Heart Failure

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Portico with FlexNav (Abbott) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for patients with “symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme risk for open-heart surgery,” the company has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval indication is in line with the entry criteria of PORTICO IDE, the investigational device exemption trial from which the FDA largely made its decision.

With the self-expanding Portico valve, Abbott joins two other companies with TAVR valves on the U.S. market: Medtronic with the self-expanding Corevalve Evolut (Medtronic) line, and Edwards Lifesciences with its Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences) valves, both of which can be used in patients at low surgical risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Portico with FlexNav (Abbott) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for patients with “symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme risk for open-heart surgery,” the company has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval indication is in line with the entry criteria of PORTICO IDE, the investigational device exemption trial from which the FDA largely made its decision.

With the self-expanding Portico valve, Abbott joins two other companies with TAVR valves on the U.S. market: Medtronic with the self-expanding Corevalve Evolut (Medtronic) line, and Edwards Lifesciences with its Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences) valves, both of which can be used in patients at low surgical risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Portico with FlexNav (Abbott) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for patients with “symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis who are at high or extreme risk for open-heart surgery,” the company has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval indication is in line with the entry criteria of PORTICO IDE, the investigational device exemption trial from which the FDA largely made its decision.

With the self-expanding Portico valve, Abbott joins two other companies with TAVR valves on the U.S. market: Medtronic with the self-expanding Corevalve Evolut (Medtronic) line, and Edwards Lifesciences with its Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences) valves, both of which can be used in patients at low surgical risk.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler, MDedge News

EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
 

‘Forget about ejection fraction’

“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.

“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.

“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.

The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
 

An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments

“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”

Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.

The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.

The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “

“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.

“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”

“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
 

Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF

The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.

They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.

Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).

Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.

Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.

The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.

“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.

The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 3-month lifestyle intervention that used a step counter and regular, personalized text messages to encourage increased mobility and adherence to medications led to a substantial rise in the quality of life in a randomized controlled study with 187 U.S. patients with heart failure and diabetes.

The TARGET-HF-DM study supplied a wrist-worn step counting device to adults with any type of heart failure and any type of diabetes at six U.S. sites and collected data on daily step counts and medication adherence through smartphone-based apps. Researchers randomized the patients to an intervention of thrice-weekly text messages that gave them personalized feedback on their recent activity and adherence and updated activity and adherence goals, or to a control group that only received a once-weekly generic message to wear the step counter.

After 3 months, patients in the intervention arm had an average incremental gain of 313 steps per day from baseline, compared with the controls, a significant difference for the study’s primary endpoint, G. Michael Felker, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
 

A ‘quite large’ increase in quality of life.

Perhaps more importantly, a secondary analysis assessed quality of life with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score, which showed after 3 months a 5.5-point average increased improvement among patients in the intervention arm, compared with controls. Score increases of 5 of more points on the KCCQ represent clinically meaningful changes.

This average, incremental KCCQ score improvement was “quite large relative to what we typically see in placebo-controlled trials of effective drugs,” said Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of cardiovascular research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute. If a similar magnitude change in KCCQ was associated with a drug treatment “we would say it was an incredibly large signal in terms of quality of life, so I think the patients are telling us that [the intervention] is making a clinically important difference.”

But Dr. Felker cautioned that the study was not blinded, raising the possibility that the change in quality of life could have been partially explained by “patients feeling more engaged about doing something for their health.”

His report omitted data on the medication adherence facet of the study, which will come out in a subsequent report, raising the possibility that some of the quality of life benefit as well as the ability of patients to boost their step count was related to more consistent treatment with their prescribed medications, but Dr. Felker discounted this possibility.

“The adherence intervention was basically a digital tool that helped people better remember their medication regimen. While it is possible that this could have influenced the KCCQ data this seems quite unlikely to me,” he said in an interview.
 

‘Exercise is the new magic’

“Exercise is the new magic,” commented Mariann R. Piano, PhD, a professor at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cochair of the session where Dr. Felker gave his report. “I love that the trial was pragmatic, randomized, and ran at six sites so the generalizability of the findings is really strong.” Dr. Piano also gave the study high marks for recruiting many African American patients, 47% of the study population, and its assessment of a patient-reported outcome, the KCCQ score.

Patients enrolled in TARGET-HF-DM averaged 59 years of age, about a third were women, and two-thirds had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction of 40% or less. Eighty percent of participants had New York Heart Association class II functional limitations, and a third also had atrial fibrillation. Their average serum level of the N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide at baseline was 1,309 pg/mL. Most patients were on standard heart failure and diabetes medications, with 88% receiving an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (in some cases coupled with sacubitril), 90% were on a beta-blocker, 50% were on a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 54% were on insulin, 47% were on a biguanidine, 25% were on a sulfonylurea, and 7% were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor. About half the patients also had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

Dr. Felker acknowledged that the 313 average increment in steps per day among patients in the intervention group, compared with controls was modest, but it represented about a 10% increase from baseline among patients who in general had a very sedentary life. All patients had received at the start of the study guidelines from the American Heart Association on appropriate types and levels of physical activity for patients with heart failure and diabetes. The researcher previously published a description of the design and rationale of the study.

The study followed patients for an additional 3 months beyond the end of the intervention period, and the excess step count among people in the intervention arm persisted, although the between-group difference was no longer significant. The researchers also analyzed changes during the intervention phase in abnormal fatty acid metabolites among a subgroup of 110 patients and found that these levels tended to decline among those in the intervention group but not among the controls. These metabolites have been associated with disordered metabolism in patient with heart failure, so the observed reduced levels were consistent with the other outcomes. “The signals all went in the direction of reduced metabolic dysregulation,” said Dr. Felker.

Despite the positive outcomes of the intervention studied, Dr. Felker said that this type of approach needs further refinement and study before it’s ready for widespread use. “I think TARGET-HF-DM is another piece of the puzzle, but like all small trials it needs replication in larger trials before adoption into practice guidelines,” he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Felker has been a consultant to Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana, and he has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Piano had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A 3-month lifestyle intervention that used a step counter and regular, personalized text messages to encourage increased mobility and adherence to medications led to a substantial rise in the quality of life in a randomized controlled study with 187 U.S. patients with heart failure and diabetes.

The TARGET-HF-DM study supplied a wrist-worn step counting device to adults with any type of heart failure and any type of diabetes at six U.S. sites and collected data on daily step counts and medication adherence through smartphone-based apps. Researchers randomized the patients to an intervention of thrice-weekly text messages that gave them personalized feedback on their recent activity and adherence and updated activity and adherence goals, or to a control group that only received a once-weekly generic message to wear the step counter.

After 3 months, patients in the intervention arm had an average incremental gain of 313 steps per day from baseline, compared with the controls, a significant difference for the study’s primary endpoint, G. Michael Felker, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
 

A ‘quite large’ increase in quality of life.

Perhaps more importantly, a secondary analysis assessed quality of life with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score, which showed after 3 months a 5.5-point average increased improvement among patients in the intervention arm, compared with controls. Score increases of 5 of more points on the KCCQ represent clinically meaningful changes.

This average, incremental KCCQ score improvement was “quite large relative to what we typically see in placebo-controlled trials of effective drugs,” said Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of cardiovascular research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute. If a similar magnitude change in KCCQ was associated with a drug treatment “we would say it was an incredibly large signal in terms of quality of life, so I think the patients are telling us that [the intervention] is making a clinically important difference.”

But Dr. Felker cautioned that the study was not blinded, raising the possibility that the change in quality of life could have been partially explained by “patients feeling more engaged about doing something for their health.”

His report omitted data on the medication adherence facet of the study, which will come out in a subsequent report, raising the possibility that some of the quality of life benefit as well as the ability of patients to boost their step count was related to more consistent treatment with their prescribed medications, but Dr. Felker discounted this possibility.

“The adherence intervention was basically a digital tool that helped people better remember their medication regimen. While it is possible that this could have influenced the KCCQ data this seems quite unlikely to me,” he said in an interview.
 

‘Exercise is the new magic’

“Exercise is the new magic,” commented Mariann R. Piano, PhD, a professor at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cochair of the session where Dr. Felker gave his report. “I love that the trial was pragmatic, randomized, and ran at six sites so the generalizability of the findings is really strong.” Dr. Piano also gave the study high marks for recruiting many African American patients, 47% of the study population, and its assessment of a patient-reported outcome, the KCCQ score.

Patients enrolled in TARGET-HF-DM averaged 59 years of age, about a third were women, and two-thirds had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction of 40% or less. Eighty percent of participants had New York Heart Association class II functional limitations, and a third also had atrial fibrillation. Their average serum level of the N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide at baseline was 1,309 pg/mL. Most patients were on standard heart failure and diabetes medications, with 88% receiving an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (in some cases coupled with sacubitril), 90% were on a beta-blocker, 50% were on a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 54% were on insulin, 47% were on a biguanidine, 25% were on a sulfonylurea, and 7% were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor. About half the patients also had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

Dr. Felker acknowledged that the 313 average increment in steps per day among patients in the intervention group, compared with controls was modest, but it represented about a 10% increase from baseline among patients who in general had a very sedentary life. All patients had received at the start of the study guidelines from the American Heart Association on appropriate types and levels of physical activity for patients with heart failure and diabetes. The researcher previously published a description of the design and rationale of the study.

The study followed patients for an additional 3 months beyond the end of the intervention period, and the excess step count among people in the intervention arm persisted, although the between-group difference was no longer significant. The researchers also analyzed changes during the intervention phase in abnormal fatty acid metabolites among a subgroup of 110 patients and found that these levels tended to decline among those in the intervention group but not among the controls. These metabolites have been associated with disordered metabolism in patient with heart failure, so the observed reduced levels were consistent with the other outcomes. “The signals all went in the direction of reduced metabolic dysregulation,” said Dr. Felker.

Despite the positive outcomes of the intervention studied, Dr. Felker said that this type of approach needs further refinement and study before it’s ready for widespread use. “I think TARGET-HF-DM is another piece of the puzzle, but like all small trials it needs replication in larger trials before adoption into practice guidelines,” he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Felker has been a consultant to Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana, and he has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Piano had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A 3-month lifestyle intervention that used a step counter and regular, personalized text messages to encourage increased mobility and adherence to medications led to a substantial rise in the quality of life in a randomized controlled study with 187 U.S. patients with heart failure and diabetes.

The TARGET-HF-DM study supplied a wrist-worn step counting device to adults with any type of heart failure and any type of diabetes at six U.S. sites and collected data on daily step counts and medication adherence through smartphone-based apps. Researchers randomized the patients to an intervention of thrice-weekly text messages that gave them personalized feedback on their recent activity and adherence and updated activity and adherence goals, or to a control group that only received a once-weekly generic message to wear the step counter.

After 3 months, patients in the intervention arm had an average incremental gain of 313 steps per day from baseline, compared with the controls, a significant difference for the study’s primary endpoint, G. Michael Felker, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
 

A ‘quite large’ increase in quality of life.

Perhaps more importantly, a secondary analysis assessed quality of life with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score, which showed after 3 months a 5.5-point average increased improvement among patients in the intervention arm, compared with controls. Score increases of 5 of more points on the KCCQ represent clinically meaningful changes.

This average, incremental KCCQ score improvement was “quite large relative to what we typically see in placebo-controlled trials of effective drugs,” said Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of cardiovascular research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute. If a similar magnitude change in KCCQ was associated with a drug treatment “we would say it was an incredibly large signal in terms of quality of life, so I think the patients are telling us that [the intervention] is making a clinically important difference.”

But Dr. Felker cautioned that the study was not blinded, raising the possibility that the change in quality of life could have been partially explained by “patients feeling more engaged about doing something for their health.”

His report omitted data on the medication adherence facet of the study, which will come out in a subsequent report, raising the possibility that some of the quality of life benefit as well as the ability of patients to boost their step count was related to more consistent treatment with their prescribed medications, but Dr. Felker discounted this possibility.

“The adherence intervention was basically a digital tool that helped people better remember their medication regimen. While it is possible that this could have influenced the KCCQ data this seems quite unlikely to me,” he said in an interview.
 

‘Exercise is the new magic’

“Exercise is the new magic,” commented Mariann R. Piano, PhD, a professor at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and cochair of the session where Dr. Felker gave his report. “I love that the trial was pragmatic, randomized, and ran at six sites so the generalizability of the findings is really strong.” Dr. Piano also gave the study high marks for recruiting many African American patients, 47% of the study population, and its assessment of a patient-reported outcome, the KCCQ score.

Patients enrolled in TARGET-HF-DM averaged 59 years of age, about a third were women, and two-thirds had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction of 40% or less. Eighty percent of participants had New York Heart Association class II functional limitations, and a third also had atrial fibrillation. Their average serum level of the N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide at baseline was 1,309 pg/mL. Most patients were on standard heart failure and diabetes medications, with 88% receiving an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (in some cases coupled with sacubitril), 90% were on a beta-blocker, 50% were on a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 54% were on insulin, 47% were on a biguanidine, 25% were on a sulfonylurea, and 7% were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor. About half the patients also had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

Dr. Felker acknowledged that the 313 average increment in steps per day among patients in the intervention group, compared with controls was modest, but it represented about a 10% increase from baseline among patients who in general had a very sedentary life. All patients had received at the start of the study guidelines from the American Heart Association on appropriate types and levels of physical activity for patients with heart failure and diabetes. The researcher previously published a description of the design and rationale of the study.

The study followed patients for an additional 3 months beyond the end of the intervention period, and the excess step count among people in the intervention arm persisted, although the between-group difference was no longer significant. The researchers also analyzed changes during the intervention phase in abnormal fatty acid metabolites among a subgroup of 110 patients and found that these levels tended to decline among those in the intervention group but not among the controls. These metabolites have been associated with disordered metabolism in patient with heart failure, so the observed reduced levels were consistent with the other outcomes. “The signals all went in the direction of reduced metabolic dysregulation,” said Dr. Felker.

Despite the positive outcomes of the intervention studied, Dr. Felker said that this type of approach needs further refinement and study before it’s ready for widespread use. “I think TARGET-HF-DM is another piece of the puzzle, but like all small trials it needs replication in larger trials before adoption into practice guidelines,” he added.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Felker has been a consultant to Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Novartis, Reprieve, and Sequana, and he has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Piano had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Bariatric surgery is associated with a reduction in risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is linked to a greater reduction than sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

Those are the key findings of a retrospective analysis of a large group of patients who received care at the Cleveland Clinic between 1998 and 2017. MACE is defined as first occurrence of coronary artery events, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, nephropathy, atrial fibrillation, and all-cause mortality.

“I think what it tells us is that, in making these choices and in counseling patients about the potential advantages of undergoing bariatric surgery for their obesity and diabetes, that they should know that they’re more likely to be protected by a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, although certainly sleeve gastrectomy is effective,” said study coauthor Steven E. Nissen, MD, who is the chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

Previous studies have shown a benefit to metabolic surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity, improving diabetes control and altering cardiometabolic risk factors. Others have shown a link between surgery and reduced mortality. Most studies examined the impact of RYGB. SG is a newer procedure, but its relative simplicity and lower complication rate have helped it become the most commonly performed metabolic surgery in the world.

“There was no study to compare gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy head to head in terms of reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease. There are studies comparing these two procedures for diabetes control and weight loss, but not specifically in terms of effects on their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. That’s the unique feature of this study,” said lead author Ali Aminian, MD, who is director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

The researchers included 2,287 adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², with no history of solid organ transplant, severe heart failure, or active cancer. 1,362 underwent RYGB, and 693 SG. Outcomes were compared with 11,435 matched nonsurgical patients.

At 5 years, 13.7% of the RYGB group experienced a MACE (95% confidence interval, 11.4-15.9), compared with 24.7% of the SG group for a relative reduction of 33% (95% CI, 19.0-30.0; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .035). The nonsurgical group had a 5-year MACE incidence of 30.4% (95% CI, 29.4-31.5). Compared with usual care, the risk of MACE was lower in both the RYGB group (HR, 0.53; P < .001) and the SG group (HR, 0.69; P < .001). The researchers also analyzed the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke (three-component MACE) at 5 years. The cumulative incidence of three-component MACE at 5 years was 15.5% in the usual care group, 6.4% in the RYGB group (HR, 0.53 versus usual care; P < .001) and 11.8% in the SG group (HR vs. usual care, 0.65; P = .006).

The RYGB group had less nephropathy at 5 years (2.8% vs. 8.3%; HR, 0.47; P = .005), and experienced a greater reduction in weight, glycated hemoglobin, and diabetes and cardiovascular medication use. At 5 years, RYGB was associated with a higher frequency of upper endoscopy (45.8% vs. 35.6%, P < .001) and abdominal surgical procedures (10.8% vs. 5.4%, P = .001), compared with SG.

“Both procedures are extremely safe and extremely effective,” said Dr. Aminian. He pointed out the need to consider multiple factors when choosing between the procedures, including overall health, weight, comorbidities, and the patient’s values and goals.

A few factors may be contraindicated for one procedure or another. The sleeve may worsen severe reflux disease, while the gastric bypass may interfere more with absorption of psychiatric medications. Some patients may have multiple comorbidities that could point to a less risky procedure. “Decision-making should not be solely based on findings of this study. All these conditions need to be considered when patients and surgeons make a final decision about the most appropriate procedure,” said Dr. Aminian.

Dr. Nissen noted that the associations were wide ranging, including classic outcomes like death, stroke, and heart failure, but also extending to heart failure, coronary events, cerebral vascular events, nephropathy, and atrial fibrillation. “I found the nephropathy results to be amongst the most striking, that Roux-en-Y really dramatically reduced the risk of neuropathy,” he added. That’s a particularly important point because end-stage renal disease is a common cause of diabetes mortality.

Dr. Nissen acknowledged the limitations of the retrospective nature of the study, though he feels confident that the relationships are causal. “Bariatric surgery desperately needs a randomized, controlled trial, where both groups get intensive dietary and lifestyle counseling, but one group gets metabolic surgery and the other doesn’t. Given the dramatic effects in diabetic patients of reducing their hemoglobin A1c in a sustained way, reducing their body weight. We think these are very strong data to suggest that we have a major reduction in all the endpoints. If we’re right about this, the randomized controlled trial will show that dramatic effect, and will convince even the skeptics that metabolic surgery is the best way to go.”

Bariatric surgery is associated with a reduction in risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is linked to a greater reduction than sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

Those are the key findings of a retrospective analysis of a large group of patients who received care at the Cleveland Clinic between 1998 and 2017. MACE is defined as first occurrence of coronary artery events, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, nephropathy, atrial fibrillation, and all-cause mortality.

“I think what it tells us is that, in making these choices and in counseling patients about the potential advantages of undergoing bariatric surgery for their obesity and diabetes, that they should know that they’re more likely to be protected by a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, although certainly sleeve gastrectomy is effective,” said study coauthor Steven E. Nissen, MD, who is the chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

Previous studies have shown a benefit to metabolic surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity, improving diabetes control and altering cardiometabolic risk factors. Others have shown a link between surgery and reduced mortality. Most studies examined the impact of RYGB. SG is a newer procedure, but its relative simplicity and lower complication rate have helped it become the most commonly performed metabolic surgery in the world.

“There was no study to compare gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy head to head in terms of reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease. There are studies comparing these two procedures for diabetes control and weight loss, but not specifically in terms of effects on their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. That’s the unique feature of this study,” said lead author Ali Aminian, MD, who is director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

The researchers included 2,287 adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², with no history of solid organ transplant, severe heart failure, or active cancer. 1,362 underwent RYGB, and 693 SG. Outcomes were compared with 11,435 matched nonsurgical patients.

At 5 years, 13.7% of the RYGB group experienced a MACE (95% confidence interval, 11.4-15.9), compared with 24.7% of the SG group for a relative reduction of 33% (95% CI, 19.0-30.0; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .035). The nonsurgical group had a 5-year MACE incidence of 30.4% (95% CI, 29.4-31.5). Compared with usual care, the risk of MACE was lower in both the RYGB group (HR, 0.53; P < .001) and the SG group (HR, 0.69; P < .001). The researchers also analyzed the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke (three-component MACE) at 5 years. The cumulative incidence of three-component MACE at 5 years was 15.5% in the usual care group, 6.4% in the RYGB group (HR, 0.53 versus usual care; P < .001) and 11.8% in the SG group (HR vs. usual care, 0.65; P = .006).

The RYGB group had less nephropathy at 5 years (2.8% vs. 8.3%; HR, 0.47; P = .005), and experienced a greater reduction in weight, glycated hemoglobin, and diabetes and cardiovascular medication use. At 5 years, RYGB was associated with a higher frequency of upper endoscopy (45.8% vs. 35.6%, P < .001) and abdominal surgical procedures (10.8% vs. 5.4%, P = .001), compared with SG.

“Both procedures are extremely safe and extremely effective,” said Dr. Aminian. He pointed out the need to consider multiple factors when choosing between the procedures, including overall health, weight, comorbidities, and the patient’s values and goals.

A few factors may be contraindicated for one procedure or another. The sleeve may worsen severe reflux disease, while the gastric bypass may interfere more with absorption of psychiatric medications. Some patients may have multiple comorbidities that could point to a less risky procedure. “Decision-making should not be solely based on findings of this study. All these conditions need to be considered when patients and surgeons make a final decision about the most appropriate procedure,” said Dr. Aminian.

Dr. Nissen noted that the associations were wide ranging, including classic outcomes like death, stroke, and heart failure, but also extending to heart failure, coronary events, cerebral vascular events, nephropathy, and atrial fibrillation. “I found the nephropathy results to be amongst the most striking, that Roux-en-Y really dramatically reduced the risk of neuropathy,” he added. That’s a particularly important point because end-stage renal disease is a common cause of diabetes mortality.

Dr. Nissen acknowledged the limitations of the retrospective nature of the study, though he feels confident that the relationships are causal. “Bariatric surgery desperately needs a randomized, controlled trial, where both groups get intensive dietary and lifestyle counseling, but one group gets metabolic surgery and the other doesn’t. Given the dramatic effects in diabetic patients of reducing their hemoglobin A1c in a sustained way, reducing their body weight. We think these are very strong data to suggest that we have a major reduction in all the endpoints. If we’re right about this, the randomized controlled trial will show that dramatic effect, and will convince even the skeptics that metabolic surgery is the best way to go.”

Bariatric surgery is associated with a reduction in risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is linked to a greater reduction than sleeve gastrectomy (SG).

Those are the key findings of a retrospective analysis of a large group of patients who received care at the Cleveland Clinic between 1998 and 2017. MACE is defined as first occurrence of coronary artery events, cerebrovascular events, heart failure, nephropathy, atrial fibrillation, and all-cause mortality.

“I think what it tells us is that, in making these choices and in counseling patients about the potential advantages of undergoing bariatric surgery for their obesity and diabetes, that they should know that they’re more likely to be protected by a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, although certainly sleeve gastrectomy is effective,” said study coauthor Steven E. Nissen, MD, who is the chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

Previous studies have shown a benefit to metabolic surgery in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity, improving diabetes control and altering cardiometabolic risk factors. Others have shown a link between surgery and reduced mortality. Most studies examined the impact of RYGB. SG is a newer procedure, but its relative simplicity and lower complication rate have helped it become the most commonly performed metabolic surgery in the world.

“There was no study to compare gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy head to head in terms of reduction in risk of cardiovascular disease. There are studies comparing these two procedures for diabetes control and weight loss, but not specifically in terms of effects on their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. That’s the unique feature of this study,” said lead author Ali Aminian, MD, who is director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

The researchers included 2,287 adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², with no history of solid organ transplant, severe heart failure, or active cancer. 1,362 underwent RYGB, and 693 SG. Outcomes were compared with 11,435 matched nonsurgical patients.

At 5 years, 13.7% of the RYGB group experienced a MACE (95% confidence interval, 11.4-15.9), compared with 24.7% of the SG group for a relative reduction of 33% (95% CI, 19.0-30.0; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .035). The nonsurgical group had a 5-year MACE incidence of 30.4% (95% CI, 29.4-31.5). Compared with usual care, the risk of MACE was lower in both the RYGB group (HR, 0.53; P < .001) and the SG group (HR, 0.69; P < .001). The researchers also analyzed the cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke (three-component MACE) at 5 years. The cumulative incidence of three-component MACE at 5 years was 15.5% in the usual care group, 6.4% in the RYGB group (HR, 0.53 versus usual care; P < .001) and 11.8% in the SG group (HR vs. usual care, 0.65; P = .006).

The RYGB group had less nephropathy at 5 years (2.8% vs. 8.3%; HR, 0.47; P = .005), and experienced a greater reduction in weight, glycated hemoglobin, and diabetes and cardiovascular medication use. At 5 years, RYGB was associated with a higher frequency of upper endoscopy (45.8% vs. 35.6%, P < .001) and abdominal surgical procedures (10.8% vs. 5.4%, P = .001), compared with SG.

“Both procedures are extremely safe and extremely effective,” said Dr. Aminian. He pointed out the need to consider multiple factors when choosing between the procedures, including overall health, weight, comorbidities, and the patient’s values and goals.

A few factors may be contraindicated for one procedure or another. The sleeve may worsen severe reflux disease, while the gastric bypass may interfere more with absorption of psychiatric medications. Some patients may have multiple comorbidities that could point to a less risky procedure. “Decision-making should not be solely based on findings of this study. All these conditions need to be considered when patients and surgeons make a final decision about the most appropriate procedure,” said Dr. Aminian.

Dr. Nissen noted that the associations were wide ranging, including classic outcomes like death, stroke, and heart failure, but also extending to heart failure, coronary events, cerebral vascular events, nephropathy, and atrial fibrillation. “I found the nephropathy results to be amongst the most striking, that Roux-en-Y really dramatically reduced the risk of neuropathy,” he added. That’s a particularly important point because end-stage renal disease is a common cause of diabetes mortality.

Dr. Nissen acknowledged the limitations of the retrospective nature of the study, though he feels confident that the relationships are causal. “Bariatric surgery desperately needs a randomized, controlled trial, where both groups get intensive dietary and lifestyle counseling, but one group gets metabolic surgery and the other doesn’t. Given the dramatic effects in diabetic patients of reducing their hemoglobin A1c in a sustained way, reducing their body weight. We think these are very strong data to suggest that we have a major reduction in all the endpoints. If we’re right about this, the randomized controlled trial will show that dramatic effect, and will convince even the skeptics that metabolic surgery is the best way to go.”

The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin scored a clear win in a randomized, controlled trial with more than 300 U.S. patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showing a significant and clinically meaningful benefit for the primary endpoint, a KCCQ measure of symptoms and physical limitations, after 12 weeks of treatment.

These results in the PRESERVED-HF study follow closely on the heals of the initial report from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial that showed a benefit from a different sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, empagliflozin (Jardiance) in nearly 6,000 randomized patients for the primary endpoint of preventing cardiovascular death or hospitalizations for heart failure.

In PRESERVED-HF, patients with HFpEF who received a standard, once-daily dose of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) had an average 5.8-point improvement in their condition as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CS), the study’s primary endpoint.

This is “the first study to demonstrate that an SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improves symptoms, physical limitations, and 6-minute walking distance in patients with HFpEF,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. The secondary endpoint of 6-minute walking distance “has been very difficult to improve in many previous studies of other treatments” tested in patients with HFpEF, noted Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute.

The results are “highly complementary” to the findings from large outcome trials, such as the findings from EMPEROR-Preserved, he said, and collectively the recent findings from these studies of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFpEF identify drugs in this class as a “new treatment option” for patients with a disorder that until now had no treatment with unequivocally proven efficacy and safety.
 

‘Impressive and unprecedented’ findings

The findings are “really impressive and unprecedented,” said Milton Packer, MD, a cardiologist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved in the study. “This is the largest KCCQ benefit ever seen in either patients with HFpEF or in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction,” said Dr. Packer, one of the investigators who led the EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

MDedge News

PRESERVED-HF randomized 324 patients diagnosed with heart failure and with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or higher at any of 26 U.S. centers, with 304 patients completing the planned final analysis after 12 weeks on treatment. Patients could be in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV, they had to have a baseline N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level of at least 225 pg/mL (or higher if they also had atrial fibrillation), and they required at least one of three markers of established heart failure: recent hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent outpatient visit that required treatment with an IV diuretic, elevated filling pressure measured by left or right catheterization, or structural heart disease detected by echocardiography.

The average age of the enrolled patients was 70 years, and they had been diagnosed with heart failure for about 3 years; 57% were women, 30% were African American, and their median body mass index was 35 kg/m². Roughly 42% had NYHA class III or IV disease, 56% had type 2 diabetes, their median estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55 mL/min per 1.73m², their median KCCQ-CS score at baseline was about 62, and their average 6-minute walk distance was 244 m.

These and other features of the enrolled population define a distinctly U.S. patient population, stressed Dr. Kosiborod, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The patients we enrolled are the patients we see in U.S. clinical practice,” he said in an interview. Importantly, the patient profile of a median BMI of 35 kg/m², a median KCCQ-CS score of 62 – “quite low,” noted Dr. Kosiborod – and having more than 40% of patients in NYHA functional class III defines a study population with a substantially greater burden of obesity, symptoms, and functional impairment compared with those enrolled in prior trials involving patients with HFpEF such as EMPEROR-Preserved.
 

Results complement findings from larger trials

PRESERVED-HF was an investigator-initiated study designed to inform clinical practice, not as a pivotal trial like EMPEROR-Preserved, which aims to gather evidence to support a new indication for regulatory approval. (On Sept. 9, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration granted empagliflozin “breakthrough therapy” status for treating HFpEF based on the EMPEROR-Preserved results, which will fast-track the agency’s decision on this indication.)

Dr. Kosiborod noted that he and his associates designed PRESERVED-HF with adequate patient numbers to power a statistically valid assessment of effect on KCCQ-CS score. While the new findings will not by themselves lead to a new indication for dapagliflozin to treat patients with HFpEF, they will potentially complement the pending results of another trial, DELIVER, by showing efficacy and safety in a uniquely U.S. patient population. DELIVER is a pivotal, global trial of dapagliflozin in more than 6,000 patients with HFpEF that’s on track to report findings in 2022.

Dr. Kosiborod also stressed that dapagliflozin has U.S.-approved indications for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, and for patients with chronic kidney disease, and that a majority of patients enrolled in PRESERVED-HF had one or both of these conditions. That makes the new findings especially compelling for patients with either type 2 diabetes or chronic kidney disease and HFpEF who are not already receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Other findings that he reported showed a range of benefits consistent with the primary endpoint, including the KCCQ overall summary score, which also showed a significant 4.5-point average increase over placebo after 12 weeks. Analysis by the percentage of patients achieving at least a 5-point improvement in the KCCQ clinical summary score (the threshold for a clinically meaningful improvement) showed that about 45% of patients treated with dapagliflozin reached this mark compared with roughly 35% of patients in the placebo arm, indicating a number needed to treat of nine to have one additional patient achieve this threshold after 12 weeks. Average improvement in 6-minute walk distance was about 20 m with dapagliflozin compared with placebo.

No heterogeneity of effect by baseline ejection fraction.

Subgroup analyses showed no heterogeneity of response across 12 different ways of subdividing the study population, including age, sex, race, diabetes status, and BMI. The median left ventricular ejection fraction among enrolled patients was 60%, and the findings showed identical KCCQ improvements among patients with ejection fractions less than the median and those with an ejection fraction above the median.

This last finding was especially relevant because the EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a possible signal of heterogeneity by ejection fraction and an attenuated effect among patients with HFpEF and an ejection fraction above the 60%-65% range, although the certainty of this finding is currently controversial.

The impact of empagliflozin on KCCQ clinical summary score in EMPEROR-Preserved showed an average incremental improvement of 1.32 points compared with placebo, a significant difference, but more modest than the increment from dapagliflozin treatment seen in PRESERVED-HF. Dr. Kosiborod hypothesized that this difference might be mostly because of the different patient populations enrolled in the two studies.

Dr. Kosiborod noted that a report on the PRESERVED-HF results will soon appear in Nature Medicine.

PRESERVED-HF was funded by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga), but the trials’ design and conduct were independent of this funding source. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and numerous other companies, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin scored a clear win in a randomized, controlled trial with more than 300 U.S. patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showing a significant and clinically meaningful benefit for the primary endpoint, a KCCQ measure of symptoms and physical limitations, after 12 weeks of treatment.

These results in the PRESERVED-HF study follow closely on the heals of the initial report from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial that showed a benefit from a different sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, empagliflozin (Jardiance) in nearly 6,000 randomized patients for the primary endpoint of preventing cardiovascular death or hospitalizations for heart failure.

In PRESERVED-HF, patients with HFpEF who received a standard, once-daily dose of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) had an average 5.8-point improvement in their condition as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CS), the study’s primary endpoint.

This is “the first study to demonstrate that an SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improves symptoms, physical limitations, and 6-minute walking distance in patients with HFpEF,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. The secondary endpoint of 6-minute walking distance “has been very difficult to improve in many previous studies of other treatments” tested in patients with HFpEF, noted Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute.

The results are “highly complementary” to the findings from large outcome trials, such as the findings from EMPEROR-Preserved, he said, and collectively the recent findings from these studies of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFpEF identify drugs in this class as a “new treatment option” for patients with a disorder that until now had no treatment with unequivocally proven efficacy and safety.
 

‘Impressive and unprecedented’ findings

The findings are “really impressive and unprecedented,” said Milton Packer, MD, a cardiologist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved in the study. “This is the largest KCCQ benefit ever seen in either patients with HFpEF or in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction,” said Dr. Packer, one of the investigators who led the EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

MDedge News

PRESERVED-HF randomized 324 patients diagnosed with heart failure and with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or higher at any of 26 U.S. centers, with 304 patients completing the planned final analysis after 12 weeks on treatment. Patients could be in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV, they had to have a baseline N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level of at least 225 pg/mL (or higher if they also had atrial fibrillation), and they required at least one of three markers of established heart failure: recent hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent outpatient visit that required treatment with an IV diuretic, elevated filling pressure measured by left or right catheterization, or structural heart disease detected by echocardiography.

The average age of the enrolled patients was 70 years, and they had been diagnosed with heart failure for about 3 years; 57% were women, 30% were African American, and their median body mass index was 35 kg/m². Roughly 42% had NYHA class III or IV disease, 56% had type 2 diabetes, their median estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55 mL/min per 1.73m², their median KCCQ-CS score at baseline was about 62, and their average 6-minute walk distance was 244 m.

These and other features of the enrolled population define a distinctly U.S. patient population, stressed Dr. Kosiborod, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The patients we enrolled are the patients we see in U.S. clinical practice,” he said in an interview. Importantly, the patient profile of a median BMI of 35 kg/m², a median KCCQ-CS score of 62 – “quite low,” noted Dr. Kosiborod – and having more than 40% of patients in NYHA functional class III defines a study population with a substantially greater burden of obesity, symptoms, and functional impairment compared with those enrolled in prior trials involving patients with HFpEF such as EMPEROR-Preserved.
 

Results complement findings from larger trials

PRESERVED-HF was an investigator-initiated study designed to inform clinical practice, not as a pivotal trial like EMPEROR-Preserved, which aims to gather evidence to support a new indication for regulatory approval. (On Sept. 9, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration granted empagliflozin “breakthrough therapy” status for treating HFpEF based on the EMPEROR-Preserved results, which will fast-track the agency’s decision on this indication.)

Dr. Kosiborod noted that he and his associates designed PRESERVED-HF with adequate patient numbers to power a statistically valid assessment of effect on KCCQ-CS score. While the new findings will not by themselves lead to a new indication for dapagliflozin to treat patients with HFpEF, they will potentially complement the pending results of another trial, DELIVER, by showing efficacy and safety in a uniquely U.S. patient population. DELIVER is a pivotal, global trial of dapagliflozin in more than 6,000 patients with HFpEF that’s on track to report findings in 2022.

Dr. Kosiborod also stressed that dapagliflozin has U.S.-approved indications for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, and for patients with chronic kidney disease, and that a majority of patients enrolled in PRESERVED-HF had one or both of these conditions. That makes the new findings especially compelling for patients with either type 2 diabetes or chronic kidney disease and HFpEF who are not already receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Other findings that he reported showed a range of benefits consistent with the primary endpoint, including the KCCQ overall summary score, which also showed a significant 4.5-point average increase over placebo after 12 weeks. Analysis by the percentage of patients achieving at least a 5-point improvement in the KCCQ clinical summary score (the threshold for a clinically meaningful improvement) showed that about 45% of patients treated with dapagliflozin reached this mark compared with roughly 35% of patients in the placebo arm, indicating a number needed to treat of nine to have one additional patient achieve this threshold after 12 weeks. Average improvement in 6-minute walk distance was about 20 m with dapagliflozin compared with placebo.

No heterogeneity of effect by baseline ejection fraction.

Subgroup analyses showed no heterogeneity of response across 12 different ways of subdividing the study population, including age, sex, race, diabetes status, and BMI. The median left ventricular ejection fraction among enrolled patients was 60%, and the findings showed identical KCCQ improvements among patients with ejection fractions less than the median and those with an ejection fraction above the median.

This last finding was especially relevant because the EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a possible signal of heterogeneity by ejection fraction and an attenuated effect among patients with HFpEF and an ejection fraction above the 60%-65% range, although the certainty of this finding is currently controversial.

The impact of empagliflozin on KCCQ clinical summary score in EMPEROR-Preserved showed an average incremental improvement of 1.32 points compared with placebo, a significant difference, but more modest than the increment from dapagliflozin treatment seen in PRESERVED-HF. Dr. Kosiborod hypothesized that this difference might be mostly because of the different patient populations enrolled in the two studies.

Dr. Kosiborod noted that a report on the PRESERVED-HF results will soon appear in Nature Medicine.

PRESERVED-HF was funded by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga), but the trials’ design and conduct were independent of this funding source. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and numerous other companies, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin scored a clear win in a randomized, controlled trial with more than 300 U.S. patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), showing a significant and clinically meaningful benefit for the primary endpoint, a KCCQ measure of symptoms and physical limitations, after 12 weeks of treatment.

These results in the PRESERVED-HF study follow closely on the heals of the initial report from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial that showed a benefit from a different sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, empagliflozin (Jardiance) in nearly 6,000 randomized patients for the primary endpoint of preventing cardiovascular death or hospitalizations for heart failure.

In PRESERVED-HF, patients with HFpEF who received a standard, once-daily dose of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) had an average 5.8-point improvement in their condition as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CS), the study’s primary endpoint.

This is “the first study to demonstrate that an SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improves symptoms, physical limitations, and 6-minute walking distance in patients with HFpEF,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. The secondary endpoint of 6-minute walking distance “has been very difficult to improve in many previous studies of other treatments” tested in patients with HFpEF, noted Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute.

The results are “highly complementary” to the findings from large outcome trials, such as the findings from EMPEROR-Preserved, he said, and collectively the recent findings from these studies of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFpEF identify drugs in this class as a “new treatment option” for patients with a disorder that until now had no treatment with unequivocally proven efficacy and safety.
 

‘Impressive and unprecedented’ findings

The findings are “really impressive and unprecedented,” said Milton Packer, MD, a cardiologist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas who was not involved in the study. “This is the largest KCCQ benefit ever seen in either patients with HFpEF or in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction,” said Dr. Packer, one of the investigators who led the EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

MDedge News

PRESERVED-HF randomized 324 patients diagnosed with heart failure and with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 45% or higher at any of 26 U.S. centers, with 304 patients completing the planned final analysis after 12 weeks on treatment. Patients could be in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV, they had to have a baseline N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level of at least 225 pg/mL (or higher if they also had atrial fibrillation), and they required at least one of three markers of established heart failure: recent hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent outpatient visit that required treatment with an IV diuretic, elevated filling pressure measured by left or right catheterization, or structural heart disease detected by echocardiography.

The average age of the enrolled patients was 70 years, and they had been diagnosed with heart failure for about 3 years; 57% were women, 30% were African American, and their median body mass index was 35 kg/m². Roughly 42% had NYHA class III or IV disease, 56% had type 2 diabetes, their median estimated glomerular filtration rate was about 55 mL/min per 1.73m², their median KCCQ-CS score at baseline was about 62, and their average 6-minute walk distance was 244 m.

These and other features of the enrolled population define a distinctly U.S. patient population, stressed Dr. Kosiborod, professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The patients we enrolled are the patients we see in U.S. clinical practice,” he said in an interview. Importantly, the patient profile of a median BMI of 35 kg/m², a median KCCQ-CS score of 62 – “quite low,” noted Dr. Kosiborod – and having more than 40% of patients in NYHA functional class III defines a study population with a substantially greater burden of obesity, symptoms, and functional impairment compared with those enrolled in prior trials involving patients with HFpEF such as EMPEROR-Preserved.
 

Results complement findings from larger trials

PRESERVED-HF was an investigator-initiated study designed to inform clinical practice, not as a pivotal trial like EMPEROR-Preserved, which aims to gather evidence to support a new indication for regulatory approval. (On Sept. 9, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration granted empagliflozin “breakthrough therapy” status for treating HFpEF based on the EMPEROR-Preserved results, which will fast-track the agency’s decision on this indication.)

Dr. Kosiborod noted that he and his associates designed PRESERVED-HF with adequate patient numbers to power a statistically valid assessment of effect on KCCQ-CS score. While the new findings will not by themselves lead to a new indication for dapagliflozin to treat patients with HFpEF, they will potentially complement the pending results of another trial, DELIVER, by showing efficacy and safety in a uniquely U.S. patient population. DELIVER is a pivotal, global trial of dapagliflozin in more than 6,000 patients with HFpEF that’s on track to report findings in 2022.

Dr. Kosiborod also stressed that dapagliflozin has U.S.-approved indications for treating patients with type 2 diabetes, and for patients with chronic kidney disease, and that a majority of patients enrolled in PRESERVED-HF had one or both of these conditions. That makes the new findings especially compelling for patients with either type 2 diabetes or chronic kidney disease and HFpEF who are not already receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Other findings that he reported showed a range of benefits consistent with the primary endpoint, including the KCCQ overall summary score, which also showed a significant 4.5-point average increase over placebo after 12 weeks. Analysis by the percentage of patients achieving at least a 5-point improvement in the KCCQ clinical summary score (the threshold for a clinically meaningful improvement) showed that about 45% of patients treated with dapagliflozin reached this mark compared with roughly 35% of patients in the placebo arm, indicating a number needed to treat of nine to have one additional patient achieve this threshold after 12 weeks. Average improvement in 6-minute walk distance was about 20 m with dapagliflozin compared with placebo.

No heterogeneity of effect by baseline ejection fraction.

Subgroup analyses showed no heterogeneity of response across 12 different ways of subdividing the study population, including age, sex, race, diabetes status, and BMI. The median left ventricular ejection fraction among enrolled patients was 60%, and the findings showed identical KCCQ improvements among patients with ejection fractions less than the median and those with an ejection fraction above the median.

This last finding was especially relevant because the EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a possible signal of heterogeneity by ejection fraction and an attenuated effect among patients with HFpEF and an ejection fraction above the 60%-65% range, although the certainty of this finding is currently controversial.

The impact of empagliflozin on KCCQ clinical summary score in EMPEROR-Preserved showed an average incremental improvement of 1.32 points compared with placebo, a significant difference, but more modest than the increment from dapagliflozin treatment seen in PRESERVED-HF. Dr. Kosiborod hypothesized that this difference might be mostly because of the different patient populations enrolled in the two studies.

Dr. Kosiborod noted that a report on the PRESERVED-HF results will soon appear in Nature Medicine.

PRESERVED-HF was funded by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga), but the trials’ design and conduct were independent of this funding source. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and numerous other companies, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca and numerous other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The new guideline on management of heart failure (HF) from the European Society of Cardiology seemed to bear an asterisk or footnote even before its full unveiling in the early hours of ESC Congress 2021.

frankpeters/Getty Images

The document would offer little new in the arena of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), so understandably the fast-approaching presentation of a major HFpEF trial – arguably the conference’s marquee event – would feel to some like the elephant in the room.

“I’d like to highlight this unfortunate timing of the guideline, because it’s an hour or 2 before we hear the full story from EMPEROR-Preserved, which I’m sure will change the guidelines,” Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy, France, said wryly.

Anticipation of the trial’s full presentation was intense as the ESC congress got underway, in part because the top-line and incomplete message from EMPEROR-Preserved had already been released: Patients with HFpEF treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) showed a significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization.

Although empagliflozin is the first medication to achieve that status in a major HFpEF trial, conspicuously absent from the early announcement were the magnitude of “benefit” and any data. Still, the tantalizing top-line results mean that technically, at least, “we have a drug which is effective in reduced and preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. Zannad said.

But the new guideline, published online Aug. 27, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and comprehensively described that day at the congress, was never really expected to consider results from EMPEROR-Reduced. “These new indications do need to go through the regulatory authorities,” such as the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, observed Carlos Aguiar, MD, Hospital Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal.

“It does take some time for the whole process to be concluded and, finally, as physicians, being able to implement it in clinical practice,” Dr. Aguiar said as moderator of press briefing prior to the ESC congress.

The ESC guideline’s next iteration or update could well include an SGLT2 inhibitor recommendation that applies beyond the ejection fraction limits of HFrEF. Still, the document summarized that day reflects a number of pivotal concepts with profound treatment implications. Among them are the field’s latest paradigm for medical therapy of HFrEF and the increasingly accepted division of traditional HFpEF into two entities: HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF); and HFpEF, with its left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) threshold raised to 50%.

In fact, HFmrEF in the new document is a drug-therapy indication that barely existed a few years ago but grew in prominence after secondary findings from trials like TOPCAT for spironolactone and PARAGON-HF for sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto, Novartis), an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI). Still, the HFmrEF recommendations come with different class and level-of-evidence designations.

Those new guideline features and others in the realm of pharmacologic therapy were summarized by the document’s authors at the 2021 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) meeting, and covered at the time by this news organization

The ‘fantastic four’

One of the document’s central recommendations specifies which contemporary drug classes should be initiated, and when, in patients with HFrEF. An ACE inhibitor or ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor collectively earned a class I recommendation, “given the importance of these key HFrEF therapies, some of which have been shown to improve outcomes within a month of initiation,” observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD.

An agent from each of the four classes is to be “commenced and up-titrated as quickly and as safely as possible, whilst using the lowest effective dose of loop diuretic to relieve congestion,” said Dr. Gardner, from Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland, when presenting the full HFrEF portion of the guidelines.

The oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo, Merck), which recently emerged from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization, gained a class IIb recommendation.

The document’s “simplified algorithm” for managing such patients overall and the advent of SGLT2 inhibitors are new twists in ESC guidelines for HF. But the way the four drug classes are started in patients is key and could take some practitioners time to get used to. There is no prespecified order of initiation.

“We’ve left the door open for clinicians to evaluate the evidence to make sure these four drugs are started, and to tailor how to do it according to the patient,” based on clinical considerations such as blood pressure or renal function, said Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, cochair of the guideline task force.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor trials were done on top of therapy with ACE inhibitors or ARNI, beta-blockers, and MRAs, so some people no doubt will choose to follow a sequenced approach,” Dr. McDonagh said. Other practitioners will consider each patient and attempt to get all four started “as quickly and safely as possible based on the phenotype.”

Importantly, clinicians “should not wait for weeks, months, or years until you have the four drugs in the patient, but you should do this within weeks,” cautioned Johann Bauersachs, MD, Hannover (Germany) Medical School, a discussant for the guideline presentation who is listed as a reviewer on the document.

Although angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors are sometimes thought of as interchangeable, the new guideline does not give them the same weight. “The angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan is a constituent of the ARNI,” Dr. McDonagh noted. “So, the place of ARBs in heart failure has been downgraded in HFrEF. They are really for those who are intolerant of an ACE inhibitor or an ARNI.”

In practice, ARBs are likely to be used as first-line therapy in some circumstances, observed Dr. Bauersachs. They are “the default option in, unfortunately, many low-income countries that may not afford sacubitril-valsartan. And I know that there are many of them.”
 

Tweaks to device recommendations

The new document contains several new wrinkles in the recommendations for HF device therapy, which should usually be considered only if still appropriate after at least 3 months of optimal medical therapy, Dr. Gardner said.

For example, use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been demoted from its previous class I recommendation to class II, level of evidence A, in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy “in light of the data from the DANISH study,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2016 DANISH trial was noteworthy for questioning the survival benefits of ICDs in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were also receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

The new document also puts greater emphasis on a range of specific CRT patient-selection criteria. Beyond the conventional recommended standards of an LVEF of 35% or less, QRS of at least 150 ms, and left-bundle-branch block on optimal meds, consideration can be given to CRT if the QRS is only 130 ms or greater. “And where it’s appropriate to do so, an ICD could be an option,” Dr. Gardner said.

It also recommends CRT as a replacement for right ventricular pacing in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block. “And this, for the first time, includes patients with atrial fibrillation,” he said. “The previous indications for CRT were in individuals in sinus rhythm.”

The new document recommends that HF in any patient be classified as HFrEF, defined by an LVEF of ≤40%; HFmrEF, defined by an LVEF of 41%-49%; or HFpEF, defined by an LVEF of at least 50%. “Importantly, for all forms, the presence of the clinical syndrome of heart failure is a prerequisite,” observed Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, at the presentation.

In a critical update from previous guidelines, the term HF with “mid-range” ejection fraction was replaced by the term specifying “mildly reduced” ejection fraction, Dr. Lam noted. The shift retains the acronym but now reflects growing appreciation that HFmrEF patients can benefit from treatments also used in HFrEF, including ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, MRAs, and sacubitril-valsartan, she said.

Support for that relationship comes largely from post hoc subgroup analyses of trials that featured some patients with LVEF 40%-49%. That includes most HFpEF trials represented in the guideline document, but also EMPEROR-Preserved, which saw gains for the primary outcome across the entire range of LVEF above 40%.

The LVEF-based definitions are consistent with a recent HF classification proposal endorsed by the ESC and subspecialty societies in Europe, North America, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, and China.

The document doesn’t update recommendations for HFpEF, in which “no treatment has been shown to convincingly reduce mortality or morbidity,” Dr. Lam observed. Still, she noted, the guideline task force “acknowledges that treatment options for HFpEF are being revised even as the guidelines have been published.”

That could be a reference to empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Preserved, but it also refers to the strikingly broad wording of an expanded indication for sacubitril-valsartan in the United States – “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure” – without specific restrictions on the basis of LVEF. The new indication was announced in early 2021, too late to be considered in the new guidelines.
 

Whither LVEF-based definitions?

During discussion after the guideline presentation, Dr. Zannad speculated on the future of HF classifications based on ventricular function, given trial evidence in recent years that some agents – notably spironolactone, sacubitril-valsartan, and now, apparently, empagliflozin – might be effective in HFpEF as well as HFrEF.

Will the field continue with “LVEF-centric” distinctions across the range of HF, or transition to “some definition in which drug therapies can be used independently across the full spectrum of ejection fraction?” Dr. Zannad posed.

“I think we need to wait and see what some of these trials with the SGLT2 inhibitors are going to show in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. McDonagh replied. “And I think that will be a step for the next guideline, completely redefining heart failure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The new guideline on management of heart failure (HF) from the European Society of Cardiology seemed to bear an asterisk or footnote even before its full unveiling in the early hours of ESC Congress 2021.

frankpeters/Getty Images

The document would offer little new in the arena of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), so understandably the fast-approaching presentation of a major HFpEF trial – arguably the conference’s marquee event – would feel to some like the elephant in the room.

“I’d like to highlight this unfortunate timing of the guideline, because it’s an hour or 2 before we hear the full story from EMPEROR-Preserved, which I’m sure will change the guidelines,” Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy, France, said wryly.

Anticipation of the trial’s full presentation was intense as the ESC congress got underway, in part because the top-line and incomplete message from EMPEROR-Preserved had already been released: Patients with HFpEF treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) showed a significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization.

Although empagliflozin is the first medication to achieve that status in a major HFpEF trial, conspicuously absent from the early announcement were the magnitude of “benefit” and any data. Still, the tantalizing top-line results mean that technically, at least, “we have a drug which is effective in reduced and preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. Zannad said.

But the new guideline, published online Aug. 27, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and comprehensively described that day at the congress, was never really expected to consider results from EMPEROR-Reduced. “These new indications do need to go through the regulatory authorities,” such as the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, observed Carlos Aguiar, MD, Hospital Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal.

“It does take some time for the whole process to be concluded and, finally, as physicians, being able to implement it in clinical practice,” Dr. Aguiar said as moderator of press briefing prior to the ESC congress.

The ESC guideline’s next iteration or update could well include an SGLT2 inhibitor recommendation that applies beyond the ejection fraction limits of HFrEF. Still, the document summarized that day reflects a number of pivotal concepts with profound treatment implications. Among them are the field’s latest paradigm for medical therapy of HFrEF and the increasingly accepted division of traditional HFpEF into two entities: HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF); and HFpEF, with its left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) threshold raised to 50%.

In fact, HFmrEF in the new document is a drug-therapy indication that barely existed a few years ago but grew in prominence after secondary findings from trials like TOPCAT for spironolactone and PARAGON-HF for sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto, Novartis), an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI). Still, the HFmrEF recommendations come with different class and level-of-evidence designations.

Those new guideline features and others in the realm of pharmacologic therapy were summarized by the document’s authors at the 2021 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) meeting, and covered at the time by this news organization

The ‘fantastic four’

One of the document’s central recommendations specifies which contemporary drug classes should be initiated, and when, in patients with HFrEF. An ACE inhibitor or ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor collectively earned a class I recommendation, “given the importance of these key HFrEF therapies, some of which have been shown to improve outcomes within a month of initiation,” observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD.

An agent from each of the four classes is to be “commenced and up-titrated as quickly and as safely as possible, whilst using the lowest effective dose of loop diuretic to relieve congestion,” said Dr. Gardner, from Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland, when presenting the full HFrEF portion of the guidelines.

The oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo, Merck), which recently emerged from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization, gained a class IIb recommendation.

The document’s “simplified algorithm” for managing such patients overall and the advent of SGLT2 inhibitors are new twists in ESC guidelines for HF. But the way the four drug classes are started in patients is key and could take some practitioners time to get used to. There is no prespecified order of initiation.

“We’ve left the door open for clinicians to evaluate the evidence to make sure these four drugs are started, and to tailor how to do it according to the patient,” based on clinical considerations such as blood pressure or renal function, said Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, cochair of the guideline task force.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor trials were done on top of therapy with ACE inhibitors or ARNI, beta-blockers, and MRAs, so some people no doubt will choose to follow a sequenced approach,” Dr. McDonagh said. Other practitioners will consider each patient and attempt to get all four started “as quickly and safely as possible based on the phenotype.”

Importantly, clinicians “should not wait for weeks, months, or years until you have the four drugs in the patient, but you should do this within weeks,” cautioned Johann Bauersachs, MD, Hannover (Germany) Medical School, a discussant for the guideline presentation who is listed as a reviewer on the document.

Although angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors are sometimes thought of as interchangeable, the new guideline does not give them the same weight. “The angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan is a constituent of the ARNI,” Dr. McDonagh noted. “So, the place of ARBs in heart failure has been downgraded in HFrEF. They are really for those who are intolerant of an ACE inhibitor or an ARNI.”

In practice, ARBs are likely to be used as first-line therapy in some circumstances, observed Dr. Bauersachs. They are “the default option in, unfortunately, many low-income countries that may not afford sacubitril-valsartan. And I know that there are many of them.”
 

Tweaks to device recommendations

The new document contains several new wrinkles in the recommendations for HF device therapy, which should usually be considered only if still appropriate after at least 3 months of optimal medical therapy, Dr. Gardner said.

For example, use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been demoted from its previous class I recommendation to class II, level of evidence A, in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy “in light of the data from the DANISH study,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2016 DANISH trial was noteworthy for questioning the survival benefits of ICDs in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were also receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

The new document also puts greater emphasis on a range of specific CRT patient-selection criteria. Beyond the conventional recommended standards of an LVEF of 35% or less, QRS of at least 150 ms, and left-bundle-branch block on optimal meds, consideration can be given to CRT if the QRS is only 130 ms or greater. “And where it’s appropriate to do so, an ICD could be an option,” Dr. Gardner said.

It also recommends CRT as a replacement for right ventricular pacing in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block. “And this, for the first time, includes patients with atrial fibrillation,” he said. “The previous indications for CRT were in individuals in sinus rhythm.”

The new document recommends that HF in any patient be classified as HFrEF, defined by an LVEF of ≤40%; HFmrEF, defined by an LVEF of 41%-49%; or HFpEF, defined by an LVEF of at least 50%. “Importantly, for all forms, the presence of the clinical syndrome of heart failure is a prerequisite,” observed Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, at the presentation.

In a critical update from previous guidelines, the term HF with “mid-range” ejection fraction was replaced by the term specifying “mildly reduced” ejection fraction, Dr. Lam noted. The shift retains the acronym but now reflects growing appreciation that HFmrEF patients can benefit from treatments also used in HFrEF, including ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, MRAs, and sacubitril-valsartan, she said.

Support for that relationship comes largely from post hoc subgroup analyses of trials that featured some patients with LVEF 40%-49%. That includes most HFpEF trials represented in the guideline document, but also EMPEROR-Preserved, which saw gains for the primary outcome across the entire range of LVEF above 40%.

The LVEF-based definitions are consistent with a recent HF classification proposal endorsed by the ESC and subspecialty societies in Europe, North America, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, and China.

The document doesn’t update recommendations for HFpEF, in which “no treatment has been shown to convincingly reduce mortality or morbidity,” Dr. Lam observed. Still, she noted, the guideline task force “acknowledges that treatment options for HFpEF are being revised even as the guidelines have been published.”

That could be a reference to empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Preserved, but it also refers to the strikingly broad wording of an expanded indication for sacubitril-valsartan in the United States – “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure” – without specific restrictions on the basis of LVEF. The new indication was announced in early 2021, too late to be considered in the new guidelines.
 

Whither LVEF-based definitions?

During discussion after the guideline presentation, Dr. Zannad speculated on the future of HF classifications based on ventricular function, given trial evidence in recent years that some agents – notably spironolactone, sacubitril-valsartan, and now, apparently, empagliflozin – might be effective in HFpEF as well as HFrEF.

Will the field continue with “LVEF-centric” distinctions across the range of HF, or transition to “some definition in which drug therapies can be used independently across the full spectrum of ejection fraction?” Dr. Zannad posed.

“I think we need to wait and see what some of these trials with the SGLT2 inhibitors are going to show in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. McDonagh replied. “And I think that will be a step for the next guideline, completely redefining heart failure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The new guideline on management of heart failure (HF) from the European Society of Cardiology seemed to bear an asterisk or footnote even before its full unveiling in the early hours of ESC Congress 2021.

frankpeters/Getty Images

The document would offer little new in the arena of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), so understandably the fast-approaching presentation of a major HFpEF trial – arguably the conference’s marquee event – would feel to some like the elephant in the room.

“I’d like to highlight this unfortunate timing of the guideline, because it’s an hour or 2 before we hear the full story from EMPEROR-Preserved, which I’m sure will change the guidelines,” Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, University of Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy, France, said wryly.

Anticipation of the trial’s full presentation was intense as the ESC congress got underway, in part because the top-line and incomplete message from EMPEROR-Preserved had already been released: Patients with HFpEF treated with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) showed a significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization.

Although empagliflozin is the first medication to achieve that status in a major HFpEF trial, conspicuously absent from the early announcement were the magnitude of “benefit” and any data. Still, the tantalizing top-line results mean that technically, at least, “we have a drug which is effective in reduced and preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. Zannad said.

But the new guideline, published online Aug. 27, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and comprehensively described that day at the congress, was never really expected to consider results from EMPEROR-Reduced. “These new indications do need to go through the regulatory authorities,” such as the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, observed Carlos Aguiar, MD, Hospital Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal.

“It does take some time for the whole process to be concluded and, finally, as physicians, being able to implement it in clinical practice,” Dr. Aguiar said as moderator of press briefing prior to the ESC congress.

The ESC guideline’s next iteration or update could well include an SGLT2 inhibitor recommendation that applies beyond the ejection fraction limits of HFrEF. Still, the document summarized that day reflects a number of pivotal concepts with profound treatment implications. Among them are the field’s latest paradigm for medical therapy of HFrEF and the increasingly accepted division of traditional HFpEF into two entities: HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF); and HFpEF, with its left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) threshold raised to 50%.

In fact, HFmrEF in the new document is a drug-therapy indication that barely existed a few years ago but grew in prominence after secondary findings from trials like TOPCAT for spironolactone and PARAGON-HF for sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto, Novartis), an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI). Still, the HFmrEF recommendations come with different class and level-of-evidence designations.

Those new guideline features and others in the realm of pharmacologic therapy were summarized by the document’s authors at the 2021 Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA) meeting, and covered at the time by this news organization

The ‘fantastic four’

One of the document’s central recommendations specifies which contemporary drug classes should be initiated, and when, in patients with HFrEF. An ACE inhibitor or ARNI, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor collectively earned a class I recommendation, “given the importance of these key HFrEF therapies, some of which have been shown to improve outcomes within a month of initiation,” observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD.

An agent from each of the four classes is to be “commenced and up-titrated as quickly and as safely as possible, whilst using the lowest effective dose of loop diuretic to relieve congestion,” said Dr. Gardner, from Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, Scotland, when presenting the full HFrEF portion of the guidelines.

The oral soluble guanylate-cyclase receptor stimulator vericiguat (Verquvo, Merck), which recently emerged from the VICTORIA trial as a modest success for patients with HFrEF and a previous HF hospitalization, gained a class IIb recommendation.

The document’s “simplified algorithm” for managing such patients overall and the advent of SGLT2 inhibitors are new twists in ESC guidelines for HF. But the way the four drug classes are started in patients is key and could take some practitioners time to get used to. There is no prespecified order of initiation.

“We’ve left the door open for clinicians to evaluate the evidence to make sure these four drugs are started, and to tailor how to do it according to the patient,” based on clinical considerations such as blood pressure or renal function, said Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, King’s College London, cochair of the guideline task force.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor trials were done on top of therapy with ACE inhibitors or ARNI, beta-blockers, and MRAs, so some people no doubt will choose to follow a sequenced approach,” Dr. McDonagh said. Other practitioners will consider each patient and attempt to get all four started “as quickly and safely as possible based on the phenotype.”

Importantly, clinicians “should not wait for weeks, months, or years until you have the four drugs in the patient, but you should do this within weeks,” cautioned Johann Bauersachs, MD, Hannover (Germany) Medical School, a discussant for the guideline presentation who is listed as a reviewer on the document.

Although angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors are sometimes thought of as interchangeable, the new guideline does not give them the same weight. “The angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan is a constituent of the ARNI,” Dr. McDonagh noted. “So, the place of ARBs in heart failure has been downgraded in HFrEF. They are really for those who are intolerant of an ACE inhibitor or an ARNI.”

In practice, ARBs are likely to be used as first-line therapy in some circumstances, observed Dr. Bauersachs. They are “the default option in, unfortunately, many low-income countries that may not afford sacubitril-valsartan. And I know that there are many of them.”
 

Tweaks to device recommendations

The new document contains several new wrinkles in the recommendations for HF device therapy, which should usually be considered only if still appropriate after at least 3 months of optimal medical therapy, Dr. Gardner said.

For example, use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been demoted from its previous class I recommendation to class II, level of evidence A, in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy “in light of the data from the DANISH study,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2016 DANISH trial was noteworthy for questioning the survival benefits of ICDs in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, whether or not they were also receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

The new document also puts greater emphasis on a range of specific CRT patient-selection criteria. Beyond the conventional recommended standards of an LVEF of 35% or less, QRS of at least 150 ms, and left-bundle-branch block on optimal meds, consideration can be given to CRT if the QRS is only 130 ms or greater. “And where it’s appropriate to do so, an ICD could be an option,” Dr. Gardner said.

It also recommends CRT as a replacement for right ventricular pacing in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block. “And this, for the first time, includes patients with atrial fibrillation,” he said. “The previous indications for CRT were in individuals in sinus rhythm.”

The new document recommends that HF in any patient be classified as HFrEF, defined by an LVEF of ≤40%; HFmrEF, defined by an LVEF of 41%-49%; or HFpEF, defined by an LVEF of at least 50%. “Importantly, for all forms, the presence of the clinical syndrome of heart failure is a prerequisite,” observed Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, at the presentation.

In a critical update from previous guidelines, the term HF with “mid-range” ejection fraction was replaced by the term specifying “mildly reduced” ejection fraction, Dr. Lam noted. The shift retains the acronym but now reflects growing appreciation that HFmrEF patients can benefit from treatments also used in HFrEF, including ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, MRAs, and sacubitril-valsartan, she said.

Support for that relationship comes largely from post hoc subgroup analyses of trials that featured some patients with LVEF 40%-49%. That includes most HFpEF trials represented in the guideline document, but also EMPEROR-Preserved, which saw gains for the primary outcome across the entire range of LVEF above 40%.

The LVEF-based definitions are consistent with a recent HF classification proposal endorsed by the ESC and subspecialty societies in Europe, North America, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, and China.

The document doesn’t update recommendations for HFpEF, in which “no treatment has been shown to convincingly reduce mortality or morbidity,” Dr. Lam observed. Still, she noted, the guideline task force “acknowledges that treatment options for HFpEF are being revised even as the guidelines have been published.”

That could be a reference to empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Preserved, but it also refers to the strikingly broad wording of an expanded indication for sacubitril-valsartan in the United States – “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure” – without specific restrictions on the basis of LVEF. The new indication was announced in early 2021, too late to be considered in the new guidelines.
 

Whither LVEF-based definitions?

During discussion after the guideline presentation, Dr. Zannad speculated on the future of HF classifications based on ventricular function, given trial evidence in recent years that some agents – notably spironolactone, sacubitril-valsartan, and now, apparently, empagliflozin – might be effective in HFpEF as well as HFrEF.

Will the field continue with “LVEF-centric” distinctions across the range of HF, or transition to “some definition in which drug therapies can be used independently across the full spectrum of ejection fraction?” Dr. Zannad posed.

“I think we need to wait and see what some of these trials with the SGLT2 inhibitors are going to show in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” Dr. McDonagh replied. “And I think that will be a step for the next guideline, completely redefining heart failure.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The featured report from the 6,000-patient EMPEROR-Preserved trial at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology drew lots of attention for its headline finding: the first unequivocal demonstration that a medication, empagliflozin, can significantly reduce the rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40%), with the details simultaneously published online.

But at the same time, the EMPEROR-Preserved investigators released four additional reports with a lot more outcome analyses that also deserve some attention.
 

The puzzling neutral effect on renal events

Perhaps the most surprising and complicated set of findings among the main EMPEROR-Preserved outcomes involved renal outcomes.

The trial’s primary outcome was the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and the results showed that treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) for a median of 26 months on top of standard treatment for patients with HFpEF led to a significant 21% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients.

The trial had two prespecified secondary outcomes. One was the total number of HHF, which dropped by a significant 27%, compared with placebo. The second was the mean change in slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on an annualized basis, and the empagliflozin regimen reduced the cumulative annual deficit, compared with placebo by an average of 1.36 mL/min per 1.73 m^2, a significant difference.

This preservation of renal function was consistent with results from many prior studies of empagliflozin and all of the other U.S.-approved agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class. Preservation of renal function and a reduction in renal events has become a hallmark property of all agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class both in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as in those without diabetes but with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or with chronic kidney disease.

EMPEROR-Preserved threw a wrench into what had been an unbroken history of renal protection by SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened when a prespecified endpoint of the study – a composite renal outcome defined as time to first occurrence of chronic dialysis, renal transplantation, a sustained reduction of at least 40% in eGFR, or a sustained drop in eGFR of more than 10 or 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2 from baseline – yielded an unexpected neutral finding.

For this composite renal outcome, EMPEROR-Preserved showed a nonsignificant 5% reduction, compared with placebo, a result that both differed from what had been seen in essentially all the other SGLT2 inhibitor trials that had looked at this, but which also seemed at odds with the observed significant preservation of renal function that seemed substantial enough to produce a clinically meaningful benefit.
 

Renal effects blunted in HFpEF

The immediate upshot was a letter published by several EMPEROR-Preserved investigators that spelled out this discrepancy and came to the jolting conclusion that “eGFR slope analysis has limitations as a surrogate for predicting the effect of drugs on renal outcomes in patients with heart failure.”

The same authors, along with some additional associates, also published a second letter that noted a further unexpected twist with the renal outcome: “In prior large-scale clinical trials, the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure and renal outcomes had consistently tracked together,” they noted, but in this case it didn’t, a discordance they said was “extraordinarily puzzling”.

MDedge News

This led the study’s leaders to reanalyze the renal outcomes using a different definition, one that Milton Packer, MD, who helped design the trial and oversaw several of its analyses, called “a more conventional definition of renal events,” during his presentation of these findings at the congress. The researchers swapped out a 40% drop from baseline eGFR as an event and replaced it with a 50% decline, a change designed to screen out less severe, and often transient, reductions in kidney function that have less lasting impact on health. They also added an additional component to the composite endpoint, renal death. A revised analysis using this new renal composite outcome appeared in the European Journal of Heart Failure letter.

This change cut the total number of renal events tallied in the trial nearly in half, down to 112, and showed a more robust decline in renal events with empagliflozin treatment compared with the initial analysis, although the drop remained nonsignificant. The revised analysis also showed that the overall, nonsignificant 22% relative reduction in renal events in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, dwindled down to completely nonexistent in the tertile of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or greater. In this tertile the hazard ratio actually showed a nonsignificant point estimate of a 24% increased rate of renal events on empagliflozin, with the caveat that this subgroup now included a total of just 40 total events between the two treatment arms. (Each of the two other tertiles also had roughly the same number of total events.)

The biggest effect on renal-event reduction was in the tertile of patients with an ejection fraction of 41%-49%, in which empagliflozin treatment was linked with a significant 59% cut in renal events, compared with placebo. The analysis also showed significant heterogeneity in thus outcome between this subgroup and the other two tertiles that had higher ejection fractions and showed reduced rates of protection by empagliflozin against renal events.

This apparent blunting of a renal effect despite preservation of renal function seemed to mimic the blunting of the primary cardiovascular outcome effect that also appeared in patients with ejection fractions in the 60%-65% range or above.

“If we knew what blunted the effect of empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes at higher ejection fraction levels, we think the same explanation may also apply to the blunting of effect on renal outcomes, but right now we do not know the answer to either question,” Dr. Packer said in an interview. He’s suggested that one possibility is that many of the enrolled patients identified as having HFpEF, but with these high ejection fractions may have not actually had HFpEF, and their signs and symptoms may have instead resulted from atrial fibrillation.

“Many patients with an ejection fraction of 60%-65% and above had atrial fibrillation,” he noted, with a prevalence at enrollment in this subgroup of about 50%. Atrial fibrillation can cause dyspnea, a hallmark symptom leading to diagnosis of heart failure, and it also increases levels of N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a metric that served as a gatekeeper for entry into the trial. “Essentially, we are saying that many of the criteria that we specified to ensure that patients had heart failure probably did not work very well in patients with an ejection fraction of 65% or greater,” said Dr. Packer, a cardiologist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. “We need to figure out who these patients are.”

Some experts not involved with the study voiced skepticism that the renal findings reflected a real issue.

“I’m quite optimistic that in the long-term the effect on eGFR will translate into renal protection,” said Rudolf A. de Boer, MD, PhD, a professor of translational cardiology at University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), and designated discussant at the congress for the presentation by Dr. Packer.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John J.V. McMurray, MD, a professor of cardiology and a heart failure specialist at Glasgow University, speculated that the unexpected renal outcomes data may relate to the initial decline in renal function produced by treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors despite their longer-term enhancement of renal protection.

“If you use a treatment that protects the kidneys in the long-term but causes an initial dip in eGFR, more patients receiving that treatment will have an early ‘event,’ ” he noted in an interview. He also cautioned about the dangers of subgroup analyses that dice the study population into small cohorts.

“Trials are powered to look at the effect of treatment in the overall population. Everything else is exploratory, underpowered, and subject to the play of chance,” Dr. McMurray stressed.
 

Counting additional cardiovascular disease events allows more analyses

A third auxiliary report from the EMPEROR-Preserved investigators performed several prespecified analyses that depended on adding additional cardiovascular disease endpoints to the core tallies of cardiovascular death or HHF – such as emergent, urgent, and outpatient events that reflected worsening heart failure – and also included information on diuretic and vasopressor use because of worsening heart failure. The increased event numbers allowed the researchers to perform 30 additional analyses included in this report, according to the count kept by Dr. Packer who was the lead author.

He highlighted several of the additional results in this paper that documented benefits from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo:

• A significant 29% reduction in the need for admission to a cardiac care unit or intensive care unit during an HHF.
• A nonsignificant 33% reduction in the need for intravenous vasopressors or positive inotropic drugs during HHF.
• A significantly increased rate of patients achieving a higher New York Heart Association functional class. For example, after the first year of treatment patients who received empagliflozin had a 37% higher rate of functional class improvement, compared with patients who received placebo.

Dr. McMurray had his own list of key takeaways from this paper, including:

• Among patients who needed hospitalization, “those treated with empagliflozin were less sick than those in the placebo group.”
• In addition to reducing HHF empagliflozin treatment also reduced episodes of outpatient worsening as reflected by their receipt of intensified diuretic treatment, which occurred a significant 27% less often, compared with patients on placebo.
• Treatment with empagliflozin also linked with a significant 39% relative reduction in emergency or urgent-care visits that required intravenous therapy.

Empagliflozin’s performance relative to sacubitril/valsartan

The fourth additional report focused on a post hoc, cross-trial comparison of the results from EMPEROR-Preserved and from another recent trial that, like EMPEROR-Preserved, assessed in patients with HFpEF a drug previously proven to work quite well in patients with HFrEF. The comparator drug was sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which underwent testing in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial.

The primary outcome of PARAGON-HF, which randomized 4,822 patients, was reduction in cardiovascular death and in total HHF. This dropped by a relative 13%, compared with placebo, during a median of 35 months, a between-group difference that came close to but did not achieve significance (P = .06). Despite this limitation, the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 loosened the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and a “below normal” ejection fraction, a category that can include many patients considered to have HFpEF.

Although the researchers who ran this analysis, including Dr. Packer, who was the first author, admitted that “comparison of effect sizes across trials is fraught with difficulties,” they nonetheless concluded from their analysis that “for all outcomes that included HHF the effect size was larger for empagliflozin than for sacubitril/valsartan.”

Dr. McMurray, a lead instigator for PARAGON-HF, said there was little to take away from this analysis.

“The patient populations were different, and sacubitril/valsartan was compared against an active therapy, valsartan,” while in EMPEROR-Preserved empagliflozin compared against placebo. “Most of us believe that sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors work in different but complementary ways, and their benefits are additive. You would want patients with HFpEF or HFrEF to take both,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Packer agreed with that approach and added that he would probably also prescribe a third agent, spironolactone, to many patients with HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, which jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Packer has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from numerous other companies. Dr. de Boer has research contracts with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Cardior, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche, and he has been a consultant to Novartis as well as to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Gayer, and Roche. Dr. McMurray led trials of sacubitril/valsartan sponsored by Novartis, and his institution has received compensation for his participation in studies sponsored by Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Cardurion, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Theracos.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The featured report from the 6,000-patient EMPEROR-Preserved trial at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology drew lots of attention for its headline finding: the first unequivocal demonstration that a medication, empagliflozin, can significantly reduce the rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40%), with the details simultaneously published online.

But at the same time, the EMPEROR-Preserved investigators released four additional reports with a lot more outcome analyses that also deserve some attention.
 

The puzzling neutral effect on renal events

Perhaps the most surprising and complicated set of findings among the main EMPEROR-Preserved outcomes involved renal outcomes.

The trial’s primary outcome was the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and the results showed that treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) for a median of 26 months on top of standard treatment for patients with HFpEF led to a significant 21% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients.

The trial had two prespecified secondary outcomes. One was the total number of HHF, which dropped by a significant 27%, compared with placebo. The second was the mean change in slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on an annualized basis, and the empagliflozin regimen reduced the cumulative annual deficit, compared with placebo by an average of 1.36 mL/min per 1.73 m^2, a significant difference.

This preservation of renal function was consistent with results from many prior studies of empagliflozin and all of the other U.S.-approved agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class. Preservation of renal function and a reduction in renal events has become a hallmark property of all agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class both in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as in those without diabetes but with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or with chronic kidney disease.

EMPEROR-Preserved threw a wrench into what had been an unbroken history of renal protection by SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened when a prespecified endpoint of the study – a composite renal outcome defined as time to first occurrence of chronic dialysis, renal transplantation, a sustained reduction of at least 40% in eGFR, or a sustained drop in eGFR of more than 10 or 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2 from baseline – yielded an unexpected neutral finding.

For this composite renal outcome, EMPEROR-Preserved showed a nonsignificant 5% reduction, compared with placebo, a result that both differed from what had been seen in essentially all the other SGLT2 inhibitor trials that had looked at this, but which also seemed at odds with the observed significant preservation of renal function that seemed substantial enough to produce a clinically meaningful benefit.
 

Renal effects blunted in HFpEF

The immediate upshot was a letter published by several EMPEROR-Preserved investigators that spelled out this discrepancy and came to the jolting conclusion that “eGFR slope analysis has limitations as a surrogate for predicting the effect of drugs on renal outcomes in patients with heart failure.”

The same authors, along with some additional associates, also published a second letter that noted a further unexpected twist with the renal outcome: “In prior large-scale clinical trials, the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure and renal outcomes had consistently tracked together,” they noted, but in this case it didn’t, a discordance they said was “extraordinarily puzzling”.

MDedge News

This led the study’s leaders to reanalyze the renal outcomes using a different definition, one that Milton Packer, MD, who helped design the trial and oversaw several of its analyses, called “a more conventional definition of renal events,” during his presentation of these findings at the congress. The researchers swapped out a 40% drop from baseline eGFR as an event and replaced it with a 50% decline, a change designed to screen out less severe, and often transient, reductions in kidney function that have less lasting impact on health. They also added an additional component to the composite endpoint, renal death. A revised analysis using this new renal composite outcome appeared in the European Journal of Heart Failure letter.

This change cut the total number of renal events tallied in the trial nearly in half, down to 112, and showed a more robust decline in renal events with empagliflozin treatment compared with the initial analysis, although the drop remained nonsignificant. The revised analysis also showed that the overall, nonsignificant 22% relative reduction in renal events in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, dwindled down to completely nonexistent in the tertile of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or greater. In this tertile the hazard ratio actually showed a nonsignificant point estimate of a 24% increased rate of renal events on empagliflozin, with the caveat that this subgroup now included a total of just 40 total events between the two treatment arms. (Each of the two other tertiles also had roughly the same number of total events.)

The biggest effect on renal-event reduction was in the tertile of patients with an ejection fraction of 41%-49%, in which empagliflozin treatment was linked with a significant 59% cut in renal events, compared with placebo. The analysis also showed significant heterogeneity in thus outcome between this subgroup and the other two tertiles that had higher ejection fractions and showed reduced rates of protection by empagliflozin against renal events.

This apparent blunting of a renal effect despite preservation of renal function seemed to mimic the blunting of the primary cardiovascular outcome effect that also appeared in patients with ejection fractions in the 60%-65% range or above.

“If we knew what blunted the effect of empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes at higher ejection fraction levels, we think the same explanation may also apply to the blunting of effect on renal outcomes, but right now we do not know the answer to either question,” Dr. Packer said in an interview. He’s suggested that one possibility is that many of the enrolled patients identified as having HFpEF, but with these high ejection fractions may have not actually had HFpEF, and their signs and symptoms may have instead resulted from atrial fibrillation.

“Many patients with an ejection fraction of 60%-65% and above had atrial fibrillation,” he noted, with a prevalence at enrollment in this subgroup of about 50%. Atrial fibrillation can cause dyspnea, a hallmark symptom leading to diagnosis of heart failure, and it also increases levels of N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a metric that served as a gatekeeper for entry into the trial. “Essentially, we are saying that many of the criteria that we specified to ensure that patients had heart failure probably did not work very well in patients with an ejection fraction of 65% or greater,” said Dr. Packer, a cardiologist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. “We need to figure out who these patients are.”

Some experts not involved with the study voiced skepticism that the renal findings reflected a real issue.

“I’m quite optimistic that in the long-term the effect on eGFR will translate into renal protection,” said Rudolf A. de Boer, MD, PhD, a professor of translational cardiology at University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), and designated discussant at the congress for the presentation by Dr. Packer.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John J.V. McMurray, MD, a professor of cardiology and a heart failure specialist at Glasgow University, speculated that the unexpected renal outcomes data may relate to the initial decline in renal function produced by treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors despite their longer-term enhancement of renal protection.

“If you use a treatment that protects the kidneys in the long-term but causes an initial dip in eGFR, more patients receiving that treatment will have an early ‘event,’ ” he noted in an interview. He also cautioned about the dangers of subgroup analyses that dice the study population into small cohorts.

“Trials are powered to look at the effect of treatment in the overall population. Everything else is exploratory, underpowered, and subject to the play of chance,” Dr. McMurray stressed.
 

Counting additional cardiovascular disease events allows more analyses

A third auxiliary report from the EMPEROR-Preserved investigators performed several prespecified analyses that depended on adding additional cardiovascular disease endpoints to the core tallies of cardiovascular death or HHF – such as emergent, urgent, and outpatient events that reflected worsening heart failure – and also included information on diuretic and vasopressor use because of worsening heart failure. The increased event numbers allowed the researchers to perform 30 additional analyses included in this report, according to the count kept by Dr. Packer who was the lead author.

He highlighted several of the additional results in this paper that documented benefits from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo:

• A significant 29% reduction in the need for admission to a cardiac care unit or intensive care unit during an HHF.
• A nonsignificant 33% reduction in the need for intravenous vasopressors or positive inotropic drugs during HHF.
• A significantly increased rate of patients achieving a higher New York Heart Association functional class. For example, after the first year of treatment patients who received empagliflozin had a 37% higher rate of functional class improvement, compared with patients who received placebo.

Dr. McMurray had his own list of key takeaways from this paper, including:

• Among patients who needed hospitalization, “those treated with empagliflozin were less sick than those in the placebo group.”
• In addition to reducing HHF empagliflozin treatment also reduced episodes of outpatient worsening as reflected by their receipt of intensified diuretic treatment, which occurred a significant 27% less often, compared with patients on placebo.
• Treatment with empagliflozin also linked with a significant 39% relative reduction in emergency or urgent-care visits that required intravenous therapy.

Empagliflozin’s performance relative to sacubitril/valsartan

The fourth additional report focused on a post hoc, cross-trial comparison of the results from EMPEROR-Preserved and from another recent trial that, like EMPEROR-Preserved, assessed in patients with HFpEF a drug previously proven to work quite well in patients with HFrEF. The comparator drug was sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which underwent testing in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial.

The primary outcome of PARAGON-HF, which randomized 4,822 patients, was reduction in cardiovascular death and in total HHF. This dropped by a relative 13%, compared with placebo, during a median of 35 months, a between-group difference that came close to but did not achieve significance (P = .06). Despite this limitation, the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 loosened the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and a “below normal” ejection fraction, a category that can include many patients considered to have HFpEF.

Although the researchers who ran this analysis, including Dr. Packer, who was the first author, admitted that “comparison of effect sizes across trials is fraught with difficulties,” they nonetheless concluded from their analysis that “for all outcomes that included HHF the effect size was larger for empagliflozin than for sacubitril/valsartan.”

Dr. McMurray, a lead instigator for PARAGON-HF, said there was little to take away from this analysis.

“The patient populations were different, and sacubitril/valsartan was compared against an active therapy, valsartan,” while in EMPEROR-Preserved empagliflozin compared against placebo. “Most of us believe that sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors work in different but complementary ways, and their benefits are additive. You would want patients with HFpEF or HFrEF to take both,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Packer agreed with that approach and added that he would probably also prescribe a third agent, spironolactone, to many patients with HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, which jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Packer has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from numerous other companies. Dr. de Boer has research contracts with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Cardior, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche, and he has been a consultant to Novartis as well as to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Gayer, and Roche. Dr. McMurray led trials of sacubitril/valsartan sponsored by Novartis, and his institution has received compensation for his participation in studies sponsored by Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Cardurion, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Theracos.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The featured report from the 6,000-patient EMPEROR-Preserved trial at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology drew lots of attention for its headline finding: the first unequivocal demonstration that a medication, empagliflozin, can significantly reduce the rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40%), with the details simultaneously published online.

But at the same time, the EMPEROR-Preserved investigators released four additional reports with a lot more outcome analyses that also deserve some attention.
 

The puzzling neutral effect on renal events

Perhaps the most surprising and complicated set of findings among the main EMPEROR-Preserved outcomes involved renal outcomes.

The trial’s primary outcome was the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and the results showed that treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) for a median of 26 months on top of standard treatment for patients with HFpEF led to a significant 21% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo-treated patients.

The trial had two prespecified secondary outcomes. One was the total number of HHF, which dropped by a significant 27%, compared with placebo. The second was the mean change in slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on an annualized basis, and the empagliflozin regimen reduced the cumulative annual deficit, compared with placebo by an average of 1.36 mL/min per 1.73 m^2, a significant difference.

This preservation of renal function was consistent with results from many prior studies of empagliflozin and all of the other U.S.-approved agents from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class. Preservation of renal function and a reduction in renal events has become a hallmark property of all agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class both in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as in those without diabetes but with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or with chronic kidney disease.

EMPEROR-Preserved threw a wrench into what had been an unbroken history of renal protection by SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened when a prespecified endpoint of the study – a composite renal outcome defined as time to first occurrence of chronic dialysis, renal transplantation, a sustained reduction of at least 40% in eGFR, or a sustained drop in eGFR of more than 10 or 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2 from baseline – yielded an unexpected neutral finding.

For this composite renal outcome, EMPEROR-Preserved showed a nonsignificant 5% reduction, compared with placebo, a result that both differed from what had been seen in essentially all the other SGLT2 inhibitor trials that had looked at this, but which also seemed at odds with the observed significant preservation of renal function that seemed substantial enough to produce a clinically meaningful benefit.
 

Renal effects blunted in HFpEF

The immediate upshot was a letter published by several EMPEROR-Preserved investigators that spelled out this discrepancy and came to the jolting conclusion that “eGFR slope analysis has limitations as a surrogate for predicting the effect of drugs on renal outcomes in patients with heart failure.”

The same authors, along with some additional associates, also published a second letter that noted a further unexpected twist with the renal outcome: “In prior large-scale clinical trials, the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure and renal outcomes had consistently tracked together,” they noted, but in this case it didn’t, a discordance they said was “extraordinarily puzzling”.

MDedge News

This led the study’s leaders to reanalyze the renal outcomes using a different definition, one that Milton Packer, MD, who helped design the trial and oversaw several of its analyses, called “a more conventional definition of renal events,” during his presentation of these findings at the congress. The researchers swapped out a 40% drop from baseline eGFR as an event and replaced it with a 50% decline, a change designed to screen out less severe, and often transient, reductions in kidney function that have less lasting impact on health. They also added an additional component to the composite endpoint, renal death. A revised analysis using this new renal composite outcome appeared in the European Journal of Heart Failure letter.

This change cut the total number of renal events tallied in the trial nearly in half, down to 112, and showed a more robust decline in renal events with empagliflozin treatment compared with the initial analysis, although the drop remained nonsignificant. The revised analysis also showed that the overall, nonsignificant 22% relative reduction in renal events in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, dwindled down to completely nonexistent in the tertile of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or greater. In this tertile the hazard ratio actually showed a nonsignificant point estimate of a 24% increased rate of renal events on empagliflozin, with the caveat that this subgroup now included a total of just 40 total events between the two treatment arms. (Each of the two other tertiles also had roughly the same number of total events.)

The biggest effect on renal-event reduction was in the tertile of patients with an ejection fraction of 41%-49%, in which empagliflozin treatment was linked with a significant 59% cut in renal events, compared with placebo. The analysis also showed significant heterogeneity in thus outcome between this subgroup and the other two tertiles that had higher ejection fractions and showed reduced rates of protection by empagliflozin against renal events.

This apparent blunting of a renal effect despite preservation of renal function seemed to mimic the blunting of the primary cardiovascular outcome effect that also appeared in patients with ejection fractions in the 60%-65% range or above.

“If we knew what blunted the effect of empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes at higher ejection fraction levels, we think the same explanation may also apply to the blunting of effect on renal outcomes, but right now we do not know the answer to either question,” Dr. Packer said in an interview. He’s suggested that one possibility is that many of the enrolled patients identified as having HFpEF, but with these high ejection fractions may have not actually had HFpEF, and their signs and symptoms may have instead resulted from atrial fibrillation.

“Many patients with an ejection fraction of 60%-65% and above had atrial fibrillation,” he noted, with a prevalence at enrollment in this subgroup of about 50%. Atrial fibrillation can cause dyspnea, a hallmark symptom leading to diagnosis of heart failure, and it also increases levels of N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, a metric that served as a gatekeeper for entry into the trial. “Essentially, we are saying that many of the criteria that we specified to ensure that patients had heart failure probably did not work very well in patients with an ejection fraction of 65% or greater,” said Dr. Packer, a cardiologist at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. “We need to figure out who these patients are.”

Some experts not involved with the study voiced skepticism that the renal findings reflected a real issue.

“I’m quite optimistic that in the long-term the effect on eGFR will translate into renal protection,” said Rudolf A. de Boer, MD, PhD, a professor of translational cardiology at University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), and designated discussant at the congress for the presentation by Dr. Packer.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

John J.V. McMurray, MD, a professor of cardiology and a heart failure specialist at Glasgow University, speculated that the unexpected renal outcomes data may relate to the initial decline in renal function produced by treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors despite their longer-term enhancement of renal protection.

“If you use a treatment that protects the kidneys in the long-term but causes an initial dip in eGFR, more patients receiving that treatment will have an early ‘event,’ ” he noted in an interview. He also cautioned about the dangers of subgroup analyses that dice the study population into small cohorts.

“Trials are powered to look at the effect of treatment in the overall population. Everything else is exploratory, underpowered, and subject to the play of chance,” Dr. McMurray stressed.
 

Counting additional cardiovascular disease events allows more analyses

A third auxiliary report from the EMPEROR-Preserved investigators performed several prespecified analyses that depended on adding additional cardiovascular disease endpoints to the core tallies of cardiovascular death or HHF – such as emergent, urgent, and outpatient events that reflected worsening heart failure – and also included information on diuretic and vasopressor use because of worsening heart failure. The increased event numbers allowed the researchers to perform 30 additional analyses included in this report, according to the count kept by Dr. Packer who was the lead author.

He highlighted several of the additional results in this paper that documented benefits from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo:

• A significant 29% reduction in the need for admission to a cardiac care unit or intensive care unit during an HHF.
• A nonsignificant 33% reduction in the need for intravenous vasopressors or positive inotropic drugs during HHF.
• A significantly increased rate of patients achieving a higher New York Heart Association functional class. For example, after the first year of treatment patients who received empagliflozin had a 37% higher rate of functional class improvement, compared with patients who received placebo.

Dr. McMurray had his own list of key takeaways from this paper, including:

• Among patients who needed hospitalization, “those treated with empagliflozin were less sick than those in the placebo group.”
• In addition to reducing HHF empagliflozin treatment also reduced episodes of outpatient worsening as reflected by their receipt of intensified diuretic treatment, which occurred a significant 27% less often, compared with patients on placebo.
• Treatment with empagliflozin also linked with a significant 39% relative reduction in emergency or urgent-care visits that required intravenous therapy.

Empagliflozin’s performance relative to sacubitril/valsartan

The fourth additional report focused on a post hoc, cross-trial comparison of the results from EMPEROR-Preserved and from another recent trial that, like EMPEROR-Preserved, assessed in patients with HFpEF a drug previously proven to work quite well in patients with HFrEF. The comparator drug was sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which underwent testing in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial.

The primary outcome of PARAGON-HF, which randomized 4,822 patients, was reduction in cardiovascular death and in total HHF. This dropped by a relative 13%, compared with placebo, during a median of 35 months, a between-group difference that came close to but did not achieve significance (P = .06). Despite this limitation, the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 loosened the indication for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and a “below normal” ejection fraction, a category that can include many patients considered to have HFpEF.

Although the researchers who ran this analysis, including Dr. Packer, who was the first author, admitted that “comparison of effect sizes across trials is fraught with difficulties,” they nonetheless concluded from their analysis that “for all outcomes that included HHF the effect size was larger for empagliflozin than for sacubitril/valsartan.”

Dr. McMurray, a lead instigator for PARAGON-HF, said there was little to take away from this analysis.

“The patient populations were different, and sacubitril/valsartan was compared against an active therapy, valsartan,” while in EMPEROR-Preserved empagliflozin compared against placebo. “Most of us believe that sacubitril/valsartan and SGLT2 inhibitors work in different but complementary ways, and their benefits are additive. You would want patients with HFpEF or HFrEF to take both,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Packer agreed with that approach and added that he would probably also prescribe a third agent, spironolactone, to many patients with HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, which jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Packer has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and from numerous other companies. Dr. de Boer has research contracts with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Cardior, Ionis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche, and he has been a consultant to Novartis as well as to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Gayer, and Roche. Dr. McMurray led trials of sacubitril/valsartan sponsored by Novartis, and his institution has received compensation for his participation in studies sponsored by Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Cardurion, DalCor, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Theracos.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

Having a “high normal” serum sodium level in midlife, which reflects less than optimal fluid intake, is associated with an increased risk for left ventricular hypertrophy – a heart failure (HF) precursor – and for HF itself, in older age, a new study suggests.

Georges Lievre / Fotolia.com

Compared with middle-aged adults in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study with normal serum sodium, those with levels of 142-146 mmol/L were more likely to have left ventricular hypertrophy or HF when they were in their 70s and 80s, independent of other risk factors.  

Natalia Dmitrieva, PhD, a research scientist at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., presented the study findings in an e-poster on Aug. 27 at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

“Our study suggests that maintaining good hydration can prevent or at least slow down the changes within the heart that lead to heart failure,” she said in a statement from the ESC.

It “suggests that all adults should aim for eight to ten glasses of liquid [daily] and keep salt intake low,” Dr. Dmitrieva said in an interview.

However, people should not rely completely on thirst, she cautioned, especially in middle age, when thirst sensation starts to deteriorate. And too much fluid intake can be harmful and even dangerous.

Normal serum sodium is usually defined as 135-146 mmol/L, Dr. Dmitrieva explained, and this study involved only patients in ARIC with sodium levels in this range, to try to exclude patients with genetic or water-salt balance diseases.

The findings suggest that a serum sodium level of 142-146 mmol/L, which would not be flagged as abnormal by a test lab, “can be used by clinicians as a warning sign” for a patient’s increased risk for HF, she noted.

Clinicians should explain this risk to patients and advise them to drink at least 2 L per day. However, people should not try to reduce their sodium levels by drinking more than 2 to 3 L per day, she cautioned, which can be harmful and even deadly, and they should consult their doctors.
 

Watch hydration

“An important finding of this study is that sodium values considered ‘normal’ may also be deleterious,” Jacob Joseph, MD, director, heart failure program, VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview.

“These results are similar to studies we have conducted in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” noted Dr. Joseph, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Their studies showed a U-shaped relationship between serum sodium values and adverse outcomes, “indicating an ‘optimal’ range of serum sodium value that was narrower than the accepted normal laboratory value range,” he noted.

The study by Dmitrieva et al. was observational and the findings would need to be verified in a randomized controlled trial, Dr. Joseph pointed out; however, the research “supports the idea that even a high normal sodium level may indicate risk of future heart failure.

“Hence, patients should pay attention to hydration,” he continued, and “clinicians should not assume that a sodium level of 142 mmol/L is appropriate and should ensure that patients are paying attention to hydration.

“In today’s busy and stress-filled lifestyle, it is easy to forget about adequate fluid intake,” Dr. Joseph added. 
 

More than 15,000 adults followed for 25 Years

To investigate the relationship between serum sodium, hydration, and future heart failure, Dr. Dmitrieva and colleagues analyzed data from 15,792 adults in ARIC who were 44-66 years of age at study entry, with serum sodium levels from 135 to 146 mmol/L.

The participants were evaluated over five visits until they reached 70-90 years.

They were divided into four groups based on their average serum sodium concentrations at study visits one and two (conducted in the first 3 years): 135 -139.5 mmol/L, 140-141.5 mmol/L, 142-143.5 mmol/L, and 144-146 mmol/L.

The researchers determined the percentage of people in each group who developed HF and left ventricular hypertrophy at visit five (25 years after study enrollment).

Patients with higher serum sodium levels had a significantly higher risk for HF and left ventricular hypertrophy, after adjustment for other risk factors, including age, blood pressure, kidney function, blood cholesterol, blood glucose, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.

Every 1 mmol/L increase in serum sodium concentration in midlife was associated with 1.20 and 1.11 increased odds of developing left ventricular hypertrophy and HF, respectively, 25 years later.

“More studies are needed to find out what proportion of people with serum sodium 142 mmol/L and higher have this [serum sodium] level because they do not drink enough and will be able to reduce it by making sure they consistently drink 2 to 2.5 L per day,” said Dr. Dmitrieva.

“It is likely that for some people, other factors that are related to genetics or diseases affecting water-salt balance could be causing their increased serum sodium levels,” she speculated.

The study was funded by the Intramural Program of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Joseph have no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having a “high normal” serum sodium level in midlife, which reflects less than optimal fluid intake, is associated with an increased risk for left ventricular hypertrophy – a heart failure (HF) precursor – and for HF itself, in older age, a new study suggests.

Georges Lievre / Fotolia.com

Compared with middle-aged adults in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study with normal serum sodium, those with levels of 142-146 mmol/L were more likely to have left ventricular hypertrophy or HF when they were in their 70s and 80s, independent of other risk factors.  

Natalia Dmitrieva, PhD, a research scientist at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., presented the study findings in an e-poster on Aug. 27 at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

“Our study suggests that maintaining good hydration can prevent or at least slow down the changes within the heart that lead to heart failure,” she said in a statement from the ESC.

It “suggests that all adults should aim for eight to ten glasses of liquid [daily] and keep salt intake low,” Dr. Dmitrieva said in an interview.

However, people should not rely completely on thirst, she cautioned, especially in middle age, when thirst sensation starts to deteriorate. And too much fluid intake can be harmful and even dangerous.

Normal serum sodium is usually defined as 135-146 mmol/L, Dr. Dmitrieva explained, and this study involved only patients in ARIC with sodium levels in this range, to try to exclude patients with genetic or water-salt balance diseases.

The findings suggest that a serum sodium level of 142-146 mmol/L, which would not be flagged as abnormal by a test lab, “can be used by clinicians as a warning sign” for a patient’s increased risk for HF, she noted.

Clinicians should explain this risk to patients and advise them to drink at least 2 L per day. However, people should not try to reduce their sodium levels by drinking more than 2 to 3 L per day, she cautioned, which can be harmful and even deadly, and they should consult their doctors.
 

Watch hydration

“An important finding of this study is that sodium values considered ‘normal’ may also be deleterious,” Jacob Joseph, MD, director, heart failure program, VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview.

“These results are similar to studies we have conducted in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” noted Dr. Joseph, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Their studies showed a U-shaped relationship between serum sodium values and adverse outcomes, “indicating an ‘optimal’ range of serum sodium value that was narrower than the accepted normal laboratory value range,” he noted.

The study by Dmitrieva et al. was observational and the findings would need to be verified in a randomized controlled trial, Dr. Joseph pointed out; however, the research “supports the idea that even a high normal sodium level may indicate risk of future heart failure.

“Hence, patients should pay attention to hydration,” he continued, and “clinicians should not assume that a sodium level of 142 mmol/L is appropriate and should ensure that patients are paying attention to hydration.

“In today’s busy and stress-filled lifestyle, it is easy to forget about adequate fluid intake,” Dr. Joseph added. 
 

More than 15,000 adults followed for 25 Years

To investigate the relationship between serum sodium, hydration, and future heart failure, Dr. Dmitrieva and colleagues analyzed data from 15,792 adults in ARIC who were 44-66 years of age at study entry, with serum sodium levels from 135 to 146 mmol/L.

The participants were evaluated over five visits until they reached 70-90 years.

They were divided into four groups based on their average serum sodium concentrations at study visits one and two (conducted in the first 3 years): 135 -139.5 mmol/L, 140-141.5 mmol/L, 142-143.5 mmol/L, and 144-146 mmol/L.

The researchers determined the percentage of people in each group who developed HF and left ventricular hypertrophy at visit five (25 years after study enrollment).

Patients with higher serum sodium levels had a significantly higher risk for HF and left ventricular hypertrophy, after adjustment for other risk factors, including age, blood pressure, kidney function, blood cholesterol, blood glucose, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.

Every 1 mmol/L increase in serum sodium concentration in midlife was associated with 1.20 and 1.11 increased odds of developing left ventricular hypertrophy and HF, respectively, 25 years later.

“More studies are needed to find out what proportion of people with serum sodium 142 mmol/L and higher have this [serum sodium] level because they do not drink enough and will be able to reduce it by making sure they consistently drink 2 to 2.5 L per day,” said Dr. Dmitrieva.

“It is likely that for some people, other factors that are related to genetics or diseases affecting water-salt balance could be causing their increased serum sodium levels,” she speculated.

The study was funded by the Intramural Program of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Joseph have no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having a “high normal” serum sodium level in midlife, which reflects less than optimal fluid intake, is associated with an increased risk for left ventricular hypertrophy – a heart failure (HF) precursor – and for HF itself, in older age, a new study suggests.

Georges Lievre / Fotolia.com

Compared with middle-aged adults in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study with normal serum sodium, those with levels of 142-146 mmol/L were more likely to have left ventricular hypertrophy or HF when they were in their 70s and 80s, independent of other risk factors.  

Natalia Dmitrieva, PhD, a research scientist at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., presented the study findings in an e-poster on Aug. 27 at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

“Our study suggests that maintaining good hydration can prevent or at least slow down the changes within the heart that lead to heart failure,” she said in a statement from the ESC.

It “suggests that all adults should aim for eight to ten glasses of liquid [daily] and keep salt intake low,” Dr. Dmitrieva said in an interview.

However, people should not rely completely on thirst, she cautioned, especially in middle age, when thirst sensation starts to deteriorate. And too much fluid intake can be harmful and even dangerous.

Normal serum sodium is usually defined as 135-146 mmol/L, Dr. Dmitrieva explained, and this study involved only patients in ARIC with sodium levels in this range, to try to exclude patients with genetic or water-salt balance diseases.

The findings suggest that a serum sodium level of 142-146 mmol/L, which would not be flagged as abnormal by a test lab, “can be used by clinicians as a warning sign” for a patient’s increased risk for HF, she noted.

Clinicians should explain this risk to patients and advise them to drink at least 2 L per day. However, people should not try to reduce their sodium levels by drinking more than 2 to 3 L per day, she cautioned, which can be harmful and even deadly, and they should consult their doctors.
 

Watch hydration

“An important finding of this study is that sodium values considered ‘normal’ may also be deleterious,” Jacob Joseph, MD, director, heart failure program, VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not involved with this study, said in an interview.

“These results are similar to studies we have conducted in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction,” noted Dr. Joseph, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Their studies showed a U-shaped relationship between serum sodium values and adverse outcomes, “indicating an ‘optimal’ range of serum sodium value that was narrower than the accepted normal laboratory value range,” he noted.

The study by Dmitrieva et al. was observational and the findings would need to be verified in a randomized controlled trial, Dr. Joseph pointed out; however, the research “supports the idea that even a high normal sodium level may indicate risk of future heart failure.

“Hence, patients should pay attention to hydration,” he continued, and “clinicians should not assume that a sodium level of 142 mmol/L is appropriate and should ensure that patients are paying attention to hydration.

“In today’s busy and stress-filled lifestyle, it is easy to forget about adequate fluid intake,” Dr. Joseph added. 
 

More than 15,000 adults followed for 25 Years

To investigate the relationship between serum sodium, hydration, and future heart failure, Dr. Dmitrieva and colleagues analyzed data from 15,792 adults in ARIC who were 44-66 years of age at study entry, with serum sodium levels from 135 to 146 mmol/L.

The participants were evaluated over five visits until they reached 70-90 years.

They were divided into four groups based on their average serum sodium concentrations at study visits one and two (conducted in the first 3 years): 135 -139.5 mmol/L, 140-141.5 mmol/L, 142-143.5 mmol/L, and 144-146 mmol/L.

The researchers determined the percentage of people in each group who developed HF and left ventricular hypertrophy at visit five (25 years after study enrollment).

Patients with higher serum sodium levels had a significantly higher risk for HF and left ventricular hypertrophy, after adjustment for other risk factors, including age, blood pressure, kidney function, blood cholesterol, blood glucose, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.

Every 1 mmol/L increase in serum sodium concentration in midlife was associated with 1.20 and 1.11 increased odds of developing left ventricular hypertrophy and HF, respectively, 25 years later.

“More studies are needed to find out what proportion of people with serum sodium 142 mmol/L and higher have this [serum sodium] level because they do not drink enough and will be able to reduce it by making sure they consistently drink 2 to 2.5 L per day,” said Dr. Dmitrieva.

“It is likely that for some people, other factors that are related to genetics or diseases affecting water-salt balance could be causing their increased serum sodium levels,” she speculated.

The study was funded by the Intramural Program of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The authors and Dr. Joseph have no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.