User login
Prior beta-blockers predict extra burden of heart failure in women with ACS
In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.
The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.
No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).
Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.
“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.
Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.
“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”
Rationale for the study
Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”
However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”
The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.
Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.
In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).
The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).
The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.
In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).
No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).
Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.
“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”
Not just a male disease
Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.
But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”
The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”
“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”
Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.
The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.
No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).
Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.
“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.
Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.
“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”
Rationale for the study
Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”
However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”
The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.
Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.
In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).
The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).
The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.
In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).
No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).
Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.
“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”
Not just a male disease
Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.
But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”
The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”
“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”
Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.
The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.
No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).
Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.
“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.
Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.
“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”
Rationale for the study
Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”
However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”
The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.
Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.
In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).
The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).
The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.
In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).
No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).
Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.
“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”
Not just a male disease
Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.
But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”
The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”
“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”
Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SGLT2 inhibitors, developed for T2D, now ‘belong to cardiologists and nephrologists’
It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.
This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.
The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.
But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.
“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.
“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.
The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).
Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.
“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.
Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.
It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.
This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.
The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.
But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.
“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.
“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.
The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).
Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.
“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.
Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.
It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.
This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.
The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.
But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.
“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.
“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.
The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).
Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.
“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.
Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.
FROM ADA 2020
Hypnosis may relieve pain, cut reliance on morphine at atrial flutter ablation
used as a control, in a small randomized trial.
Ablation is typically performed using conscious sedation and “requires sometimes very high dosages of morphine, and there are sometimes some complications, blood pressure drop, or oxygen desaturation,” Rodrigue Garcia, MD, Poitiers (France) University Hospital, said in an interview.
But patients in the study assigned to undergo hypnosis during the AFlut ablation, performed by practitioners hailing from the French Hypnosis Association, consistently perceived significantly less pain throughout the procedure than those in the active-control group.
They also used almost two-thirds less morphine, which was available to both groups on demand, reported Dr. Garcia, who presented the results of the PAINLESS study at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2020 Virtual Congress. The annual meeting was conducted online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hypnotism for pain control may not be widely available in hospitals, “but it’s becoming more and more frequent in the different centers, especially in France,” he said.
The technique is probably also suitable for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia, Dr. Garcia said, and “we already use it for atrial fibrillation ablation, because it’s a very common procedure and because, in France, for example, there is a lack of anesthesiologists.” One limitation of hypnosis for such procedures, he said, is that it requires a practitioner with a lot of training and experience.
The current study, “I think, is one of the few, if not the first, randomized trial on this topic, at least for flutter,” Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona, said in an interview.
“I thought it was very interesting. Many centers have the issue of not having anesthesiology support for their procedures. We have the option of having anesthesiology with us only a few days a week,” said Dr. Arbelo, who was not an investigator with the study.
“If it’s validated in larger cohorts and in different cultures, it may be an interesting way of reducing the need for anesthesiology support, which is a main issue. I know for sure in Europe,” she said, that “some centers do struggle to have anesthesiology support for their EP procedures.”
The single-center trial randomized adults slated to undergo cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 116) for AFlut to receive hypnosis or a control procedure, consisting of nonhypnotic relaxation suggestions and white noise delivered through earphones – 56 and 57 patients, respectively, after exclusion of several who ultimately did not undergo ablation. Any patient could receive 1 mg of morphine if self-reported pain was 5 or greater on a 10-point visual analog scale, or simply on demand.
The hypnosis and control groups were predominantly male and well matched for age (mean, about 69 years in both groups), prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (about 55% for both). Also, in both groups, the procedure duration was approximately 36 minutes.
Asked if all patients in the hypnosis group were actually hypnotized, Dr. Garcia said: “That’s a tricky question” because there was no prespecified definition for successful hypnosis. Between 70% and 80% achieved a hypnotized state, he estimated.
Hypnosis was superior to the control intervention for the primary outcome of pain self-assessment during the ablation procedure, as recorded 45 minutes after ablation. Also, using a 10-point visual analog scale, the hypnosis group rated the average pain intensity as 4.0, whereas the control group rated it as 5.5 (P < .001).
Similarly, instantaneous pain intensity, rated on a 10-point scale every 5 minutes, was lower throughout the procedure for the hypnosis patients than for the control patients (P < .05 at all assessments). Maximum pain intensities, which occurred at the 15- to 25-minute points, were no greater than 3 for hypnosis patients and peaked at approximately 5 for the control patients.
Two of three secondary end points favored the hypnosis group. Morphine consumption averaged 1.3 mg, compared with 3.6 mg for the control group (P < .001). Observer-assessed degrees of sedation were 8.3 and 5.4, respectively, on a 10-point scale (P < .001). And patient self-assessment of anxiety during the procedure was 1.5 in the hypnosis group and 2.5 in the control group on a similar scale.
Regarding morphine use in the two groups, Dr. Garcia said, “It was more than 2 mg of difference, and this can be very important, especially in certain types of patients,” such as those with compromised lung function.
All six complications (11%) observed during the study occurred in the control group. There were four severe hypotensive episodes, one case of oxygen desaturation, and one case of pericardial effusion (P = .03 vs the hypnosis group).
After pointing out the substantial risk for adverse events associated with deep analgesia, particularly from the use of opiates, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, PhD, said, “I think it’s a clinically relevant topic, in the context of reducing the risk of ablation procedures, to try to minimize the use of opiates or other strong anesthetics.”
A multicenter trial could be the next step, said Dr. Kirchhof, from the University Heart and Vascular Center UKE Hamburg (Germany). That would potentially provide “the first evidence for me that this is not sort of something that works in one specific setting, but that it is transferable to other centers, other countries, where practices and complication rates of analgosedation may be different.”
Dr. Kirchhof praised the study design for comparing hypnosis with an active standard-of-care control group. “That is one of the strengths of the study; they tried to design it in a way that didn’t disadvantage the control group.”
The study was funded by the University Hospital of Poitiers. Dr. Garcia and Dr. Arbelo reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kirchhof reported support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, the Leducq Foundation, the Medical Research Council, and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, and from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation, from which he received honoraria more than 3 years ago; he is listed as inventor on two patents held by the University of Birmingham (England).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
used as a control, in a small randomized trial.
Ablation is typically performed using conscious sedation and “requires sometimes very high dosages of morphine, and there are sometimes some complications, blood pressure drop, or oxygen desaturation,” Rodrigue Garcia, MD, Poitiers (France) University Hospital, said in an interview.
But patients in the study assigned to undergo hypnosis during the AFlut ablation, performed by practitioners hailing from the French Hypnosis Association, consistently perceived significantly less pain throughout the procedure than those in the active-control group.
They also used almost two-thirds less morphine, which was available to both groups on demand, reported Dr. Garcia, who presented the results of the PAINLESS study at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2020 Virtual Congress. The annual meeting was conducted online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hypnotism for pain control may not be widely available in hospitals, “but it’s becoming more and more frequent in the different centers, especially in France,” he said.
The technique is probably also suitable for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia, Dr. Garcia said, and “we already use it for atrial fibrillation ablation, because it’s a very common procedure and because, in France, for example, there is a lack of anesthesiologists.” One limitation of hypnosis for such procedures, he said, is that it requires a practitioner with a lot of training and experience.
The current study, “I think, is one of the few, if not the first, randomized trial on this topic, at least for flutter,” Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona, said in an interview.
“I thought it was very interesting. Many centers have the issue of not having anesthesiology support for their procedures. We have the option of having anesthesiology with us only a few days a week,” said Dr. Arbelo, who was not an investigator with the study.
“If it’s validated in larger cohorts and in different cultures, it may be an interesting way of reducing the need for anesthesiology support, which is a main issue. I know for sure in Europe,” she said, that “some centers do struggle to have anesthesiology support for their EP procedures.”
The single-center trial randomized adults slated to undergo cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 116) for AFlut to receive hypnosis or a control procedure, consisting of nonhypnotic relaxation suggestions and white noise delivered through earphones – 56 and 57 patients, respectively, after exclusion of several who ultimately did not undergo ablation. Any patient could receive 1 mg of morphine if self-reported pain was 5 or greater on a 10-point visual analog scale, or simply on demand.
The hypnosis and control groups were predominantly male and well matched for age (mean, about 69 years in both groups), prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (about 55% for both). Also, in both groups, the procedure duration was approximately 36 minutes.
Asked if all patients in the hypnosis group were actually hypnotized, Dr. Garcia said: “That’s a tricky question” because there was no prespecified definition for successful hypnosis. Between 70% and 80% achieved a hypnotized state, he estimated.
Hypnosis was superior to the control intervention for the primary outcome of pain self-assessment during the ablation procedure, as recorded 45 minutes after ablation. Also, using a 10-point visual analog scale, the hypnosis group rated the average pain intensity as 4.0, whereas the control group rated it as 5.5 (P < .001).
Similarly, instantaneous pain intensity, rated on a 10-point scale every 5 minutes, was lower throughout the procedure for the hypnosis patients than for the control patients (P < .05 at all assessments). Maximum pain intensities, which occurred at the 15- to 25-minute points, were no greater than 3 for hypnosis patients and peaked at approximately 5 for the control patients.
Two of three secondary end points favored the hypnosis group. Morphine consumption averaged 1.3 mg, compared with 3.6 mg for the control group (P < .001). Observer-assessed degrees of sedation were 8.3 and 5.4, respectively, on a 10-point scale (P < .001). And patient self-assessment of anxiety during the procedure was 1.5 in the hypnosis group and 2.5 in the control group on a similar scale.
Regarding morphine use in the two groups, Dr. Garcia said, “It was more than 2 mg of difference, and this can be very important, especially in certain types of patients,” such as those with compromised lung function.
All six complications (11%) observed during the study occurred in the control group. There were four severe hypotensive episodes, one case of oxygen desaturation, and one case of pericardial effusion (P = .03 vs the hypnosis group).
After pointing out the substantial risk for adverse events associated with deep analgesia, particularly from the use of opiates, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, PhD, said, “I think it’s a clinically relevant topic, in the context of reducing the risk of ablation procedures, to try to minimize the use of opiates or other strong anesthetics.”
A multicenter trial could be the next step, said Dr. Kirchhof, from the University Heart and Vascular Center UKE Hamburg (Germany). That would potentially provide “the first evidence for me that this is not sort of something that works in one specific setting, but that it is transferable to other centers, other countries, where practices and complication rates of analgosedation may be different.”
Dr. Kirchhof praised the study design for comparing hypnosis with an active standard-of-care control group. “That is one of the strengths of the study; they tried to design it in a way that didn’t disadvantage the control group.”
The study was funded by the University Hospital of Poitiers. Dr. Garcia and Dr. Arbelo reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kirchhof reported support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, the Leducq Foundation, the Medical Research Council, and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, and from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation, from which he received honoraria more than 3 years ago; he is listed as inventor on two patents held by the University of Birmingham (England).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
used as a control, in a small randomized trial.
Ablation is typically performed using conscious sedation and “requires sometimes very high dosages of morphine, and there are sometimes some complications, blood pressure drop, or oxygen desaturation,” Rodrigue Garcia, MD, Poitiers (France) University Hospital, said in an interview.
But patients in the study assigned to undergo hypnosis during the AFlut ablation, performed by practitioners hailing from the French Hypnosis Association, consistently perceived significantly less pain throughout the procedure than those in the active-control group.
They also used almost two-thirds less morphine, which was available to both groups on demand, reported Dr. Garcia, who presented the results of the PAINLESS study at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2020 Virtual Congress. The annual meeting was conducted online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hypnotism for pain control may not be widely available in hospitals, “but it’s becoming more and more frequent in the different centers, especially in France,” he said.
The technique is probably also suitable for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia, Dr. Garcia said, and “we already use it for atrial fibrillation ablation, because it’s a very common procedure and because, in France, for example, there is a lack of anesthesiologists.” One limitation of hypnosis for such procedures, he said, is that it requires a practitioner with a lot of training and experience.
The current study, “I think, is one of the few, if not the first, randomized trial on this topic, at least for flutter,” Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona, said in an interview.
“I thought it was very interesting. Many centers have the issue of not having anesthesiology support for their procedures. We have the option of having anesthesiology with us only a few days a week,” said Dr. Arbelo, who was not an investigator with the study.
“If it’s validated in larger cohorts and in different cultures, it may be an interesting way of reducing the need for anesthesiology support, which is a main issue. I know for sure in Europe,” she said, that “some centers do struggle to have anesthesiology support for their EP procedures.”
The single-center trial randomized adults slated to undergo cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 116) for AFlut to receive hypnosis or a control procedure, consisting of nonhypnotic relaxation suggestions and white noise delivered through earphones – 56 and 57 patients, respectively, after exclusion of several who ultimately did not undergo ablation. Any patient could receive 1 mg of morphine if self-reported pain was 5 or greater on a 10-point visual analog scale, or simply on demand.
The hypnosis and control groups were predominantly male and well matched for age (mean, about 69 years in both groups), prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (about 55% for both). Also, in both groups, the procedure duration was approximately 36 minutes.
Asked if all patients in the hypnosis group were actually hypnotized, Dr. Garcia said: “That’s a tricky question” because there was no prespecified definition for successful hypnosis. Between 70% and 80% achieved a hypnotized state, he estimated.
Hypnosis was superior to the control intervention for the primary outcome of pain self-assessment during the ablation procedure, as recorded 45 minutes after ablation. Also, using a 10-point visual analog scale, the hypnosis group rated the average pain intensity as 4.0, whereas the control group rated it as 5.5 (P < .001).
Similarly, instantaneous pain intensity, rated on a 10-point scale every 5 minutes, was lower throughout the procedure for the hypnosis patients than for the control patients (P < .05 at all assessments). Maximum pain intensities, which occurred at the 15- to 25-minute points, were no greater than 3 for hypnosis patients and peaked at approximately 5 for the control patients.
Two of three secondary end points favored the hypnosis group. Morphine consumption averaged 1.3 mg, compared with 3.6 mg for the control group (P < .001). Observer-assessed degrees of sedation were 8.3 and 5.4, respectively, on a 10-point scale (P < .001). And patient self-assessment of anxiety during the procedure was 1.5 in the hypnosis group and 2.5 in the control group on a similar scale.
Regarding morphine use in the two groups, Dr. Garcia said, “It was more than 2 mg of difference, and this can be very important, especially in certain types of patients,” such as those with compromised lung function.
All six complications (11%) observed during the study occurred in the control group. There were four severe hypotensive episodes, one case of oxygen desaturation, and one case of pericardial effusion (P = .03 vs the hypnosis group).
After pointing out the substantial risk for adverse events associated with deep analgesia, particularly from the use of opiates, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, PhD, said, “I think it’s a clinically relevant topic, in the context of reducing the risk of ablation procedures, to try to minimize the use of opiates or other strong anesthetics.”
A multicenter trial could be the next step, said Dr. Kirchhof, from the University Heart and Vascular Center UKE Hamburg (Germany). That would potentially provide “the first evidence for me that this is not sort of something that works in one specific setting, but that it is transferable to other centers, other countries, where practices and complication rates of analgosedation may be different.”
Dr. Kirchhof praised the study design for comparing hypnosis with an active standard-of-care control group. “That is one of the strengths of the study; they tried to design it in a way that didn’t disadvantage the control group.”
The study was funded by the University Hospital of Poitiers. Dr. Garcia and Dr. Arbelo reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kirchhof reported support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, the Leducq Foundation, the Medical Research Council, and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, and from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation, from which he received honoraria more than 3 years ago; he is listed as inventor on two patents held by the University of Birmingham (England).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral danicamtiv improves left atrial contractility in HFrEF
Danicamtiv, a novel oral selective cardiac myosin activator, demonstrated promising beneficial effects on left ventricular systolic function coupled with marked improvements in left atrial volume and function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in a phase 2a clinical trial, Adriaan A. Voors, MD, PhD, said at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
Importantly, these improvements weren’t accompanied by any unwelcome significant increase in diastolic stiffness, added Dr. Voors, a cardiologist at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands).
This is a drug whose novel mechanism of action could make it a good fit in combination with existing guideline-recommended therapies known to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), none of which do what danicamtiv does: namely, activates cardiac myosin by enhancing myofibrillar adenosine triphosphatase activity, thereby boosting intrinsic myocardial contractility without any impact upon calcium homeostasis, he explained.
Dr. Voors reported on 40 patients with stable HFrEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, all on background guideline-directed medical therapy. They were randomized double blind to 7 days of danicamtiv at 50, 75, or 100 mg twice daily, or placebo. A total of 489 ECGs were performed in conjunction with blood draws to measure plasma drug concentrations during the study.
Danicamtiv significantly improved left ventricular stroke volume and global longitudinal and circumferential strain in plasma drug concentration–dependent fashion, while simultaneously decreasing left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic diameters. Danicamtiv increased systolic ejection time from 286 milliseconds at baseline by an additional placebo-corrected 15, 36, and 48 milliseconds in patients with low, mid-range, and high drug concentrations.
The cardiac myosin activator’s concentration-dependent salutary effects on left atrial (LA) parameters in this brief study were intriguing, since LA function is often compromised in patients with heart failure and has been shown in prior observational studies to independently predict cardiovascular outcomes, the cardiologist noted. The favorable changes in response to danicamtiv included a reduction in LA minimal volume index and an increase in LA emptying fraction. Also, there were marked improvements in LA function index, by 6.1 and 5.8 points, respectively, in patients with mid- and high drug concentrations, from a baseline of 26 points.
Holter monitoring revealed no increased risk of atrial or ventricular arrhythmias in study participants.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and/or unrelated to treatment and showed no particular pattern. The one serious adverse event in the study was a case of hyperkalemia deemed by investigators to be unrelated to treatment.
Seven of 30 danicamtiv-treated patients developed mild, transient, asymptomatic increases in serum cardiac troponin I and/or high-sensitivity troponin T. Dr. Voors said the significance of this must await further examination in larger clinical trials. A phase 2 clinical trial in patients with HFrEF and paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation is planned in order to learn if chronic therapy with danicamtiv results in sustained LA remodeling and clinical benefits. Another planned phase 2 study will be conducted in patients with selected forms of genetic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Because danicamtiv appears to have no effects on blood pressure, renal function, or electrolytes, Dr. Voors speculated that the drug might prove to be an attractive therapeutic option in patients with advanced refractory heart failure, who often have low blood pressure, poor renal function, and a very low left ventricular ejection fraction.
Discussant Thomas Thum, MD, PhD, commented that danicamtiv has definitely earned an opportunity to show what it can do in larger, long-term clinical trials. He was impressed by the significant increase in systolic ejection time, a good marker for cardiac contractility. But he added that the troponin signal warrants careful scrutiny.
“The slight increase over baseline in the phase 2a study was not correlated with any ECG changes or clinical symptoms. However, whether this is a detrimental biomarker sign of a silent harm to the heart remains to be investigated,” said Dr. Thum, a cardiologist at the Institute of Molecular and Translational Therapeutic Strategies at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
The phase 2a study finding of a plasma drug concentration–dependent prolongation in isovolumetric relaxation time “warrants some caution in future clinical development in patients with impaired diastolic function,” he added.
Simultaneous with Dr. Voors’ presentation, the study results were published online (Eur J Heart Fail. 2020 Jun 19. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1933).
The danicamtiv study was sponsored by MyoKardia. Dr. Voors reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to MyoKardia and numerous other companies.
Danicamtiv, a novel oral selective cardiac myosin activator, demonstrated promising beneficial effects on left ventricular systolic function coupled with marked improvements in left atrial volume and function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in a phase 2a clinical trial, Adriaan A. Voors, MD, PhD, said at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
Importantly, these improvements weren’t accompanied by any unwelcome significant increase in diastolic stiffness, added Dr. Voors, a cardiologist at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands).
This is a drug whose novel mechanism of action could make it a good fit in combination with existing guideline-recommended therapies known to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), none of which do what danicamtiv does: namely, activates cardiac myosin by enhancing myofibrillar adenosine triphosphatase activity, thereby boosting intrinsic myocardial contractility without any impact upon calcium homeostasis, he explained.
Dr. Voors reported on 40 patients with stable HFrEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, all on background guideline-directed medical therapy. They were randomized double blind to 7 days of danicamtiv at 50, 75, or 100 mg twice daily, or placebo. A total of 489 ECGs were performed in conjunction with blood draws to measure plasma drug concentrations during the study.
Danicamtiv significantly improved left ventricular stroke volume and global longitudinal and circumferential strain in plasma drug concentration–dependent fashion, while simultaneously decreasing left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic diameters. Danicamtiv increased systolic ejection time from 286 milliseconds at baseline by an additional placebo-corrected 15, 36, and 48 milliseconds in patients with low, mid-range, and high drug concentrations.
The cardiac myosin activator’s concentration-dependent salutary effects on left atrial (LA) parameters in this brief study were intriguing, since LA function is often compromised in patients with heart failure and has been shown in prior observational studies to independently predict cardiovascular outcomes, the cardiologist noted. The favorable changes in response to danicamtiv included a reduction in LA minimal volume index and an increase in LA emptying fraction. Also, there were marked improvements in LA function index, by 6.1 and 5.8 points, respectively, in patients with mid- and high drug concentrations, from a baseline of 26 points.
Holter monitoring revealed no increased risk of atrial or ventricular arrhythmias in study participants.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and/or unrelated to treatment and showed no particular pattern. The one serious adverse event in the study was a case of hyperkalemia deemed by investigators to be unrelated to treatment.
Seven of 30 danicamtiv-treated patients developed mild, transient, asymptomatic increases in serum cardiac troponin I and/or high-sensitivity troponin T. Dr. Voors said the significance of this must await further examination in larger clinical trials. A phase 2 clinical trial in patients with HFrEF and paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation is planned in order to learn if chronic therapy with danicamtiv results in sustained LA remodeling and clinical benefits. Another planned phase 2 study will be conducted in patients with selected forms of genetic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Because danicamtiv appears to have no effects on blood pressure, renal function, or electrolytes, Dr. Voors speculated that the drug might prove to be an attractive therapeutic option in patients with advanced refractory heart failure, who often have low blood pressure, poor renal function, and a very low left ventricular ejection fraction.
Discussant Thomas Thum, MD, PhD, commented that danicamtiv has definitely earned an opportunity to show what it can do in larger, long-term clinical trials. He was impressed by the significant increase in systolic ejection time, a good marker for cardiac contractility. But he added that the troponin signal warrants careful scrutiny.
“The slight increase over baseline in the phase 2a study was not correlated with any ECG changes or clinical symptoms. However, whether this is a detrimental biomarker sign of a silent harm to the heart remains to be investigated,” said Dr. Thum, a cardiologist at the Institute of Molecular and Translational Therapeutic Strategies at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
The phase 2a study finding of a plasma drug concentration–dependent prolongation in isovolumetric relaxation time “warrants some caution in future clinical development in patients with impaired diastolic function,” he added.
Simultaneous with Dr. Voors’ presentation, the study results were published online (Eur J Heart Fail. 2020 Jun 19. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1933).
The danicamtiv study was sponsored by MyoKardia. Dr. Voors reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to MyoKardia and numerous other companies.
Danicamtiv, a novel oral selective cardiac myosin activator, demonstrated promising beneficial effects on left ventricular systolic function coupled with marked improvements in left atrial volume and function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in a phase 2a clinical trial, Adriaan A. Voors, MD, PhD, said at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
Importantly, these improvements weren’t accompanied by any unwelcome significant increase in diastolic stiffness, added Dr. Voors, a cardiologist at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands).
This is a drug whose novel mechanism of action could make it a good fit in combination with existing guideline-recommended therapies known to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), none of which do what danicamtiv does: namely, activates cardiac myosin by enhancing myofibrillar adenosine triphosphatase activity, thereby boosting intrinsic myocardial contractility without any impact upon calcium homeostasis, he explained.
Dr. Voors reported on 40 patients with stable HFrEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, all on background guideline-directed medical therapy. They were randomized double blind to 7 days of danicamtiv at 50, 75, or 100 mg twice daily, or placebo. A total of 489 ECGs were performed in conjunction with blood draws to measure plasma drug concentrations during the study.
Danicamtiv significantly improved left ventricular stroke volume and global longitudinal and circumferential strain in plasma drug concentration–dependent fashion, while simultaneously decreasing left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic diameters. Danicamtiv increased systolic ejection time from 286 milliseconds at baseline by an additional placebo-corrected 15, 36, and 48 milliseconds in patients with low, mid-range, and high drug concentrations.
The cardiac myosin activator’s concentration-dependent salutary effects on left atrial (LA) parameters in this brief study were intriguing, since LA function is often compromised in patients with heart failure and has been shown in prior observational studies to independently predict cardiovascular outcomes, the cardiologist noted. The favorable changes in response to danicamtiv included a reduction in LA minimal volume index and an increase in LA emptying fraction. Also, there were marked improvements in LA function index, by 6.1 and 5.8 points, respectively, in patients with mid- and high drug concentrations, from a baseline of 26 points.
Holter monitoring revealed no increased risk of atrial or ventricular arrhythmias in study participants.
Treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and/or unrelated to treatment and showed no particular pattern. The one serious adverse event in the study was a case of hyperkalemia deemed by investigators to be unrelated to treatment.
Seven of 30 danicamtiv-treated patients developed mild, transient, asymptomatic increases in serum cardiac troponin I and/or high-sensitivity troponin T. Dr. Voors said the significance of this must await further examination in larger clinical trials. A phase 2 clinical trial in patients with HFrEF and paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation is planned in order to learn if chronic therapy with danicamtiv results in sustained LA remodeling and clinical benefits. Another planned phase 2 study will be conducted in patients with selected forms of genetic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Because danicamtiv appears to have no effects on blood pressure, renal function, or electrolytes, Dr. Voors speculated that the drug might prove to be an attractive therapeutic option in patients with advanced refractory heart failure, who often have low blood pressure, poor renal function, and a very low left ventricular ejection fraction.
Discussant Thomas Thum, MD, PhD, commented that danicamtiv has definitely earned an opportunity to show what it can do in larger, long-term clinical trials. He was impressed by the significant increase in systolic ejection time, a good marker for cardiac contractility. But he added that the troponin signal warrants careful scrutiny.
“The slight increase over baseline in the phase 2a study was not correlated with any ECG changes or clinical symptoms. However, whether this is a detrimental biomarker sign of a silent harm to the heart remains to be investigated,” said Dr. Thum, a cardiologist at the Institute of Molecular and Translational Therapeutic Strategies at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
The phase 2a study finding of a plasma drug concentration–dependent prolongation in isovolumetric relaxation time “warrants some caution in future clinical development in patients with impaired diastolic function,” he added.
Simultaneous with Dr. Voors’ presentation, the study results were published online (Eur J Heart Fail. 2020 Jun 19. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1933).
The danicamtiv study was sponsored by MyoKardia. Dr. Voors reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to MyoKardia and numerous other companies.
FROM ESC HEART FAILURE 2020
Findings of most heart failure trials reported late or not at all
A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.
Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.
“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.
Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.
The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.
There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”
Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).
Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.
Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.
Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.
The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.
The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.
“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.
So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.
“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.
The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.
A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.
Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.
“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.
Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.
The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.
There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”
Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).
Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.
Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.
Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.
The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.
The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.
“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.
So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.
“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.
The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.
A large proportion of results from heart failure trials registered with clinicaltrials.gov are published a year or more after completion or not at all, which violates the U.S. FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA), according to a detailed analysis of the interventional and observational trials in this database.
Of the 1,429 heart failure trials identified, 75% of which were randomized interventional studies and the remainder of which were observational, fewer than 20% met the FDAAA 1-year reporting requirement, and 44% have yet to be published at all, reported a team of collaborative investigators led by cardiologists from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI), Falls Church, Va.
“I believe the critical issue is that the FDAAA has thus far never been enforced,” reported Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a cardiologist and president of IHVI. He was the senior author of the study, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
To improve systematic reporting of clinical trials, including negative results, clinicaltrials.gov was created in 2000. In 2007, the FDAAA enacted rules to broaden the requirements for reporting and to make timely reporting of results mandatory.
Ten years later, the FDA was finally authorized to issue a penalty of $10,000 for failure to release results in a timely fashion, a provision of the 2007 amendment but not confirmed at that time, the investigators reported. In the majority of cases, timely reporting was defined as within 12 months of completion of the trial.
The new study shows that reporting of completed trials, timely or otherwise, remains low. Of the 1,243 trials completed after 2007, the proportion meeting the 1-year reporting requirement was just 20%. Although a significant improvement over the 13% reporting in this time frame before 2007, more than 80% of findings are not being released in a timely manner more than 10 years after this was made mandatory.
There are a number of reasons to consider this to be a serious issue, according to Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. One of the authors of an accompanying editorial regarding this analysis, Dr. Mehra called underreporting “a public health matter because it is an impediment to medical discovery and poses plausible threats to patient safety.”
Among studies registered after 2007, publication rates were higher for trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (71%) relative to industry (49%) or the U.S. Veterans Affairs (45%).
Publication rates were also higher among interventional relative to observational trials (59% vs. 46%) and trials that enrolled more than 1,000 patients relative to those enrolling fewer than 150 (77% vs. 51%), although trial size was not a significant predictor of publication on multivariate analysis. Clinical endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, were also associated with a greater likelihood of publication relative to nonclinical endpoints.
Of the 251 trials terminated before completion, findings were published within 1 year in only 6%. Two years after completion, only 20% were published at all.
Results consistent with the primary hypothesis did not predict timely publication, but only 39% of the studies listed a primary hypothesis. Since 2017, this is another violation of the FDAAA, according to Dr. O’Connor.
The problem is not unique to heart failure trials, according to the authors who cited numerous studies showing low rates of timely publication in other therapeutic areas. Heart failure was selected for evaluation in this study mainly to keep the analysis feasible, although the authors contend this is an area with an urgent need for better treatments.
The problem needs to be fixed, according to Dr. Mehra. In his editorial, he called for rules to be “transitioned to regulations and action taken for underreporting.” Dr. O’Connor agreed.
“A combination of carrots and sticks might be needed to achieve sufficient result sharing,” Dr. O’Connor said. He suggested that stakeholders, such as investigators, sponsors, regulators, and journal editors, should collaborate to address the problem.
So far, the FDA has never levied a fine for lack of reporting or for failure to report in a timely manner. Routine imposition of large fines might not be viable, given the complex reasons that delay or inhibit publication of trial findings, but it would be a large source of revenue.
“According to the FDAAA TrialsTracker, a live tool that tracks FDAAA compliance and promotes trial transparency, the U.S. government could already have imposed more than $2.8 billion in fines for trials due after January 2018,” Dr. O’Connor reported.
The first and senior authors are among those who report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Psotka MA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:3151-61.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Dapagliflozin benefits low-EF heart failure regardless of diuretic dose: DAPA-HF
The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.
A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.
Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.
As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.
SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.
“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.
“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.
Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.
Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”
With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”
There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.
Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.
“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.
The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.
He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”
Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.
For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.
The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”
Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”
Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.
Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”
A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.
The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.
The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall
Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”
Renal adverse events were similarly prevalent in the two treatment groups, as were such events leading to treatment discontinuation. But serious renal events were less common in the dapagliflozin group (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .009), as was investigator-reported serious acute kidney injury (1.0% vs 1.9%; P = .007).
“Overall, renal events were infrequent,” Dr. Jackson said, and “because of the small number of events, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of dapagliflozin on renal function according to diuretic-dose subgroups.”
Still, she said, worsening renal function was less common on dapagliflozin in three of the four groups by diuretic dosage; the exception was the less than 40 mg FE group, “but the absolute difference in this group was only two events.”
There seem to be dapagliflozin mechanisms “underneath the surface that need to be unraveled,” Dr. Doehner said as discussant, processes that are favorable for the treatment of HFrEF in which “diuretics play no big role.”
Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.
A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.
Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.
As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.
SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.
“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.
“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.
Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.
Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”
With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”
There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.
Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.
“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.
The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.
He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”
Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.
For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.
The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”
Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”
Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.
Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”
A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.
The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.
The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall
Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”
Renal adverse events were similarly prevalent in the two treatment groups, as were such events leading to treatment discontinuation. But serious renal events were less common in the dapagliflozin group (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .009), as was investigator-reported serious acute kidney injury (1.0% vs 1.9%; P = .007).
“Overall, renal events were infrequent,” Dr. Jackson said, and “because of the small number of events, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of dapagliflozin on renal function according to diuretic-dose subgroups.”
Still, she said, worsening renal function was less common on dapagliflozin in three of the four groups by diuretic dosage; the exception was the less than 40 mg FE group, “but the absolute difference in this group was only two events.”
There seem to be dapagliflozin mechanisms “underneath the surface that need to be unraveled,” Dr. Doehner said as discussant, processes that are favorable for the treatment of HFrEF in which “diuretics play no big role.”
Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.
A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.
Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.
As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.
SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.
“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.
“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.
Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.
Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”
With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”
There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.
Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.
“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.
The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.
“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.
He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”
Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.
For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.
The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”
Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”
Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.
Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”
A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.
The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.
The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall
Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”
Renal adverse events were similarly prevalent in the two treatment groups, as were such events leading to treatment discontinuation. But serious renal events were less common in the dapagliflozin group (1.6% vs 2.7%; P = .009), as was investigator-reported serious acute kidney injury (1.0% vs 1.9%; P = .007).
“Overall, renal events were infrequent,” Dr. Jackson said, and “because of the small number of events, it is very difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of dapagliflozin on renal function according to diuretic-dose subgroups.”
Still, she said, worsening renal function was less common on dapagliflozin in three of the four groups by diuretic dosage; the exception was the less than 40 mg FE group, “but the absolute difference in this group was only two events.”
There seem to be dapagliflozin mechanisms “underneath the surface that need to be unraveled,” Dr. Doehner said as discussant, processes that are favorable for the treatment of HFrEF in which “diuretics play no big role.”
Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC HEART FAILURE 2020
VA readmissions program not linked to increased death
with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.
Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.
“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.
The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).
“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.
Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.
Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.
“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.
Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.
In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.
In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.
“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.
In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.
“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.
“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.
“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.
“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”
Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.
Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.
“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.
The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).
“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.
Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.
Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.
“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.
Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.
In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.
In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.
“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.
In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.
“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.
“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.
“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.
“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”
Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.
Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.
“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.
The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).
“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.
Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.
Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.
“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.
Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.
In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.
In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.
“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.
In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.
“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.
“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.
“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.
“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”
Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Women thrive on baroreflex activation for heart failure
The striking gains in functional capacity and quality of life conferred by baroreflex activation therapy in patients with heart failure, as shown in the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial for this novel intervention, were at least as great in women as in men, JoAnn Lindenfeld, MD, said at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
The results of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BeAT-HF trial led to marketing approval of the BaroStim Neo system for improvement in symptoms of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by the Food and Drug Administration in August 2019. Dr. Lindenfeld presented a fresh breakdown of the results by gender which showed, intriguingly, that the improvement in all study endpoints was consistently numerically greater in the women – sometimes startlingly so – although these gender differences in response didn’t achieve statistical significance. The 6-month randomized trial was underpowered for drawing definitive conclusions on that score, with a study population of only 53 women and 211 men. So the investigator remained circumspect.
“We think that what this study shows us is that women have at least equivalent improvement as men in this population. I don’t think we can conclude from this study yet that it’s better, but it’s certainly in all these parameters as least as good. And I think this is a population in which we’ve seen that improving symptoms and functional capacity is very important,” said Dr. Lindenfeld, professor of medicine and director of advanced heart failure/cardiac transplantation at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
The FDA approval was restricted to patients like those enrolled in BeAT-HF: that is, individuals with New York Heart Association functional class III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less while on stable optimal medical therapy, and ineligibility for cardiac resynchronization therapy according to current guidelines. Seventy-eight percent of BeAT-HF participants had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Participants were randomized to baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) plus optimal medical therapy or to optimal medical therapy alone. The three coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to 6 months in 6-minute hall walk distance (6MHW), scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
In the overall study population, 6MHW increased by 60 m in the BAT group and decreased by 8 m in controls; MLHF scores dropped by 14 and 6 points, respectively; and NT-proBNP fell by an average of 25% with BAT while rising by 3% in controls.
Very often, just a 5-point reduction in MLHF score is considered a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life, the cardiologist noted.
The gender-based analysis is where things got particularly interesting.
The investigators defined a clinically relevant response as a greater than 10% increase from baseline on the 6MHW, at least a one-class improvement in NYHA class, or a reduction of 5 points or more on the MLHF. Among subjects in the BAT group, 70% of women and 60% of men met the clinically relevant response standard in terms of 6MHW, as did 70% of women and 64% of men for improvement in NYHA class, and 78% of women and 66% of men for MLHF score.
Eighty-seven percent of women and 68% of men on BAT had a clinically relevant response on at least one of these endpoints, as did about 28% of controls. Moreover, 31% of women in the BAT group were clinically relevant responders on at least two endpoints, compared with 19% of BAT men and 4% and 9% of controls.
Women dominate super-responder category
In order to be classified as a super responder, a patient had to demonstrate a greater than 20% increase in 6MHW, improvement in NYHA class I status, or at least a 10-point improvement in MLHF score. Ninety-one percent of women on BAT achieved super-responder status for at least one of these endpoints, compared with 76% of men. Forty-three percent of women and 24% of men in the BAT group were super responders in at least two domains, as were 8% and 11% of female and male controls, Dr. Lindenfeld continued.
Discussant Ewa Anita Jankowska, MD, PhD, deemed the BeAT-HF results on the therapeutic benefits of this autonomic modulation strategy “quite convincing.”
“We need to acknowledge that in recent years we have been spoiled a bit by the huge trials in heart failure where the ultimate goal was a reduction in mortality. But I think this is the time when we should think about the patients who want to live – here, now – with a better life. Patients expect symptomatic benefits. There is a substantial group of patients who are symptomatic even though they receive quite extensive neurohormonal blockage and who are not suitable for CRT. This study demonstrates that, for this group of patients, BAT can bring really significant symptomatic benefits,” she said.
“If you think about a treatment that provides patients who are NYHA class III an increase in 6MHW of 60 meters, that’s really something. And 20% of patients went from NYHA class III to class I – that’s really something, too,” added Dr. Jankowska, professor of medicine and head of the laboratory of applied research on the cardiovascular system at Wroclaw (Poland) University.
How baroreflex activation therapy works
The BaroStim system consists of a 2-mm unipolar electrode on a 7-mm backer that is placed over the carotid sinus. It is supported by a small generator with a 4- to 5-year battery life implanted under the collarbone, along with radiofrequency telemetry capability and programming flexibility.
Stimulation of the carotid baroreceptor promotes an integrated autonomic nervous system response which enhances parasympathetic activity and inhibits sympathetic nervous system activity. The result, as shown in numerous earlier proof-of-concept studies, is a reduced heart rate, decreased ventricular remodeling, enhanced diuresis, increased vasodilation, a drop in elevated blood pressure, and decreased renin secretion – all achieved nonpharmacologically.
The study was sponsored by CVRx. Dr. Lindenfeld reported serving as a consultant to CVRx, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, and VWave.
The striking gains in functional capacity and quality of life conferred by baroreflex activation therapy in patients with heart failure, as shown in the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial for this novel intervention, were at least as great in women as in men, JoAnn Lindenfeld, MD, said at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
The results of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BeAT-HF trial led to marketing approval of the BaroStim Neo system for improvement in symptoms of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by the Food and Drug Administration in August 2019. Dr. Lindenfeld presented a fresh breakdown of the results by gender which showed, intriguingly, that the improvement in all study endpoints was consistently numerically greater in the women – sometimes startlingly so – although these gender differences in response didn’t achieve statistical significance. The 6-month randomized trial was underpowered for drawing definitive conclusions on that score, with a study population of only 53 women and 211 men. So the investigator remained circumspect.
“We think that what this study shows us is that women have at least equivalent improvement as men in this population. I don’t think we can conclude from this study yet that it’s better, but it’s certainly in all these parameters as least as good. And I think this is a population in which we’ve seen that improving symptoms and functional capacity is very important,” said Dr. Lindenfeld, professor of medicine and director of advanced heart failure/cardiac transplantation at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
The FDA approval was restricted to patients like those enrolled in BeAT-HF: that is, individuals with New York Heart Association functional class III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less while on stable optimal medical therapy, and ineligibility for cardiac resynchronization therapy according to current guidelines. Seventy-eight percent of BeAT-HF participants had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Participants were randomized to baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) plus optimal medical therapy or to optimal medical therapy alone. The three coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to 6 months in 6-minute hall walk distance (6MHW), scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
In the overall study population, 6MHW increased by 60 m in the BAT group and decreased by 8 m in controls; MLHF scores dropped by 14 and 6 points, respectively; and NT-proBNP fell by an average of 25% with BAT while rising by 3% in controls.
Very often, just a 5-point reduction in MLHF score is considered a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life, the cardiologist noted.
The gender-based analysis is where things got particularly interesting.
The investigators defined a clinically relevant response as a greater than 10% increase from baseline on the 6MHW, at least a one-class improvement in NYHA class, or a reduction of 5 points or more on the MLHF. Among subjects in the BAT group, 70% of women and 60% of men met the clinically relevant response standard in terms of 6MHW, as did 70% of women and 64% of men for improvement in NYHA class, and 78% of women and 66% of men for MLHF score.
Eighty-seven percent of women and 68% of men on BAT had a clinically relevant response on at least one of these endpoints, as did about 28% of controls. Moreover, 31% of women in the BAT group were clinically relevant responders on at least two endpoints, compared with 19% of BAT men and 4% and 9% of controls.
Women dominate super-responder category
In order to be classified as a super responder, a patient had to demonstrate a greater than 20% increase in 6MHW, improvement in NYHA class I status, or at least a 10-point improvement in MLHF score. Ninety-one percent of women on BAT achieved super-responder status for at least one of these endpoints, compared with 76% of men. Forty-three percent of women and 24% of men in the BAT group were super responders in at least two domains, as were 8% and 11% of female and male controls, Dr. Lindenfeld continued.
Discussant Ewa Anita Jankowska, MD, PhD, deemed the BeAT-HF results on the therapeutic benefits of this autonomic modulation strategy “quite convincing.”
“We need to acknowledge that in recent years we have been spoiled a bit by the huge trials in heart failure where the ultimate goal was a reduction in mortality. But I think this is the time when we should think about the patients who want to live – here, now – with a better life. Patients expect symptomatic benefits. There is a substantial group of patients who are symptomatic even though they receive quite extensive neurohormonal blockage and who are not suitable for CRT. This study demonstrates that, for this group of patients, BAT can bring really significant symptomatic benefits,” she said.
“If you think about a treatment that provides patients who are NYHA class III an increase in 6MHW of 60 meters, that’s really something. And 20% of patients went from NYHA class III to class I – that’s really something, too,” added Dr. Jankowska, professor of medicine and head of the laboratory of applied research on the cardiovascular system at Wroclaw (Poland) University.
How baroreflex activation therapy works
The BaroStim system consists of a 2-mm unipolar electrode on a 7-mm backer that is placed over the carotid sinus. It is supported by a small generator with a 4- to 5-year battery life implanted under the collarbone, along with radiofrequency telemetry capability and programming flexibility.
Stimulation of the carotid baroreceptor promotes an integrated autonomic nervous system response which enhances parasympathetic activity and inhibits sympathetic nervous system activity. The result, as shown in numerous earlier proof-of-concept studies, is a reduced heart rate, decreased ventricular remodeling, enhanced diuresis, increased vasodilation, a drop in elevated blood pressure, and decreased renin secretion – all achieved nonpharmacologically.
The study was sponsored by CVRx. Dr. Lindenfeld reported serving as a consultant to CVRx, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, and VWave.
The striking gains in functional capacity and quality of life conferred by baroreflex activation therapy in patients with heart failure, as shown in the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial for this novel intervention, were at least as great in women as in men, JoAnn Lindenfeld, MD, said at the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting.
The results of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BeAT-HF trial led to marketing approval of the BaroStim Neo system for improvement in symptoms of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by the Food and Drug Administration in August 2019. Dr. Lindenfeld presented a fresh breakdown of the results by gender which showed, intriguingly, that the improvement in all study endpoints was consistently numerically greater in the women – sometimes startlingly so – although these gender differences in response didn’t achieve statistical significance. The 6-month randomized trial was underpowered for drawing definitive conclusions on that score, with a study population of only 53 women and 211 men. So the investigator remained circumspect.
“We think that what this study shows us is that women have at least equivalent improvement as men in this population. I don’t think we can conclude from this study yet that it’s better, but it’s certainly in all these parameters as least as good. And I think this is a population in which we’ve seen that improving symptoms and functional capacity is very important,” said Dr. Lindenfeld, professor of medicine and director of advanced heart failure/cardiac transplantation at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
The FDA approval was restricted to patients like those enrolled in BeAT-HF: that is, individuals with New York Heart Association functional class III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less while on stable optimal medical therapy, and ineligibility for cardiac resynchronization therapy according to current guidelines. Seventy-eight percent of BeAT-HF participants had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.
Participants were randomized to baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) plus optimal medical therapy or to optimal medical therapy alone. The three coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to 6 months in 6-minute hall walk distance (6MHW), scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
In the overall study population, 6MHW increased by 60 m in the BAT group and decreased by 8 m in controls; MLHF scores dropped by 14 and 6 points, respectively; and NT-proBNP fell by an average of 25% with BAT while rising by 3% in controls.
Very often, just a 5-point reduction in MLHF score is considered a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life, the cardiologist noted.
The gender-based analysis is where things got particularly interesting.
The investigators defined a clinically relevant response as a greater than 10% increase from baseline on the 6MHW, at least a one-class improvement in NYHA class, or a reduction of 5 points or more on the MLHF. Among subjects in the BAT group, 70% of women and 60% of men met the clinically relevant response standard in terms of 6MHW, as did 70% of women and 64% of men for improvement in NYHA class, and 78% of women and 66% of men for MLHF score.
Eighty-seven percent of women and 68% of men on BAT had a clinically relevant response on at least one of these endpoints, as did about 28% of controls. Moreover, 31% of women in the BAT group were clinically relevant responders on at least two endpoints, compared with 19% of BAT men and 4% and 9% of controls.
Women dominate super-responder category
In order to be classified as a super responder, a patient had to demonstrate a greater than 20% increase in 6MHW, improvement in NYHA class I status, or at least a 10-point improvement in MLHF score. Ninety-one percent of women on BAT achieved super-responder status for at least one of these endpoints, compared with 76% of men. Forty-three percent of women and 24% of men in the BAT group were super responders in at least two domains, as were 8% and 11% of female and male controls, Dr. Lindenfeld continued.
Discussant Ewa Anita Jankowska, MD, PhD, deemed the BeAT-HF results on the therapeutic benefits of this autonomic modulation strategy “quite convincing.”
“We need to acknowledge that in recent years we have been spoiled a bit by the huge trials in heart failure where the ultimate goal was a reduction in mortality. But I think this is the time when we should think about the patients who want to live – here, now – with a better life. Patients expect symptomatic benefits. There is a substantial group of patients who are symptomatic even though they receive quite extensive neurohormonal blockage and who are not suitable for CRT. This study demonstrates that, for this group of patients, BAT can bring really significant symptomatic benefits,” she said.
“If you think about a treatment that provides patients who are NYHA class III an increase in 6MHW of 60 meters, that’s really something. And 20% of patients went from NYHA class III to class I – that’s really something, too,” added Dr. Jankowska, professor of medicine and head of the laboratory of applied research on the cardiovascular system at Wroclaw (Poland) University.
How baroreflex activation therapy works
The BaroStim system consists of a 2-mm unipolar electrode on a 7-mm backer that is placed over the carotid sinus. It is supported by a small generator with a 4- to 5-year battery life implanted under the collarbone, along with radiofrequency telemetry capability and programming flexibility.
Stimulation of the carotid baroreceptor promotes an integrated autonomic nervous system response which enhances parasympathetic activity and inhibits sympathetic nervous system activity. The result, as shown in numerous earlier proof-of-concept studies, is a reduced heart rate, decreased ventricular remodeling, enhanced diuresis, increased vasodilation, a drop in elevated blood pressure, and decreased renin secretion – all achieved nonpharmacologically.
The study was sponsored by CVRx. Dr. Lindenfeld reported serving as a consultant to CVRx, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards Lifesciences, Impulse Dynamics, and VWave.
FROM ESC HEART FAILURE 2020
T2D plus heart failure packs a deadly punch
It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.
Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.
The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.
“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.
The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.
Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity
The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.
But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.
The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.
The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
Management implications
The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.
Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”
Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.
“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.
Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.
It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.
Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.
The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.
“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.
The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.
Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity
The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.
But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.
The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.
The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
Management implications
The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.
Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”
Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.
“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.
Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.
It’s bad news for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes when they then develop heart failure during the next few years.
Patients with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D) who soon after also had heart failure appear faced a dramatically elevated mortality risk, higher than the incremental risk from any other cardiovascular or renal comorbidity that appeared following diabetes onset, in an analysis of more than 150,000 Danish patients with incident type 2 diabetes during 1998-2015.
The 5-year risk of death in patients who developed heart failure during the first 5 years following an initial diagnosis of T2D was about 48%, about threefold higher than in patients with newly diagnosed T2D who remained free of heart failure or any of the other studied comorbidities, Bochra Zareini, MD, and associates reported in a study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. The studied patients had no known cardiovascular or renal disease at the time of their first T2D diagnosis.
“Our study reports not only on the absolute 5-year risk” of mortality, “but also takes into consideration when patients developed” a comorbidity. “What is surprising and worrying is the very high risk of death following heart failure and the potential life years lost when compared to T2D patients who do not develop heart failure,” said Dr. Zareini, a cardiologist at Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital in Copenhagen. “The implications of our study are to create awareness and highlight the importance of early detection of heart failure development in patients with T2D.” The results also showed that “heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease” in patients with newly diagnosed T2D, she added in an interview.
The data she and her associates reported came from a retrospective analysis of 153,403 Danish citizens in national health records who received a prescription for an antidiabetes drug for the first time during 1998-2015, excluding patients with a prior diagnosis of heart failure, ischemic heart disease (IHD), stroke, peripheral artery disease (PAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or gestational diabetes. They followed these patients for a median of just under 10 years, during which time 45% of the cohort had an incident diagnosis of at least one of these cardiovascular and renal conditions, based on medical-record entries from hospitalization discharges or ambulatory contacts.
Nearly two-thirds of the T2D patients with an incident comorbidity during follow-up had a single new diagnosis, a quarter had two new comorbidities appear during follow-up, and 13% developed at least three new comorbidities.
Heart failure, least common but deadliest comorbidity
The most common of the tracked comorbidities was IHD, which appeared in 8% of the T2D patients within 5 years and in 13% after 10 years. Next most common was stroke, affecting 3% of patients after 5 years and 5% after 10 years. CKD occurred in 2.2% after 5 years and in 4.0% after 10 years, PAD occurred in 2.1% after 5 years and in 3.0% at 10 years, and heart failure occurred in 1.6% at 5 years and in 2.2% after 10 years.
But despite being the least common of the studied comorbidities, heart failure was by far the most deadly, roughly tripling the 5-year mortality rate, compared with T2D patients with no comorbidities, regardless of exactly when it first appeared during the first 5 years after the initial T2D diagnosis. The next most deadly comorbidities were stroke and PAD, which each roughly doubled mortality, compared with the patients who remained free of any studied comorbidity. CKD boosted mortality by 70%-110%, depending on exactly when it appeared during the first 5 years of follow-up, and IHD, while the most frequent comorbidity was also the most benign, increasing mortality by about 30%.
The most deadly combinations of two comorbidities were when heart failure appeared with either CKD or with PAD; each of these combinations boosted mortality by 300%-400% when it occurred during the first few years after a T2D diagnosis.
The findings came from “a very big and unselected patient group of patients, making our results highly generalizable in terms of assessing the prognostic consequences of heart failure,” Dr. Zareini stressed.
Management implications
The dangerous combination of T2D and heart failure has been documented for several years, and prompted a focused statement in 2019 about best practices for managing these patients (Circulation. 2019 Aug 3;140[7]:e294-324). “Heart failure has been known for some time to predict poorer outcomes in patients with T2D. Not much surprising” in the new findings reported by Dr. Zareini and associates, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, a cardiovascular endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Heart failure “rarely acts alone, but in combination with other forms of heart or renal disease,” he noted in an interview.
Earlier studies may have “overlooked” heart failure’s importance compared with other comorbidities because they often “only investigated one cardiovascular disease in patients with T2D,” Dr. Zareini noted. In recent years the importance of heart failure occurring in patients with T2D also gained heightened significance because of the growing role of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drug class in treating patients with T2D and the documented ability of these drugs to significantly reduce hospitalizations for heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 28;75[16]:1956-74). Dr. Zareini and associates put it this way in their report: “Heart failure has in recent years been recognized as an important clinical endpoint ... in patients with T2D, in particular, after the results from randomized, controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors showed benefit on cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations.”
Despite this, the new findings “do not address treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, nor can we use our data to address which patients should not be treated,” with this drug class, which instead should rely on “current evidence and expert consensus,” she said.
“Guidelines favor SGLT2 inhibitors or [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists in patients with a history of or high risk for major adverse coronary events,” and SGLT2 inhibitors are also “preferable in patients with renal disease,” Dr. Eckel noted.
Other avenues also exist for minimizing the onset of heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases in patients with T2D, Dr. Zareini said, citing modifiable risks that lead to heart failure that include hypertension, “diabetic cardiomyopathy,” and ISD. “Clinicians must treat all modifiable risk factors in patients with T2D in order to improve prognosis and limit development of cardiovascular and renal disease.”
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Zareini and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zareini B et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Jun 23. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006260.
FROM CIRCULATION: CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES
Cost of preventable adult hospital stays topped $33 billion in 2017
according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
That year, there were 27.4 million inpatient visits by adults with a total cost of $380.1 billion, although obstetric stays were not included in the analysis. Of those inpatient admissions, 3.5 million (12.9%) were deemed to be “avoidable, in part, through timely and quality primary and preventive care,” Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and H. Joanna Jiang, PhD, said in a recent AHRQ statistical brief.
The charges for those 3.5 million visits came to $33.7 billion, or 8.9% of aggregate hospital costs in 2017, based on data from the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s state inpatient databases.
“Determining the volume and costs of potentially preventable inpatient stays can identify where potential cost savings might be found associated with reducing these hospitalizations overall and among specific subpopulations,” the investigators pointed out.
Of the seven conditions that are potentially avoidable, heart failure was the most expensive, producing more than 1.1 million inpatient admissions at a cost of $11.2 billion. Diabetes was next with a cost of almost $7.4 billion, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at nearly $7.3 billion, they said.
Those three conditions, along with hypertension and asthma in younger adults, brought the total cost of the preventable-stay equation’s chronic side to $27.3 billion in 2017, versus $6.4 billion for the two acute conditions, community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections, said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Dr. Jiang of the AHRQ.
The rate of potentially avoidable stays for chronic conditions was higher for men (1,112/100,000 population) than for women (954/100,000), but women had a higher rate for acute conditions, 346 vs. 257, which made the overall rates similar (1,369 for men and 1,300 for women), they reported.
Differences by race/ethnicity were more striking. The rate of potentially avoidable stays for blacks was 2,573/100,000 in 2017, compared with 1,315 for Hispanics, 1,173 for whites, and 581 for Asians/Pacific Islanders. The considerable margins between those figures, however, were far eclipsed by the “other” category, which had 4,911 stays per 100,000, the researchers said.
Large disparities also can be seen when looking at community-level income. Communities with income in the lowest quartile had a preventable-hospitalization rate of 2,013/100,000, and the rate dropped with each successive quartile until it reached 878/100,000 for the highest-income communities, according to the report.
“High hospital admission rates for these conditions may indicate areas where changes to the healthcare delivery system could be implemented to improve patient outcomes and lower costs,” Dr. McDermott and Dr. Jiang wrote.
SOURCE: McDermott KW and Jiang HJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #259. June 2020.
according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
That year, there were 27.4 million inpatient visits by adults with a total cost of $380.1 billion, although obstetric stays were not included in the analysis. Of those inpatient admissions, 3.5 million (12.9%) were deemed to be “avoidable, in part, through timely and quality primary and preventive care,” Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and H. Joanna Jiang, PhD, said in a recent AHRQ statistical brief.
The charges for those 3.5 million visits came to $33.7 billion, or 8.9% of aggregate hospital costs in 2017, based on data from the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s state inpatient databases.
“Determining the volume and costs of potentially preventable inpatient stays can identify where potential cost savings might be found associated with reducing these hospitalizations overall and among specific subpopulations,” the investigators pointed out.
Of the seven conditions that are potentially avoidable, heart failure was the most expensive, producing more than 1.1 million inpatient admissions at a cost of $11.2 billion. Diabetes was next with a cost of almost $7.4 billion, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at nearly $7.3 billion, they said.
Those three conditions, along with hypertension and asthma in younger adults, brought the total cost of the preventable-stay equation’s chronic side to $27.3 billion in 2017, versus $6.4 billion for the two acute conditions, community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections, said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Dr. Jiang of the AHRQ.
The rate of potentially avoidable stays for chronic conditions was higher for men (1,112/100,000 population) than for women (954/100,000), but women had a higher rate for acute conditions, 346 vs. 257, which made the overall rates similar (1,369 for men and 1,300 for women), they reported.
Differences by race/ethnicity were more striking. The rate of potentially avoidable stays for blacks was 2,573/100,000 in 2017, compared with 1,315 for Hispanics, 1,173 for whites, and 581 for Asians/Pacific Islanders. The considerable margins between those figures, however, were far eclipsed by the “other” category, which had 4,911 stays per 100,000, the researchers said.
Large disparities also can be seen when looking at community-level income. Communities with income in the lowest quartile had a preventable-hospitalization rate of 2,013/100,000, and the rate dropped with each successive quartile until it reached 878/100,000 for the highest-income communities, according to the report.
“High hospital admission rates for these conditions may indicate areas where changes to the healthcare delivery system could be implemented to improve patient outcomes and lower costs,” Dr. McDermott and Dr. Jiang wrote.
SOURCE: McDermott KW and Jiang HJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #259. June 2020.
according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
That year, there were 27.4 million inpatient visits by adults with a total cost of $380.1 billion, although obstetric stays were not included in the analysis. Of those inpatient admissions, 3.5 million (12.9%) were deemed to be “avoidable, in part, through timely and quality primary and preventive care,” Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and H. Joanna Jiang, PhD, said in a recent AHRQ statistical brief.
The charges for those 3.5 million visits came to $33.7 billion, or 8.9% of aggregate hospital costs in 2017, based on data from the AHRQ Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s state inpatient databases.
“Determining the volume and costs of potentially preventable inpatient stays can identify where potential cost savings might be found associated with reducing these hospitalizations overall and among specific subpopulations,” the investigators pointed out.
Of the seven conditions that are potentially avoidable, heart failure was the most expensive, producing more than 1.1 million inpatient admissions at a cost of $11.2 billion. Diabetes was next with a cost of almost $7.4 billion, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at nearly $7.3 billion, they said.
Those three conditions, along with hypertension and asthma in younger adults, brought the total cost of the preventable-stay equation’s chronic side to $27.3 billion in 2017, versus $6.4 billion for the two acute conditions, community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections, said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Dr. Jiang of the AHRQ.
The rate of potentially avoidable stays for chronic conditions was higher for men (1,112/100,000 population) than for women (954/100,000), but women had a higher rate for acute conditions, 346 vs. 257, which made the overall rates similar (1,369 for men and 1,300 for women), they reported.
Differences by race/ethnicity were more striking. The rate of potentially avoidable stays for blacks was 2,573/100,000 in 2017, compared with 1,315 for Hispanics, 1,173 for whites, and 581 for Asians/Pacific Islanders. The considerable margins between those figures, however, were far eclipsed by the “other” category, which had 4,911 stays per 100,000, the researchers said.
Large disparities also can be seen when looking at community-level income. Communities with income in the lowest quartile had a preventable-hospitalization rate of 2,013/100,000, and the rate dropped with each successive quartile until it reached 878/100,000 for the highest-income communities, according to the report.
“High hospital admission rates for these conditions may indicate areas where changes to the healthcare delivery system could be implemented to improve patient outcomes and lower costs,” Dr. McDermott and Dr. Jiang wrote.
SOURCE: McDermott KW and Jiang HJ. HCUP Statistical Brief #259. June 2020.