.4%), renal disease (70.5% vs. 37.9%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (70.6% vs. 55.0%) were also more common at baseline in those who went on to a CIED infection than in the overall population.<br/><br/>Based on the evidence that there is a large unmet need to improve adherence to the guidelines, Dr. Pokorney called for care pathways and other quality initiatives to address the problem. <br/><br/>The reasons that so many patients are not undergoing prompt device extraction at the time of infection is unclear, but Dr. Pokorney offered some hypotheses.<br/><br/>“There appears to be a false belief in the efficacy of antibiotics for treating CIED infections,” Dr. Pokorney said.<br/><br/></p> <h2>Comorbidities shouldn’t delay extraction</h2> <p>It is also possible that clinicians are concerned about performing extractions in patients with multiple comorbidities. If clinicians are delaying extractions for this reason, Dr. Pokorney suggested this behavior is misdirected given the fact that delays appear to increase mortality risk.<br/><br/>Several experts, including Rachel Lambert, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that these data deserve a response.<br/><br/>“I was not surprised by the mortality data, but I was surprised at this low extraction rate,” said Dr. Lambert, who concurs with the guidelines. She indicated this study provides teeth to prompt action.<br/><br/>“It is great to have these data about the increased mortality risk to back up the guidelines,” she said.<br/><br/>More information is needed to understand exactly why CIED infection is not now leading to guideline-directed care. Dr. Pokorney said: “Where do we go from here is a key question.”<br/><br/>While several different types of initiatives might be needed, Dr. Pokorney called for regionalization of care to address the fact that not every center that places CIEDs has the capability to perform extractions.<br/><br/>“Extraction is not available at every center, and it probably should not be available at every center, so mechanisms are need to get patients with infection to the specialized centers that provide care,” he said. <br/><br/>Dr. Pokorney has financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Philips. Dr. Lambert reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, and Medtronic.</p> </itemContent> </newsItem> <newsItem> <itemMeta> <itemRole>teaser</itemRole> <itemClass>text</itemClass> <title/> <deck/> </itemMeta> <itemContent> </itemContent> </newsItem> </itemSet></root>
FROM ACC 2022
Flu vaccines cut seasonal death in heart failure patients
WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.
Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.
“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.
Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.
The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season
“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.
For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.
But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).
Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.
Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.
‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’
“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.
“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”
Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.
“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.
The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.
IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.
WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.
Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.
“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.
Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.
The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season
“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.
For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.
But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).
Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.
Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.
‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’
“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.
“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”
Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.
“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.
The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.
IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.
WASHINGTON – Patients with heart failure who received an annual influenza vaccine for 3 years running had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations and significantly fewer cases of pneumonia during that time, compared with placebo-treated patients with heart failure, in a prospective, randomized, global trial with 5,129 participants.
Although the results failed to show a significant reduction in all-cause deaths linked to influenza vaccination, compared with controls during the entire 3 years of the study, the results did show a significant 21% relative mortality-risk reduction by vaccination during periods of peak influenza circulation, and a significant 23% reduction in cardiovascular deaths, compared with controls during peak seasons.
“This is the first randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure, and we showed that vaccination reduces deaths” during peak influenza seasons, Mark Loeb, MD, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. The results send “an important global message that patients with heart failure should receive the influenza vaccine,” said Dr. Loeb, a professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who specializes in clinical epidemiology and infectious diseases.
Dr. Loeb admitted that he and his associates erred when they picked the time window to assess the two primary endpoints for the trial: the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke, and this combined endpoint plus hospitalizations for heart failure.
The time window they selected was the entirety of all 3 years following three annual immunizations. That was a mistake.
No flu vaccine benefit outside flu season
“We know that the influenza vaccine will not have any effect outside of when influenza is circulating. In retrospect, we should have done that,” Dr. Loeb bemoaned during his talk. He chalked up the bad choice to concern over collecting enough endpoints to see a significant between-group difference when the researchers designed the study.
For the entire 3 years of follow-up, influenza vaccination was tied to a nonsignificant 7% relative risk reduction for the first primary endpoint, and a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction for the second primary endpoint, he reported.
But Dr. Loeb lobbied for the relevance of several significant secondary endpoints that collectively showed a compelling pattern of benefit during his talk. These included, for the full 3-years of follow-up, important, significant reductions relative to placebo of 16% for first all-cause hospitalizations (P = .01), and a 42% relative risk reduction in first cases of pneumonia (P = .0006).
Then there were the benefits that appeared during influenza season. In that analysis, first events for the first primary endpoint fell after vaccination by a significant 18% relative to placebo. The in-season analysis also showed the significant cuts in both all-cause and cardiovascular deaths.
Despite the neutral primary endpoints, “if you look at these data as a whole I think they speak to the importance of vaccinating patients with heart failure against influenza,” Dr. Loeb maintained.
‘Totality of evidence supports vaccination’
“I agree that the totality of evidence supports influenza vaccination,” commented Mark H. Drazner, MD, professor and clinical chief of cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who was designated discussant for the report.
“The message should be to offer influenza vaccine to patients with heart failure,” Dr. Drazner said in an interview. “Previous data on influenza vaccine in patients with heart failure were largely observational. This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. That’s a step forward. Proving efficacy in a randomized trial is important.”
Dr Drazner added that his institution already promotes a “strong mandate” to vaccinate patients with heart failure against influenza.
“The influenza vaccine is a very effective and cost-efficient public health measure. Preventing hospitalizations of patients with heart failure has so many benefits,” commented Craig Beavers, PharmD, vice president of professional services at Baptist Health in Paducah, Ky., and a discussant during the press briefing.
The Influenza Vaccine To Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial enrolled people with heart failure in New York Heart Association functional class II, III, or IV from any of 10 low- and middle-income countries including China, India, the Philippines, and multiple countries from Africa and the Middle East. They averaged 57 years of age, and slightly more than half were women.
IVVE was sponsored by McMaster University; the only commercial support that IVVE received was a free supply of influenza vaccine from Sanofi Pasteur. Dr. Loeb, Dr. Drazner, and Dr. Beavers had no disclosures.
AT ACC 2022
Early PCSK9 inhibition in AMI yields plaque regression
When the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab is added to high-intensity statins soon after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the reduction in atheroma volume is doubled at 12 months, compared with placebo, while other key signs of plaque stabilization, such as fibrous cap thickness, are also significantly and substantially improved, according to the results of the PACMAN-AMI trial.
The study is consistent with other PCSK9 inhibitor trials, supporting the concept that “we should be seeking very low levels of LDL-C in high-risk patients,” reported Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, of Bern (Switz.) University Hospital, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The low LCL-C target, the data from PACMAN-AMI suggest, is below 50 mg/dL, but even lower is better. When displayed graphically, the improvements in remodeling characteristics “get very steep” as levels descend below a 50 mg/dL threshold, Dr. Räber reported. This was true regardless of study arm.
In PACMAN-AMI, 300 AMI patients (with either ST-elevation or non-ST-elevaion) were randomized to 150 mg alirocumab or placebo administered by subcutaneous injection within 24 hours after an urgent percutaneous intervention (PCI) and stent placement. All patients received their assigned therapy on top of a high-intensity statin in the form of 20 mg of rosuvastatin daily.
Primary outcome was atheroma volume
The primary endpoint was atheroma volume as determined by intravenous ultrasound (IVUS), but the secondary endpoints of maximum lipid core burden, as determined by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and fibrous cap thickness, as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), were also adequately powered, according to Dr. Räber.
The imaging measures taken at baseline were repeated in exactly the same spot after 52 weeks on treatment.
For the primary outcome of atheroma volume, the mean 2.1% reduction among those randomized to alirocumab was more than double the 0.9% reduction in the placebo group (P = .001).
The mean reduction in lipid core volume based on a maximum lipid core burden index was also more than doubled (-79.42 vs. -37.60 maxLCBI4mm; P = .006). The increase in fibrous cap thickness was not quite twofold greater but very close (62.67 vs. 33.19 mcm; P = .001).
From baseline, the relative reductions in LDL-C, which were reached about 4 weeks after starting treatment and maintained over the course of the study, were greater in the group randomized to alirocumab (-84.8% vs. -50.7%). This was expected, but the more important finding was a near linear relationship between reductions of LDL-C and each of these endpoints regardless of treatment, fully explaining the advantage of alirocumab, according to Dr. Räber.
For the addition of alirocumab, “these findings indicate incremental coronary plaque regression, lipid core reduction, and plaque stabilization, and provide a mechanistic rationale in favor of early initiation of very intensive LDL-C lower in the setting of an acute MI,” he said.
The results of the PACMAN-AMI trial were published simultaneously at the time of the ACC presentation.
Results consistent with earlier trials
Alirocumab was well tolerated. Injection site reactions (6.1% vs. 3.3%) and general allergic reactions (3.4% vs. 0%) were more common on alirocumab, but there were no significant differences between the arms of this study for serious adverse events. There were slightly more neurocognitive events (2.0 vs. 0%) and abnormal alanine transferase levels (0.7% vs. 0%) in the alirocumab group.
The data are generally consistent with two previously published trials with another PCSK9 inhibitor, according to Dr. Räber. In the randomized GLAGOV trial published more than 5 years ago, evolocumab also produced about a 1% absolute reduction (P < .001) in plaque volume at the end of 78 weeks of follow-up relative to placebo.
However, that trial was limited to patients with coronary artery disease without a recent cardiovascular event. The more recent HUYGENS trial, which was presented virtually at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology meeting and has not yet been published, looked at one of the endpoints also evaluated in PACMAN-AMI. In that study of 161 randomized NSTEMI patients, there was also about a doubling of fibrous cap thickness (42.7 vs. 21.5 mcm) for the PCSK9 inhibitor relative to placebo.
Clinical endpoints were not compared in either the PACMAN-AMI or HUYGENS trial.
PACMAN-AMI confirms plaque stabilization
Nevertheless, the message of plaque stabilization is important, according to Anthony N. DeMaria, MD, Founding Director of the Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center at the University of San Diego. Although he acknowledged that a 1% absolute reduction in mean plaque volume might “make you want to yawn,” he argued that this is a misreading of important changes observed in plaque physiology.
“What we have now is evidence that very low lipid levels result in plaque remodeling. The plaques might not get a whole lot smaller, but the changes are important,” he said, noting, for example, that a thicker fibrous cap and increased plaque stability “clearly plays a role in reducing risk of subsequent events.”
“You cannot help but be impressed by the relationship of lipid lowering and the favorable effect on remodeling,” he added.
The data associating PCSK9 inhibitors with protection from cardiovascular events is already extensive, according to Michael J. Blaha, MD, Director of Clinical Research for Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but he called PACMAN-ACS “an extremely relevant study.”
“This provides more evidence of the mechanism of benefit, which I think is extremely important when talking to patients about the goals of therapy,” he said.
PACMAN-AMI provided a very simple take home message for Pamela B. Morris, MD, Director of Preventive Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“This study shows that if you get LCL-C under 50 mg/dL regardless of treatment, there is a favorable remodeling effect,” Dr. Morris said. In AMI patients, the data confirm “go early and go low,” she added. “You should do whatever is necessary [go get to these lower targets].”
Dr. Räber has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Canon, Heartflow, Medtronic, Occlutech, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr. Blaha reports financial relationships with Akcea, Amgen, Bayer, Inozyme, Kaleido, Kowa, Medimmune, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Siemens, and 89Bio. Dr. DeMaria reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Morris reports a financial relationship with Amgen. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Infraredx, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
When the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab is added to high-intensity statins soon after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the reduction in atheroma volume is doubled at 12 months, compared with placebo, while other key signs of plaque stabilization, such as fibrous cap thickness, are also significantly and substantially improved, according to the results of the PACMAN-AMI trial.
The study is consistent with other PCSK9 inhibitor trials, supporting the concept that “we should be seeking very low levels of LDL-C in high-risk patients,” reported Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, of Bern (Switz.) University Hospital, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The low LCL-C target, the data from PACMAN-AMI suggest, is below 50 mg/dL, but even lower is better. When displayed graphically, the improvements in remodeling characteristics “get very steep” as levels descend below a 50 mg/dL threshold, Dr. Räber reported. This was true regardless of study arm.
In PACMAN-AMI, 300 AMI patients (with either ST-elevation or non-ST-elevaion) were randomized to 150 mg alirocumab or placebo administered by subcutaneous injection within 24 hours after an urgent percutaneous intervention (PCI) and stent placement. All patients received their assigned therapy on top of a high-intensity statin in the form of 20 mg of rosuvastatin daily.
Primary outcome was atheroma volume
The primary endpoint was atheroma volume as determined by intravenous ultrasound (IVUS), but the secondary endpoints of maximum lipid core burden, as determined by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and fibrous cap thickness, as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), were also adequately powered, according to Dr. Räber.
The imaging measures taken at baseline were repeated in exactly the same spot after 52 weeks on treatment.
For the primary outcome of atheroma volume, the mean 2.1% reduction among those randomized to alirocumab was more than double the 0.9% reduction in the placebo group (P = .001).
The mean reduction in lipid core volume based on a maximum lipid core burden index was also more than doubled (-79.42 vs. -37.60 maxLCBI4mm; P = .006). The increase in fibrous cap thickness was not quite twofold greater but very close (62.67 vs. 33.19 mcm; P = .001).
From baseline, the relative reductions in LDL-C, which were reached about 4 weeks after starting treatment and maintained over the course of the study, were greater in the group randomized to alirocumab (-84.8% vs. -50.7%). This was expected, but the more important finding was a near linear relationship between reductions of LDL-C and each of these endpoints regardless of treatment, fully explaining the advantage of alirocumab, according to Dr. Räber.
For the addition of alirocumab, “these findings indicate incremental coronary plaque regression, lipid core reduction, and plaque stabilization, and provide a mechanistic rationale in favor of early initiation of very intensive LDL-C lower in the setting of an acute MI,” he said.
The results of the PACMAN-AMI trial were published simultaneously at the time of the ACC presentation.
Results consistent with earlier trials
Alirocumab was well tolerated. Injection site reactions (6.1% vs. 3.3%) and general allergic reactions (3.4% vs. 0%) were more common on alirocumab, but there were no significant differences between the arms of this study for serious adverse events. There were slightly more neurocognitive events (2.0 vs. 0%) and abnormal alanine transferase levels (0.7% vs. 0%) in the alirocumab group.
The data are generally consistent with two previously published trials with another PCSK9 inhibitor, according to Dr. Räber. In the randomized GLAGOV trial published more than 5 years ago, evolocumab also produced about a 1% absolute reduction (P < .001) in plaque volume at the end of 78 weeks of follow-up relative to placebo.
However, that trial was limited to patients with coronary artery disease without a recent cardiovascular event. The more recent HUYGENS trial, which was presented virtually at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology meeting and has not yet been published, looked at one of the endpoints also evaluated in PACMAN-AMI. In that study of 161 randomized NSTEMI patients, there was also about a doubling of fibrous cap thickness (42.7 vs. 21.5 mcm) for the PCSK9 inhibitor relative to placebo.
Clinical endpoints were not compared in either the PACMAN-AMI or HUYGENS trial.
PACMAN-AMI confirms plaque stabilization
Nevertheless, the message of plaque stabilization is important, according to Anthony N. DeMaria, MD, Founding Director of the Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center at the University of San Diego. Although he acknowledged that a 1% absolute reduction in mean plaque volume might “make you want to yawn,” he argued that this is a misreading of important changes observed in plaque physiology.
“What we have now is evidence that very low lipid levels result in plaque remodeling. The plaques might not get a whole lot smaller, but the changes are important,” he said, noting, for example, that a thicker fibrous cap and increased plaque stability “clearly plays a role in reducing risk of subsequent events.”
“You cannot help but be impressed by the relationship of lipid lowering and the favorable effect on remodeling,” he added.
The data associating PCSK9 inhibitors with protection from cardiovascular events is already extensive, according to Michael J. Blaha, MD, Director of Clinical Research for Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but he called PACMAN-ACS “an extremely relevant study.”
“This provides more evidence of the mechanism of benefit, which I think is extremely important when talking to patients about the goals of therapy,” he said.
PACMAN-AMI provided a very simple take home message for Pamela B. Morris, MD, Director of Preventive Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“This study shows that if you get LCL-C under 50 mg/dL regardless of treatment, there is a favorable remodeling effect,” Dr. Morris said. In AMI patients, the data confirm “go early and go low,” she added. “You should do whatever is necessary [go get to these lower targets].”
Dr. Räber has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Canon, Heartflow, Medtronic, Occlutech, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr. Blaha reports financial relationships with Akcea, Amgen, Bayer, Inozyme, Kaleido, Kowa, Medimmune, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Siemens, and 89Bio. Dr. DeMaria reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Morris reports a financial relationship with Amgen. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Infraredx, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
When the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab is added to high-intensity statins soon after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the reduction in atheroma volume is doubled at 12 months, compared with placebo, while other key signs of plaque stabilization, such as fibrous cap thickness, are also significantly and substantially improved, according to the results of the PACMAN-AMI trial.
The study is consistent with other PCSK9 inhibitor trials, supporting the concept that “we should be seeking very low levels of LDL-C in high-risk patients,” reported Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, of Bern (Switz.) University Hospital, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
The low LCL-C target, the data from PACMAN-AMI suggest, is below 50 mg/dL, but even lower is better. When displayed graphically, the improvements in remodeling characteristics “get very steep” as levels descend below a 50 mg/dL threshold, Dr. Räber reported. This was true regardless of study arm.
In PACMAN-AMI, 300 AMI patients (with either ST-elevation or non-ST-elevaion) were randomized to 150 mg alirocumab or placebo administered by subcutaneous injection within 24 hours after an urgent percutaneous intervention (PCI) and stent placement. All patients received their assigned therapy on top of a high-intensity statin in the form of 20 mg of rosuvastatin daily.
Primary outcome was atheroma volume
The primary endpoint was atheroma volume as determined by intravenous ultrasound (IVUS), but the secondary endpoints of maximum lipid core burden, as determined by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and fibrous cap thickness, as determined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), were also adequately powered, according to Dr. Räber.
The imaging measures taken at baseline were repeated in exactly the same spot after 52 weeks on treatment.
For the primary outcome of atheroma volume, the mean 2.1% reduction among those randomized to alirocumab was more than double the 0.9% reduction in the placebo group (P = .001).
The mean reduction in lipid core volume based on a maximum lipid core burden index was also more than doubled (-79.42 vs. -37.60 maxLCBI4mm; P = .006). The increase in fibrous cap thickness was not quite twofold greater but very close (62.67 vs. 33.19 mcm; P = .001).
From baseline, the relative reductions in LDL-C, which were reached about 4 weeks after starting treatment and maintained over the course of the study, were greater in the group randomized to alirocumab (-84.8% vs. -50.7%). This was expected, but the more important finding was a near linear relationship between reductions of LDL-C and each of these endpoints regardless of treatment, fully explaining the advantage of alirocumab, according to Dr. Räber.
For the addition of alirocumab, “these findings indicate incremental coronary plaque regression, lipid core reduction, and plaque stabilization, and provide a mechanistic rationale in favor of early initiation of very intensive LDL-C lower in the setting of an acute MI,” he said.
The results of the PACMAN-AMI trial were published simultaneously at the time of the ACC presentation.
Results consistent with earlier trials
Alirocumab was well tolerated. Injection site reactions (6.1% vs. 3.3%) and general allergic reactions (3.4% vs. 0%) were more common on alirocumab, but there were no significant differences between the arms of this study for serious adverse events. There were slightly more neurocognitive events (2.0 vs. 0%) and abnormal alanine transferase levels (0.7% vs. 0%) in the alirocumab group.
The data are generally consistent with two previously published trials with another PCSK9 inhibitor, according to Dr. Räber. In the randomized GLAGOV trial published more than 5 years ago, evolocumab also produced about a 1% absolute reduction (P < .001) in plaque volume at the end of 78 weeks of follow-up relative to placebo.
However, that trial was limited to patients with coronary artery disease without a recent cardiovascular event. The more recent HUYGENS trial, which was presented virtually at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology meeting and has not yet been published, looked at one of the endpoints also evaluated in PACMAN-AMI. In that study of 161 randomized NSTEMI patients, there was also about a doubling of fibrous cap thickness (42.7 vs. 21.5 mcm) for the PCSK9 inhibitor relative to placebo.
Clinical endpoints were not compared in either the PACMAN-AMI or HUYGENS trial.
PACMAN-AMI confirms plaque stabilization
Nevertheless, the message of plaque stabilization is important, according to Anthony N. DeMaria, MD, Founding Director of the Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center at the University of San Diego. Although he acknowledged that a 1% absolute reduction in mean plaque volume might “make you want to yawn,” he argued that this is a misreading of important changes observed in plaque physiology.
“What we have now is evidence that very low lipid levels result in plaque remodeling. The plaques might not get a whole lot smaller, but the changes are important,” he said, noting, for example, that a thicker fibrous cap and increased plaque stability “clearly plays a role in reducing risk of subsequent events.”
“You cannot help but be impressed by the relationship of lipid lowering and the favorable effect on remodeling,” he added.
The data associating PCSK9 inhibitors with protection from cardiovascular events is already extensive, according to Michael J. Blaha, MD, Director of Clinical Research for Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, but he called PACMAN-ACS “an extremely relevant study.”
“This provides more evidence of the mechanism of benefit, which I think is extremely important when talking to patients about the goals of therapy,” he said.
PACMAN-AMI provided a very simple take home message for Pamela B. Morris, MD, Director of Preventive Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
“This study shows that if you get LCL-C under 50 mg/dL regardless of treatment, there is a favorable remodeling effect,” Dr. Morris said. In AMI patients, the data confirm “go early and go low,” she added. “You should do whatever is necessary [go get to these lower targets].”
Dr. Räber has financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Canon, Heartflow, Medtronic, Occlutech, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr. Blaha reports financial relationships with Akcea, Amgen, Bayer, Inozyme, Kaleido, Kowa, Medimmune, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Siemens, and 89Bio. Dr. DeMaria reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Morris reports a financial relationship with Amgen. The investigator-initiated trial received research grants from Infraredx, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
FROM ACC 2022
