Heart Failure

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Bicycle riding may help people with diabetes live longer, new research suggests.

NicolasMcComber/E+/Getty Images

Among more than 7,000 adults with diabetes in 10 Western European countries followed for about 15 years, those who cycled regularly were significantly less likely to die of any cause or of cardiovascular causes, even after accounting for differences in factors such as sex, age, educational level, diet, comorbidities, and other physical activities.

“The association between cycling and all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular disease] mortality in this study of person[s] with diabetes was of the same magnitude and direction as observed in the healthy population,” wrote Mathias Ried-Larsen, PhD, of the Centre for Physical Activity Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. The findings were published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying Editor’s Note, JAMA Internal Medicine editor Rita F. Redberg, MD, and two deputy editors said that the new data add to previous studies showing benefits of cycling, compared with other physical activities. “The analysis from Ried-Larsen and colleagues strengthens the epidemiologic data on cycling and strongly suggests that it may contribute directly to longer and healthier lives,” they wrote.

Dr. Redberg, of the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization: “I think the number of cyclists grew greatly during pandemic, when there was little auto traffic, and people did not want to take public transportation. Cities that add bike lanes, especially protected bike lanes, see an increase in cyclists. I think Americans can cycle more, would enjoy cycling more, and would live longer [by] cycling, to work and for pleasure.”

Dr. Redberg disclosed that she is “an avid cyclist and am currently on a bike ride in Glacier National Park. ... This group [Climate Ride] raises money for more bike lanes, promotes climate change awareness, has paid for solar panels at Glacier, and more.”

However, Dr. Redberg and colleagues also “recognize that cycling requires fitness, a good sense of balance, and the means to purchase a bicycle. We also understand that regular cycling requires living in an area where it is reasonably safe, and we celebrate the installation of more bike lanes, particularly protected lanes, in many cities around the world.”

But, despite the limitations of an observational study and possible selection bias of people who are able to cycle, “it is important to share this evidence for the potentially large health benefits of cycling, which almost surely generalize to persons without diabetes.”
 

Cycling tied to lower all-cause and CVD mortality

The prospective cohort study included 7,459 adults with diabetes from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. All were assessed during 1992-1998 and again in 1996-2011, with a mean follow-up of roughly 15 years. During that time, there were 1,673 deaths from all causes, with 811 attributed to CVD.

Compared with no cycling, those who reported any cycling had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause over a 5-year period, after adjustment for confounders and for other physical activity. The greatest risk reduction was seen in those who reported cycling between 150-299 minutes per week, particularly in CVD mortality.

In a subanalysis of 5,423 individuals with 10.7 years of follow-up, there were 975 all-cause deaths and 429 from CVD. Individuals who began or continued cycling during follow-up experienced reductions of about 35% for both all-cause and CVD mortality, compared with those who never cycled.

Dr. Redberg and colleagues added that “there are environmental benefits to increasing the use of cycling for commuting and other transport because cycling helps to decrease the adverse environmental and health effects of automobile exhaust.”

They concluded: “As avid and/or aspiring cyclists ourselves, we are sold on the mental and physical benefits of getting to work and seeing the world on two wheels, self-propelled, and think it is well worth a try.”

The study work was supported by the Health Research Fund of Instituto de Salud Carlos III; the Spanish regional governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia, and Navarra; and the Catalan Institute of Oncology. The Centre for Physical Activity Research is supported by a grant from TrygFonden. Dr. Ried-Larsen reported personal fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Redberg reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures; the Greenwall Foundation; and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

St. Jude Medical, now part of Abbott Laboratories, will pay the American government $27 million to settle allegations that it knowingly sold defective implantable cardiac defibrillators to health care facilities, which were implanted into patients, causing injuries and two deaths, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced.

“Medical device manufacturers have an obligation to be truthful with the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. government will not pay for devices that are unsafe and risk injury or death,” Jonathan F. Lenzner, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, said in a July 8 statement.

“The government contends that St. Jude knowingly caused the submission of false claims and failed to inform the FDA with critical information about prior injuries and a death which, had the FDA been made aware, would have led to a recall,” Mr. Lenzner added.

Those claims were submitted to the Medicare, TRICARE, and Federal Employees Health Benefits programs, according to the settlement agreement.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting Medicare and other federal health care programs from fraud, and in doing so, strengthen[ing] patient safety,” Mr. Lenzner said.
 

Premature battery depletion

The government alleges that St. Jude failed to disclose “serious adverse health events” related to premature battery depletion of certain models of its Fortify, Fortify Assura, Quadra, and Unify implantable defibrillators.

The government further alleges that, by 2013, St. Jude knew that lithium clusters could form on the batteries, causing them to short and run out of power. But it took until late 2014 for St. Jude to ask the FDA to approve a change to prevent lithium clusters from draining the battery.

And at this point, St. Jude told the FDA that “no serious injury, permanent harm, or deaths have been reported associated with this” issue, the government alleges.

However, according to the government’s allegations, St. Jude was aware at that time of two reported serious injuries and one death associated with the faulty batteries and continued to distribute devices that had been manufactured without the new design.

Not until August 2016 did St. Jude inform the FDA that the number of premature battery depletion events had increased to 729, including two deaths and 29 events associated with loss of pacing, the government alleges.

In October 2016, St. Jude issued a medical advisory regarding the battery problem, which the FDA classified as a Class I recall, the most serious type.

After the recall, St. Jude no longer sold the older devices, but thousands of them had been implanted into patients between November 2014 and October 2016.

In September 2017, as reported by this news organization, a nationwide class-action lawsuit was filed against St. Jude Medical and parent company Abbott Laboratories alleging that, despite knowing about a battery-depletion defect in some of its cardiac defibrillators as early as 2011, St. Jude failed to adequately report the risk and waited nearly 5 years before issuing a recall.

“To ensure the health and safety of patients, manufacturers of implantable cardiac devices must be transparent when communicating with the government about safety issues and incidents,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, from the DOJ’s Civil Division, said in the DOJ statement announcing the settlement.

“We will hold accountable those companies whose conduct violates the law and puts patients’ health at risk,” Mr. Boynton said.

The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act by Debbie Burke, a patient who received one of the devices that was subject to recall.

The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only; there has been no determination of liability, the DOJ noted. St. Jude denies the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Advanced age by itself can be a reason physicians hold back on prescribing mainstay medications, or fail to uptitrate them per guidelines, to their older patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), suggests a large cohort study.

About 80% of patients aged 80 years or older were prescribed renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors (RASi) in a multivariate-adjusted analysis of more than 27,000 patients in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF). In contrast, such drugs – which included angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), angiotensin receptor blockers, and ACE inhibitors – were prescribed to 95% of patients younger than 70 years.

Similarly, fewer of the oldest patients were offered meds from the two other drug classes core to HF management at the time: Beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA).

And among those in the 80-and-older age group who were prescribed RASi or beta blockers, their uptitration more often fell short of even half the target dosage, compared with the youngest patients in the analysis.

Physicians may hold back on full guideline-directed medical therapy in their very elderly patients with HFrEF for many reasons, including a perceived likelihood of drug intolerance due to frailty or multiple comorbidities, including renal dysfunction, Davide Stolfo, MD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and University of Trieste, Italy, told this news organization.

But the current analysis was adjusted for about 80 variables “that in our interpretation may be main reasons for not introducing drugs and using them in the older patients,” he said. They included care setting (that is, inpatient or outpatient), HF severity by several measures, a range of comorbidities, renal dysfunction, and history of serious illness such as cancer.

Even then, age emerged as a significant, independent predictor of medical therapy underuse in the oldest patients. Some physicians apparently see advanced age, by itself, as an “intrinsic reason” not to abide by HFrEF medical therapy recommendations, said Dr. Stolfo, who presented the analysis at HFA 2021, the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), conducted both virtually and live in Florence, Italy.

Most major HF-drug trials have excluded or admitted few patients aged 80 years or older, but “the guidelines recommend treatment regardless of age, and in the trials there has been no influence from age on the effectiveness of drugs,” Dr. Stolfo observed.

Moreover, in a prior SwedeHF analysis with propensity matching, patients with HFrEF aged 80 or older showed steeper reductions in risk for death or HF hospitalization from treatment with RASi than those in younger age groups.

One of the few randomized trials to focus on the very elderly, called SENIORS, enrolled patients aged 70 years and older – the average age was 76 – and saw a significantly reduced risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization for those assigned to the beta blocker nebivolol. The benefits in the trial, which was conducted 15 years ago, were independent of left ventricular function.

So in the oldest patients, “we could question the need to achieve full dose of an evidence-based drug, but we shouldn’t question the use of these drugs.”

The findings are consistent with a need to individualize medical therapy in senior patients with HFrEF, especially those of more advanced age, some of whom may be robust enough to be managed similarly to younger patients while others who may be less suitable for full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Stolfo said.

Even for those who are more frail or have major comorbidities, drug therapy of HFrEF continues to be important for symptom control even if competing causes of death make it harder to prolong survival, Dr. Stolfo said.

“We should provide to all patients the best strategy they can tolerate,” he said. “If we cannot greatly impact on the long-term survival for these patients, treatment can be aimed to improve the quality of life and keep the patient out of the hospital.”

The analysis was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Stolfo disclosed personal fees from Novartis, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Acceleron.

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

Advanced age by itself can be a reason physicians hold back on prescribing mainstay medications, or fail to uptitrate them per guidelines, to their older patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), suggests a large cohort study.

About 80% of patients aged 80 years or older were prescribed renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors (RASi) in a multivariate-adjusted analysis of more than 27,000 patients in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF). In contrast, such drugs – which included angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), angiotensin receptor blockers, and ACE inhibitors – were prescribed to 95% of patients younger than 70 years.

Similarly, fewer of the oldest patients were offered meds from the two other drug classes core to HF management at the time: Beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA).

And among those in the 80-and-older age group who were prescribed RASi or beta blockers, their uptitration more often fell short of even half the target dosage, compared with the youngest patients in the analysis.

Physicians may hold back on full guideline-directed medical therapy in their very elderly patients with HFrEF for many reasons, including a perceived likelihood of drug intolerance due to frailty or multiple comorbidities, including renal dysfunction, Davide Stolfo, MD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and University of Trieste, Italy, told this news organization.

But the current analysis was adjusted for about 80 variables “that in our interpretation may be main reasons for not introducing drugs and using them in the older patients,” he said. They included care setting (that is, inpatient or outpatient), HF severity by several measures, a range of comorbidities, renal dysfunction, and history of serious illness such as cancer.

Even then, age emerged as a significant, independent predictor of medical therapy underuse in the oldest patients. Some physicians apparently see advanced age, by itself, as an “intrinsic reason” not to abide by HFrEF medical therapy recommendations, said Dr. Stolfo, who presented the analysis at HFA 2021, the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), conducted both virtually and live in Florence, Italy.

Most major HF-drug trials have excluded or admitted few patients aged 80 years or older, but “the guidelines recommend treatment regardless of age, and in the trials there has been no influence from age on the effectiveness of drugs,” Dr. Stolfo observed.

Moreover, in a prior SwedeHF analysis with propensity matching, patients with HFrEF aged 80 or older showed steeper reductions in risk for death or HF hospitalization from treatment with RASi than those in younger age groups.

One of the few randomized trials to focus on the very elderly, called SENIORS, enrolled patients aged 70 years and older – the average age was 76 – and saw a significantly reduced risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization for those assigned to the beta blocker nebivolol. The benefits in the trial, which was conducted 15 years ago, were independent of left ventricular function.

So in the oldest patients, “we could question the need to achieve full dose of an evidence-based drug, but we shouldn’t question the use of these drugs.”

The findings are consistent with a need to individualize medical therapy in senior patients with HFrEF, especially those of more advanced age, some of whom may be robust enough to be managed similarly to younger patients while others who may be less suitable for full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Stolfo said.

Even for those who are more frail or have major comorbidities, drug therapy of HFrEF continues to be important for symptom control even if competing causes of death make it harder to prolong survival, Dr. Stolfo said.

“We should provide to all patients the best strategy they can tolerate,” he said. “If we cannot greatly impact on the long-term survival for these patients, treatment can be aimed to improve the quality of life and keep the patient out of the hospital.”

The analysis was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Stolfo disclosed personal fees from Novartis, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Acceleron.

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

Advanced age by itself can be a reason physicians hold back on prescribing mainstay medications, or fail to uptitrate them per guidelines, to their older patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), suggests a large cohort study.

About 80% of patients aged 80 years or older were prescribed renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors (RASi) in a multivariate-adjusted analysis of more than 27,000 patients in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF). In contrast, such drugs – which included angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), angiotensin receptor blockers, and ACE inhibitors – were prescribed to 95% of patients younger than 70 years.

Similarly, fewer of the oldest patients were offered meds from the two other drug classes core to HF management at the time: Beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA).

And among those in the 80-and-older age group who were prescribed RASi or beta blockers, their uptitration more often fell short of even half the target dosage, compared with the youngest patients in the analysis.

Physicians may hold back on full guideline-directed medical therapy in their very elderly patients with HFrEF for many reasons, including a perceived likelihood of drug intolerance due to frailty or multiple comorbidities, including renal dysfunction, Davide Stolfo, MD, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and University of Trieste, Italy, told this news organization.

But the current analysis was adjusted for about 80 variables “that in our interpretation may be main reasons for not introducing drugs and using them in the older patients,” he said. They included care setting (that is, inpatient or outpatient), HF severity by several measures, a range of comorbidities, renal dysfunction, and history of serious illness such as cancer.

Even then, age emerged as a significant, independent predictor of medical therapy underuse in the oldest patients. Some physicians apparently see advanced age, by itself, as an “intrinsic reason” not to abide by HFrEF medical therapy recommendations, said Dr. Stolfo, who presented the analysis at HFA 2021, the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), conducted both virtually and live in Florence, Italy.

Most major HF-drug trials have excluded or admitted few patients aged 80 years or older, but “the guidelines recommend treatment regardless of age, and in the trials there has been no influence from age on the effectiveness of drugs,” Dr. Stolfo observed.

Moreover, in a prior SwedeHF analysis with propensity matching, patients with HFrEF aged 80 or older showed steeper reductions in risk for death or HF hospitalization from treatment with RASi than those in younger age groups.

One of the few randomized trials to focus on the very elderly, called SENIORS, enrolled patients aged 70 years and older – the average age was 76 – and saw a significantly reduced risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization for those assigned to the beta blocker nebivolol. The benefits in the trial, which was conducted 15 years ago, were independent of left ventricular function.

So in the oldest patients, “we could question the need to achieve full dose of an evidence-based drug, but we shouldn’t question the use of these drugs.”

The findings are consistent with a need to individualize medical therapy in senior patients with HFrEF, especially those of more advanced age, some of whom may be robust enough to be managed similarly to younger patients while others who may be less suitable for full guideline-directed medical therapy, Dr. Stolfo said.

Even for those who are more frail or have major comorbidities, drug therapy of HFrEF continues to be important for symptom control even if competing causes of death make it harder to prolong survival, Dr. Stolfo said.

“We should provide to all patients the best strategy they can tolerate,” he said. “If we cannot greatly impact on the long-term survival for these patients, treatment can be aimed to improve the quality of life and keep the patient out of the hospital.”

The analysis was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Stolfo disclosed personal fees from Novartis, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Acceleron.

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

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is adding a warning to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ fact sheets as medical experts continue to investigate cases of heart inflammation, which are rare but are more likely to occur in young men and teen boys.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s division of vaccines and related products applications, told a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expert panel on June 23 that the FDA is finalizing language on a warning statement for health care providers, vaccine recipients, and parents or caregivers of teens.

The incidents are more likely to follow the second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, with chest pain and other symptoms occurring within several days to a week, the warning will note.

“Based on limited follow-up, most cases appear to have been associated with resolution of symptoms, but limited information is available about potential long-term sequelae,” Dr. Fink said, describing the statement to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, independent experts who advise the CDC.

“Symptoms suggestive of myocarditis or pericarditis should result in vaccine recipients seeking medical attention,” he said.
 

Benefits outweigh risks

Although no formal vote occurred after the meeting, the ACIP members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate 12- to 29-year-olds with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines despite the warning.

“To me it’s clear, based on current information, that the benefits of vaccine clearly outweigh the risks,” said ACIP member Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in Bloomfield, Mich., a sentiment echoed by other members.

As ACIP was meeting, leaders of the nation’s major physician, nurse, and public health associations issued a statement supporting continued vaccination: “The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination.

“Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe.”

ACIP heard the evidence behind that claim. According to the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which contains data from more than 12 million medical records, myocarditis or pericarditis occurs in 12- to 39-year-olds at a rate of 8 per 1 million after the second Pfizer dose and 19.8 per 1 million after the second Moderna dose.

The CDC continues to investigate the link between the mRNA vaccines and heart inflammation, including any differences between the vaccines.

Most of the symptoms resolved quickly, said Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. Of 323 cases analyzed by the CDC, 309 were hospitalized, 295 were discharged, and 218, or 79%, had recovered from symptoms.

“Most postvaccine myocarditis has been responding to minimal treatment,” pediatric cardiologist Matthew Oster, MD, MPH, from Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, told the panel.
 

COVID ‘risks are higher’

Overall, the CDC has reported 2,767 COVID-19 deaths among people aged 12-29 years, and there have been 4,018 reported cases of the COVID-linked inflammatory disorder MIS-C since the beginning of the pandemic.

That amounts to 1 MIS-C case in every 3,200 COVID infections – 36% of them among teens aged 12-20 years and 62% among children who are Hispanic or Black and non-Hispanic, according to a CDC presentation.

The CDC estimated that every 1 million second-dose COVID vaccines administered to 12- to 17-year-old boys could prevent 5,700 cases of COVID-19, 215 hospitalizations, 71 ICU admissions, and 2 deaths. There could also be 56-69 myocarditis cases.

The emergence of new variants in the United States and the skewed pattern of vaccination around the country also may increase the risk to unvaccinated young people, noted Grace Lee, MD, MPH, chair of the ACIP’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup and a pediatric infectious disease physician at Stanford (Calif.) Children’s Health.

“If you’re in an area with low vaccination, the risks are higher,” she said. “The benefits [of the vaccine] are going to be far, far greater than any risk.”

Individuals, parents, and their clinicians should consider the full scope of risk when making decisions about vaccination, she said.

As the pandemic evolves, medical experts have to balance the known risks and benefits while they gather more information, said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease physician at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

“The story is not over,” Dr. Schaffner said in an interview. “Clearly, we are still working in the face of a pandemic, so there’s urgency to continue vaccinating. But they would like to know more about the long-term consequences of the myocarditis.”
 

Booster possibilities

Meanwhile, ACIP began conversations on the parameters for a possible vaccine booster. For now, there are simply questions: Would a third vaccine help the immunocompromised gain protection? Should people get a different type of vaccine – mRNA versus adenovirus vector – for their booster? Most important, how long do antibodies last?

“Prior to going around giving everyone boosters, we really need to improve the overall vaccination coverage,” said Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University. “That will protect everyone.”

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

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

jremaly@mdedge.com

Type 2 diabetes patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who took sotagliflozin remained alive and out of the hospital for more days after discharge than ones who took placebo, according to a new analysis.

The outcome measure –days alive and out of the hospital – may be a meaningful, patient-centered way of capturing disease burden, the researchers wrote in their paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The question was: Can we keep patients alive and out of the hospital for any reason, accounting for the duration of each hospitalization?” author Michael Szarek, PhD, a visiting professor in the division of cardiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

“For every 100 days of follow-up, patients in the sotagliflozin group were alive and out of the hospital 3% more days in relative terms or 2.9 days in absolute terms than those in the placebo group (91.8 vs. 88.9 days),” the researchers reported in their analysis of data from the SOLOIST-WHF trial.

“If you translate that to over the course of a year, that’s more than 10 days,” said Dr. Szarek, who is also a faculty member of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado.

Most patients in both groups survived to the end of the study without hospitalization, according to the paper.

Sotagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, is not approved in the United States. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration rejected sotagliflozin as an adjunct to insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes after members of an advisory committee expressed concerns about an increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis with the drug.
 

Methods and results

To examine whether sotagliflozin increased days alive and out of the hospital in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, Dr. Szarek and colleagues analyzed data from this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The trial’s primary results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2021. Researchers conducted SOLOIST-WHF at more than 300 sites in 32 countries. The trial included 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and reduced or preserved ejection fraction who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

In the new analysis the researchers looked at hospitalizations for any reason and the duration of hospital admissions after randomization. They analyzed days alive and out of the hospital using prespecified models.

Similar proportions of patients who received sotagliflozin and placebo were hospitalized at least once (38.5% vs. 41.4%) during a median follow-up of 9 months. Fewer patients who received sotagliflozin were hospitalized more than once (16.3% vs. 22.1%). In all, 64 patients in the sotagliflozin group and 76 patients in the placebo group died.

The reason for each hospitalization was unspecified, except for cases of heart failure, the authors noted. About 62% of hospitalizations during the trial were for reasons other than heart failure.
 

Outside expert cites similarities to initial trial

The results for days alive and out of the hospital are “not particularly surprising given the previous publication” of the trial’s primary results, but the new analysis provides a “different view of outcomes that might be clinically meaningful for patients,” commented Frank Brosius, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The SOLOIST-WHF trial indicated that doctors may be able to effectively treat patients with relatively new heart failure with sotagliflozin as long as patients are relatively stable, said Dr. Brosius, who coauthored an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that accompanied the initial results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial. It appears that previously reported benefits with regard to heart failure outcomes “showed up in these other indicators” in the secondary analysis.

Still, the effect sizes in the new analysis were relatively small and “probably more studies will be necessary” to examine these end points, he added.

SOLOIST-WHF was funded by Sanofi at initiation and by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals at completion. Dr. Szarek disclosed grants from Lexicon and grants and personal fees from Sanofi, as well as personal fees from other companies. His coauthors included employees of Lexicon and other researchers with financial ties to Lexicon and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Brosius disclosed personal fees from the American Diabetes Association and is a member of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative task force for the American Society of Nephrology that is broadly advocating the use of SGLT2 inhibitors by patients with diabetic kidney diseases. He also has participated in an advisory group for treatment of diabetic kidney disease for Gilead.

jremaly@mdedge.com