Heart Failure

In response to a medication shortage, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new generic of valsartan (Diovan), produced by Alkem Laboratories, for the treatment of high blood pressure and heart failure, the regulatory agency announced in a statement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA conducted an investigation into generic angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) products following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine impurities being found in a separate valsartan product in the summer of 2018. Since that time, nitrosamine impurities have been detected in multiple ARBs, and as of March 1, 2019, hundreds of lots of ARBs produced by several companies have been recalled. The FDA has implemented new rules to prevent further contamination, but the ongoing recalls have caused a significant shortage.

“[To] address the public health consequences of these shortages, we’ve prioritized the review of generic applications for these valsartan products,” FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the statement.

For the new generic’s approval, the FDA assessed Alkem Laboratories’ manufacturing process and ensured that the company used proper testing methods to rule out the presence of nitrosamine impurities.

“We hope that today’s approval of this new generic will help reduce the valsartan shortage, and we remain committed to implementing measures to prevent the formation of these impurities during drug manufacturing processes for existing and future products,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

In response to a medication shortage, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new generic of valsartan (Diovan), produced by Alkem Laboratories, for the treatment of high blood pressure and heart failure, the regulatory agency announced in a statement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA conducted an investigation into generic angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) products following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine impurities being found in a separate valsartan product in the summer of 2018. Since that time, nitrosamine impurities have been detected in multiple ARBs, and as of March 1, 2019, hundreds of lots of ARBs produced by several companies have been recalled. The FDA has implemented new rules to prevent further contamination, but the ongoing recalls have caused a significant shortage.

“[To] address the public health consequences of these shortages, we’ve prioritized the review of generic applications for these valsartan products,” FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the statement.

For the new generic’s approval, the FDA assessed Alkem Laboratories’ manufacturing process and ensured that the company used proper testing methods to rule out the presence of nitrosamine impurities.

“We hope that today’s approval of this new generic will help reduce the valsartan shortage, and we remain committed to implementing measures to prevent the formation of these impurities during drug manufacturing processes for existing and future products,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

In response to a medication shortage, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a new generic of valsartan (Diovan), produced by Alkem Laboratories, for the treatment of high blood pressure and heart failure, the regulatory agency announced in a statement.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA conducted an investigation into generic angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) products following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine impurities being found in a separate valsartan product in the summer of 2018. Since that time, nitrosamine impurities have been detected in multiple ARBs, and as of March 1, 2019, hundreds of lots of ARBs produced by several companies have been recalled. The FDA has implemented new rules to prevent further contamination, but the ongoing recalls have caused a significant shortage.

“[To] address the public health consequences of these shortages, we’ve prioritized the review of generic applications for these valsartan products,” FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in the statement.

For the new generic’s approval, the FDA assessed Alkem Laboratories’ manufacturing process and ensured that the company used proper testing methods to rule out the presence of nitrosamine impurities.

“We hope that today’s approval of this new generic will help reduce the valsartan shortage, and we remain committed to implementing measures to prevent the formation of these impurities during drug manufacturing processes for existing and future products,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The two newer classes of antihyperglycemic drugs that lower cardiovascular risk have different effects on specific cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, results of a meta-analysis suggest. Sodium-glucose contransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors significantly reduced hospitalization from heart failure, whereas glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) did not, according to the reported results.

The GLP-1–RA class reduced risk of kidney disease progression, largely driven by a reduction in macroalbuminuria, according to the authors, whereas only the SGLT2 inhibitors reduced adverse kidney disease outcomes in a composite excluding that biomarker.

“The prevention of heart failure and progression of kidney disease by SGLT2 [inhibitors] should be considered in the decision-making process when treating patients with type 2 diabetes,” study senior author Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his coauthors wrote in a report on the study appearing in Circulation.

Both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, as shown in other recent findings, their benefits were confined to patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Dr. Sabatine and his colleagues wrote.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of eight cardiovascular outcomes trials included 77,242 patients, of whom about 56% participated in GLP-1–RA studies and 44% in SGLT2-inhibitor trials. Just under three-quarters of the patients had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, while the remainder had multiple risk factors for it.

Relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure was reduced by 31% with SGLT2 inhibitors, but it was not significantly reduced by GLP-1 RAs, the authors noted.

Risk of kidney disease progression was reduced by 38% with SGLT2 inhibitors and by 18% with GLP-1 RAs when the researchers used a broad composite endpoint including macroalbuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage kidney disease, and death due to renal causes.

By contrast, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced by 45% the relative risk of a narrower kidney outcome that excluded macroalbuminuria, whereas GLP-1 RAs had only a nonsignificant effect on the risk of doubling serum creatinine. That suggests the relative risk reduction of the kidney composite with GLP-1 RAs was driven mainly by a reduction in macroalbuminuria, the authors wrote.

Although albuminuria is an established biomarker for kidney and cardiovascular disease, it is a surrogate marker and can even be absent in patients with reduced eGFR, they said.

“Reduction in eGFR has emerged as a more meaningful endpoint of greater importance and is used in ongoing diabetes trials for kidney outcomes,” the authors said in a discussion of their results.

Relative risk of the composite MACE endpoint, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death, was reduced by 12% for GLP-1 RAs and by 11% for SGLT2 [inhibitors], according to results of the analysis. However, the benefit was confined to patients with established cardiovascular disease, who had a 14% reduction of risk, compared with no treatment effect in patients who had multiple risk factors only.

Looking at individual MACE components, investigators found that both drug classes significantly reduced relative risk of myocardial infarction and of cardiovascular death, whereas only GLP-1 RAs significantly reduced relative risk of stroke.

Study authors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen Research and Development, and Medimmune, among others.

SOURCE: Zelniker TA et al. Circulation. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038868.

The two newer classes of antihyperglycemic drugs that lower cardiovascular risk have different effects on specific cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, results of a meta-analysis suggest. Sodium-glucose contransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors significantly reduced hospitalization from heart failure, whereas glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) did not, according to the reported results.

The GLP-1–RA class reduced risk of kidney disease progression, largely driven by a reduction in macroalbuminuria, according to the authors, whereas only the SGLT2 inhibitors reduced adverse kidney disease outcomes in a composite excluding that biomarker.

“The prevention of heart failure and progression of kidney disease by SGLT2 [inhibitors] should be considered in the decision-making process when treating patients with type 2 diabetes,” study senior author Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his coauthors wrote in a report on the study appearing in Circulation.

Both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, as shown in other recent findings, their benefits were confined to patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Dr. Sabatine and his colleagues wrote.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of eight cardiovascular outcomes trials included 77,242 patients, of whom about 56% participated in GLP-1–RA studies and 44% in SGLT2-inhibitor trials. Just under three-quarters of the patients had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, while the remainder had multiple risk factors for it.

Relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure was reduced by 31% with SGLT2 inhibitors, but it was not significantly reduced by GLP-1 RAs, the authors noted.

Risk of kidney disease progression was reduced by 38% with SGLT2 inhibitors and by 18% with GLP-1 RAs when the researchers used a broad composite endpoint including macroalbuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage kidney disease, and death due to renal causes.

By contrast, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced by 45% the relative risk of a narrower kidney outcome that excluded macroalbuminuria, whereas GLP-1 RAs had only a nonsignificant effect on the risk of doubling serum creatinine. That suggests the relative risk reduction of the kidney composite with GLP-1 RAs was driven mainly by a reduction in macroalbuminuria, the authors wrote.

Although albuminuria is an established biomarker for kidney and cardiovascular disease, it is a surrogate marker and can even be absent in patients with reduced eGFR, they said.

“Reduction in eGFR has emerged as a more meaningful endpoint of greater importance and is used in ongoing diabetes trials for kidney outcomes,” the authors said in a discussion of their results.

Relative risk of the composite MACE endpoint, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death, was reduced by 12% for GLP-1 RAs and by 11% for SGLT2 [inhibitors], according to results of the analysis. However, the benefit was confined to patients with established cardiovascular disease, who had a 14% reduction of risk, compared with no treatment effect in patients who had multiple risk factors only.

Looking at individual MACE components, investigators found that both drug classes significantly reduced relative risk of myocardial infarction and of cardiovascular death, whereas only GLP-1 RAs significantly reduced relative risk of stroke.

Study authors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen Research and Development, and Medimmune, among others.

SOURCE: Zelniker TA et al. Circulation. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038868.

The two newer classes of antihyperglycemic drugs that lower cardiovascular risk have different effects on specific cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, results of a meta-analysis suggest. Sodium-glucose contransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors significantly reduced hospitalization from heart failure, whereas glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) did not, according to the reported results.

The GLP-1–RA class reduced risk of kidney disease progression, largely driven by a reduction in macroalbuminuria, according to the authors, whereas only the SGLT2 inhibitors reduced adverse kidney disease outcomes in a composite excluding that biomarker.

“The prevention of heart failure and progression of kidney disease by SGLT2 [inhibitors] should be considered in the decision-making process when treating patients with type 2 diabetes,” study senior author Marc S. Sabatine, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his coauthors wrote in a report on the study appearing in Circulation.

Both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, as shown in other recent findings, their benefits were confined to patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Dr. Sabatine and his colleagues wrote.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of eight cardiovascular outcomes trials included 77,242 patients, of whom about 56% participated in GLP-1–RA studies and 44% in SGLT2-inhibitor trials. Just under three-quarters of the patients had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, while the remainder had multiple risk factors for it.

Relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure was reduced by 31% with SGLT2 inhibitors, but it was not significantly reduced by GLP-1 RAs, the authors noted.

Risk of kidney disease progression was reduced by 38% with SGLT2 inhibitors and by 18% with GLP-1 RAs when the researchers used a broad composite endpoint including macroalbuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage kidney disease, and death due to renal causes.

By contrast, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced by 45% the relative risk of a narrower kidney outcome that excluded macroalbuminuria, whereas GLP-1 RAs had only a nonsignificant effect on the risk of doubling serum creatinine. That suggests the relative risk reduction of the kidney composite with GLP-1 RAs was driven mainly by a reduction in macroalbuminuria, the authors wrote.

Although albuminuria is an established biomarker for kidney and cardiovascular disease, it is a surrogate marker and can even be absent in patients with reduced eGFR, they said.

“Reduction in eGFR has emerged as a more meaningful endpoint of greater importance and is used in ongoing diabetes trials for kidney outcomes,” the authors said in a discussion of their results.

Relative risk of the composite MACE endpoint, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death, was reduced by 12% for GLP-1 RAs and by 11% for SGLT2 [inhibitors], according to results of the analysis. However, the benefit was confined to patients with established cardiovascular disease, who had a 14% reduction of risk, compared with no treatment effect in patients who had multiple risk factors only.

Looking at individual MACE components, investigators found that both drug classes significantly reduced relative risk of myocardial infarction and of cardiovascular death, whereas only GLP-1 RAs significantly reduced relative risk of stroke.

Study authors provided disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Janssen Research and Development, and Medimmune, among others.

SOURCE: Zelniker TA et al. Circulation. 2019 Feb 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038868.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Many of the abundant missed opportunities to optimize pharmacotherapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction revolve around not getting fully on board with the guideline-directed medical therapy shown to be highly effective at improving clinical outcomes, Akshay S. Desai, MD, asserted at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“If you take nothing else away from this talk, the opportunity to improve clinical outcomes in your population through both optimization of selection of therapies and optimization of dose is really quite profound,” declared Dr. Desai, director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

He highlighted five common traps or pitfalls for physicians with regard to medical therapy of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF):
 

Underutilization of guideline-directed medical therapy

The current ACC/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines on heart failure management (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8;136[6]:e137-61) reflect 20 years of impressive progress in improving heart failure outcomes through the use of increasingly effective guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The magnitude of this improvement was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 57 randomized controlled trials published during 1987-2015. The meta-analysis showed that, although ACE inhibitor therapy alone had no significant impact on all-cause mortality compared to placebo in patients with HFrEF, the sequential addition of guideline-directed drugs conferred stepwise improvements in survival. This approach culminated in a 56% reduction in all-cause mortality with the combination of an ACE inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), compared with placebo, and a 63% reduction with an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and MRA (Circ Heart Fail. 2017 Jan;10(1). pii: e003529).

Moreover, the benefits of contemporary GDMT extend beyond reductions in all-cause mortality, death due to heart failure, and heart failure–related hospitalizations into areas where one wouldn’t necessarily have expected to see much benefit. For example, an analysis of data on more than 40,000 HFrEF patients in 12 clinical trials showed a sharp decline in the rate of sudden death over the years as new agents were incorporated into GDMT. The cumulative incidence of sudden death within 90 days after randomization plunged from 2.4% in the earliest trial to 1.0% in the most recent one (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6;377[1]:41-51).

“We’re at the point where we now question whether routine use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in primary prevention patients with nonischemic heart failure is really worthwhile on the backdrop of effective medical therapy,” Dr. Desai observed.

But there’s a problem: “We don’t do a great job with GDMT, even with this incredible evidence base that we have,” the cardiologist said.

He cited a report from the CHAMP-HF registry that scrutinized the use of GDMT in more than 3,500 ambulatory HFrEF patients in 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices. It found that 67% of patients deemed eligible for an MRA weren’t on one. Neither were 33% with no contraindications to beta-blocker therapy and 27% who were eligible for an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or ARNI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72[4]:351-66).

“This highlights a huge opportunity for further guideline-directed optimization of therapy,” he said.
 

Underdosing of GDMT

The CHAMP-HF registry contained further disappointing news regarding the state of treatment of patients with HFrEF in ambulatory settings: Among those patients who were on GDMT, very few were receiving the recommended target doses of the medications as established in major clinical trials and specified in the guidelines. Only 14% of patients on an ARNI were on the target dose, as were 28% on a beta-blocker, and 17% of those on an ACE inhibitor or ARB. And among patients who were eligible for all classes of GDMT, just 1% were simultaneously on the target doses of an MRA, beta-blocker, and ARNI, ACE inhibitor, or ARB. This despite solid evidence that, although some benefit is derived from initiating these medications, incremental benefit comes from dose titration.

“Even for those of us who feel like we do this quite well, if we examine our practices systematically – and we’ve done this in our own practices at Brigham and Women’s – you see that a lot of eligible patients aren’t on optimal therapy. And you might argue that many of them have contraindications, but even when you do a deep dive into the literature or the electronic medical record and ask the question – Why is this patient with normal renal function and normal potassium with class II HFrEF not on an MRA? – sometimes it’s hard to establish why that’s the case,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Interrupting GDMT during hospitalizations

This is common practice. But in fact, continuation of GDMT is generally well tolerated in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure in the absence of severe hypotension and cardiogenic shock. Moreover, in-hospital discontinuation or dose reduction is associated with increased risks of readmission and mortality.

And in treatment-naive HFrEF patients, what better place to introduce a medication and assess its tolerability than the hospital? Plus, medications prescribed at discharge are more likely to be continued in the outpatient setting, he noted.
 

Being seduced by the illusion of stability

The guidelines state that patients with NYHA class II or III HFrEF who tolerate an ACE inhibitor or ARB should be transitioned to an ARNI to further reduce their risk of morbidity and mortality. Yet many physicians wait to make the switch until clinical decompensation occurs. That’s a mistake, as was demonstrated in the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial. Twenty percent of study participants without a prior hospitalization for heart failure experienced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization during the follow-up period. Patients who were clinically stable as defined by no prior heart failure hospitalization or none within 3 months prior to enrollment were as likely to benefit from ARNI therapy with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) as were those with a recent decompensation (JACC Heart Fail. 2016 Oct;4[10]:816-22). “A key message is that stability is an illusion in patients with symptomatic heart failure,”said Dr. Desai. “In PARADIGM-HF, the first event for about half of patients was not heralded by a worsening of symptoms or a heart failure hospitalization, it was an abrupt death at home. This may mean that a missed opportunity to optimize treatment may not come back to you down the road, so waiting until patients get worse in order to optimize their therapy may not be the best strategy.”

Inadequate laboratory monitoring

The MRAs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), are the GDMT drugs for which laboratory surveillance takes on the greatest importance because of their potential to induce hyperkalemia. The guidelines are clear that a potassium level and measurement of renal function should be obtained within a week of initiating therapy with an MRA, again at 4 weeks, and periodically thereafter.

“In general, this is done in clinical practice almost never,” Dr. Desai stressed.

These agents should be avoided in patients with prior hyperkalemia or advanced chronic kidney disease, and used with care in groups known to be at increased risk for hyperkalemia, including the elderly and patients with diabetes.

He considers spironolactone equivalent to eplerenone so long as the dosing is adequate. He generally reserves eplerenone for patients with poorly tolerated antiandrogenic effects on spironolactone.

Dr. Desai reported serving as a paid consultant to more than half a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Many of the abundant missed opportunities to optimize pharmacotherapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction revolve around not getting fully on board with the guideline-directed medical therapy shown to be highly effective at improving clinical outcomes, Akshay S. Desai, MD, asserted at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“If you take nothing else away from this talk, the opportunity to improve clinical outcomes in your population through both optimization of selection of therapies and optimization of dose is really quite profound,” declared Dr. Desai, director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

He highlighted five common traps or pitfalls for physicians with regard to medical therapy of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF):
 

Underutilization of guideline-directed medical therapy

The current ACC/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines on heart failure management (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8;136[6]:e137-61) reflect 20 years of impressive progress in improving heart failure outcomes through the use of increasingly effective guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The magnitude of this improvement was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 57 randomized controlled trials published during 1987-2015. The meta-analysis showed that, although ACE inhibitor therapy alone had no significant impact on all-cause mortality compared to placebo in patients with HFrEF, the sequential addition of guideline-directed drugs conferred stepwise improvements in survival. This approach culminated in a 56% reduction in all-cause mortality with the combination of an ACE inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), compared with placebo, and a 63% reduction with an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and MRA (Circ Heart Fail. 2017 Jan;10(1). pii: e003529).

Moreover, the benefits of contemporary GDMT extend beyond reductions in all-cause mortality, death due to heart failure, and heart failure–related hospitalizations into areas where one wouldn’t necessarily have expected to see much benefit. For example, an analysis of data on more than 40,000 HFrEF patients in 12 clinical trials showed a sharp decline in the rate of sudden death over the years as new agents were incorporated into GDMT. The cumulative incidence of sudden death within 90 days after randomization plunged from 2.4% in the earliest trial to 1.0% in the most recent one (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6;377[1]:41-51).

“We’re at the point where we now question whether routine use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in primary prevention patients with nonischemic heart failure is really worthwhile on the backdrop of effective medical therapy,” Dr. Desai observed.

But there’s a problem: “We don’t do a great job with GDMT, even with this incredible evidence base that we have,” the cardiologist said.

He cited a report from the CHAMP-HF registry that scrutinized the use of GDMT in more than 3,500 ambulatory HFrEF patients in 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices. It found that 67% of patients deemed eligible for an MRA weren’t on one. Neither were 33% with no contraindications to beta-blocker therapy and 27% who were eligible for an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or ARNI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72[4]:351-66).

“This highlights a huge opportunity for further guideline-directed optimization of therapy,” he said.
 

Underdosing of GDMT

The CHAMP-HF registry contained further disappointing news regarding the state of treatment of patients with HFrEF in ambulatory settings: Among those patients who were on GDMT, very few were receiving the recommended target doses of the medications as established in major clinical trials and specified in the guidelines. Only 14% of patients on an ARNI were on the target dose, as were 28% on a beta-blocker, and 17% of those on an ACE inhibitor or ARB. And among patients who were eligible for all classes of GDMT, just 1% were simultaneously on the target doses of an MRA, beta-blocker, and ARNI, ACE inhibitor, or ARB. This despite solid evidence that, although some benefit is derived from initiating these medications, incremental benefit comes from dose titration.

“Even for those of us who feel like we do this quite well, if we examine our practices systematically – and we’ve done this in our own practices at Brigham and Women’s – you see that a lot of eligible patients aren’t on optimal therapy. And you might argue that many of them have contraindications, but even when you do a deep dive into the literature or the electronic medical record and ask the question – Why is this patient with normal renal function and normal potassium with class II HFrEF not on an MRA? – sometimes it’s hard to establish why that’s the case,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Interrupting GDMT during hospitalizations

This is common practice. But in fact, continuation of GDMT is generally well tolerated in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure in the absence of severe hypotension and cardiogenic shock. Moreover, in-hospital discontinuation or dose reduction is associated with increased risks of readmission and mortality.

And in treatment-naive HFrEF patients, what better place to introduce a medication and assess its tolerability than the hospital? Plus, medications prescribed at discharge are more likely to be continued in the outpatient setting, he noted.
 

Being seduced by the illusion of stability

The guidelines state that patients with NYHA class II or III HFrEF who tolerate an ACE inhibitor or ARB should be transitioned to an ARNI to further reduce their risk of morbidity and mortality. Yet many physicians wait to make the switch until clinical decompensation occurs. That’s a mistake, as was demonstrated in the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial. Twenty percent of study participants without a prior hospitalization for heart failure experienced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization during the follow-up period. Patients who were clinically stable as defined by no prior heart failure hospitalization or none within 3 months prior to enrollment were as likely to benefit from ARNI therapy with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) as were those with a recent decompensation (JACC Heart Fail. 2016 Oct;4[10]:816-22). “A key message is that stability is an illusion in patients with symptomatic heart failure,”said Dr. Desai. “In PARADIGM-HF, the first event for about half of patients was not heralded by a worsening of symptoms or a heart failure hospitalization, it was an abrupt death at home. This may mean that a missed opportunity to optimize treatment may not come back to you down the road, so waiting until patients get worse in order to optimize their therapy may not be the best strategy.”

Inadequate laboratory monitoring

The MRAs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), are the GDMT drugs for which laboratory surveillance takes on the greatest importance because of their potential to induce hyperkalemia. The guidelines are clear that a potassium level and measurement of renal function should be obtained within a week of initiating therapy with an MRA, again at 4 weeks, and periodically thereafter.

“In general, this is done in clinical practice almost never,” Dr. Desai stressed.

These agents should be avoided in patients with prior hyperkalemia or advanced chronic kidney disease, and used with care in groups known to be at increased risk for hyperkalemia, including the elderly and patients with diabetes.

He considers spironolactone equivalent to eplerenone so long as the dosing is adequate. He generally reserves eplerenone for patients with poorly tolerated antiandrogenic effects on spironolactone.

Dr. Desai reported serving as a paid consultant to more than half a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Many of the abundant missed opportunities to optimize pharmacotherapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction revolve around not getting fully on board with the guideline-directed medical therapy shown to be highly effective at improving clinical outcomes, Akshay S. Desai, MD, asserted at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“If you take nothing else away from this talk, the opportunity to improve clinical outcomes in your population through both optimization of selection of therapies and optimization of dose is really quite profound,” declared Dr. Desai, director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

He highlighted five common traps or pitfalls for physicians with regard to medical therapy of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF):
 

Underutilization of guideline-directed medical therapy

The current ACC/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines on heart failure management (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8;136[6]:e137-61) reflect 20 years of impressive progress in improving heart failure outcomes through the use of increasingly effective guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). The magnitude of this improvement was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 57 randomized controlled trials published during 1987-2015. The meta-analysis showed that, although ACE inhibitor therapy alone had no significant impact on all-cause mortality compared to placebo in patients with HFrEF, the sequential addition of guideline-directed drugs conferred stepwise improvements in survival. This approach culminated in a 56% reduction in all-cause mortality with the combination of an ACE inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), compared with placebo, and a 63% reduction with an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and MRA (Circ Heart Fail. 2017 Jan;10(1). pii: e003529).

Moreover, the benefits of contemporary GDMT extend beyond reductions in all-cause mortality, death due to heart failure, and heart failure–related hospitalizations into areas where one wouldn’t necessarily have expected to see much benefit. For example, an analysis of data on more than 40,000 HFrEF patients in 12 clinical trials showed a sharp decline in the rate of sudden death over the years as new agents were incorporated into GDMT. The cumulative incidence of sudden death within 90 days after randomization plunged from 2.4% in the earliest trial to 1.0% in the most recent one (N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 6;377[1]:41-51).

“We’re at the point where we now question whether routine use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in primary prevention patients with nonischemic heart failure is really worthwhile on the backdrop of effective medical therapy,” Dr. Desai observed.

But there’s a problem: “We don’t do a great job with GDMT, even with this incredible evidence base that we have,” the cardiologist said.

He cited a report from the CHAMP-HF registry that scrutinized the use of GDMT in more than 3,500 ambulatory HFrEF patients in 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices. It found that 67% of patients deemed eligible for an MRA weren’t on one. Neither were 33% with no contraindications to beta-blocker therapy and 27% who were eligible for an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), or ARNI (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72[4]:351-66).

“This highlights a huge opportunity for further guideline-directed optimization of therapy,” he said.
 

Underdosing of GDMT

The CHAMP-HF registry contained further disappointing news regarding the state of treatment of patients with HFrEF in ambulatory settings: Among those patients who were on GDMT, very few were receiving the recommended target doses of the medications as established in major clinical trials and specified in the guidelines. Only 14% of patients on an ARNI were on the target dose, as were 28% on a beta-blocker, and 17% of those on an ACE inhibitor or ARB. And among patients who were eligible for all classes of GDMT, just 1% were simultaneously on the target doses of an MRA, beta-blocker, and ARNI, ACE inhibitor, or ARB. This despite solid evidence that, although some benefit is derived from initiating these medications, incremental benefit comes from dose titration.

“Even for those of us who feel like we do this quite well, if we examine our practices systematically – and we’ve done this in our own practices at Brigham and Women’s – you see that a lot of eligible patients aren’t on optimal therapy. And you might argue that many of them have contraindications, but even when you do a deep dive into the literature or the electronic medical record and ask the question – Why is this patient with normal renal function and normal potassium with class II HFrEF not on an MRA? – sometimes it’s hard to establish why that’s the case,” said Dr. Desai.
 

Interrupting GDMT during hospitalizations

This is common practice. But in fact, continuation of GDMT is generally well tolerated in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure in the absence of severe hypotension and cardiogenic shock. Moreover, in-hospital discontinuation or dose reduction is associated with increased risks of readmission and mortality.

And in treatment-naive HFrEF patients, what better place to introduce a medication and assess its tolerability than the hospital? Plus, medications prescribed at discharge are more likely to be continued in the outpatient setting, he noted.
 

Being seduced by the illusion of stability

The guidelines state that patients with NYHA class II or III HFrEF who tolerate an ACE inhibitor or ARB should be transitioned to an ARNI to further reduce their risk of morbidity and mortality. Yet many physicians wait to make the switch until clinical decompensation occurs. That’s a mistake, as was demonstrated in the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial. Twenty percent of study participants without a prior hospitalization for heart failure experienced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization during the follow-up period. Patients who were clinically stable as defined by no prior heart failure hospitalization or none within 3 months prior to enrollment were as likely to benefit from ARNI therapy with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) as were those with a recent decompensation (JACC Heart Fail. 2016 Oct;4[10]:816-22). “A key message is that stability is an illusion in patients with symptomatic heart failure,”said Dr. Desai. “In PARADIGM-HF, the first event for about half of patients was not heralded by a worsening of symptoms or a heart failure hospitalization, it was an abrupt death at home. This may mean that a missed opportunity to optimize treatment may not come back to you down the road, so waiting until patients get worse in order to optimize their therapy may not be the best strategy.”

Inadequate laboratory monitoring

The MRAs, spironolactone and eplerenone (Inspra), are the GDMT drugs for which laboratory surveillance takes on the greatest importance because of their potential to induce hyperkalemia. The guidelines are clear that a potassium level and measurement of renal function should be obtained within a week of initiating therapy with an MRA, again at 4 weeks, and periodically thereafter.

“In general, this is done in clinical practice almost never,” Dr. Desai stressed.

These agents should be avoided in patients with prior hyperkalemia or advanced chronic kidney disease, and used with care in groups known to be at increased risk for hyperkalemia, including the elderly and patients with diabetes.

He considers spironolactone equivalent to eplerenone so long as the dosing is adequate. He generally reserves eplerenone for patients with poorly tolerated antiandrogenic effects on spironolactone.

Dr. Desai reported serving as a paid consultant to more than half a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

This week in MDedge Cardiocast: Infective endocarditis isn’t what it used to be, there’s a new, lower goal for Americans’ dietary intake of sodium, a drug to treat multiple myeloma also raises heart failure risk, and Big Pharma says it can’t drop drug list prices alone.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
TuneIn

This week in MDedge Cardiocast: Infective endocarditis isn’t what it used to be, there’s a new, lower goal for Americans’ dietary intake of sodium, a drug to treat multiple myeloma also raises heart failure risk, and Big Pharma says it can’t drop drug list prices alone.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
TuneIn

This week in MDedge Cardiocast: Infective endocarditis isn’t what it used to be, there’s a new, lower goal for Americans’ dietary intake of sodium, a drug to treat multiple myeloma also raises heart failure risk, and Big Pharma says it can’t drop drug list prices alone.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
TuneIn

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Infective endocarditis in 2019 is very different from the disease most physicians encountered in training, both in terms of epidemiology and clinical presentation, Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, observed at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The classic description of infective endocarditis provided by Sir William Osler, MD, was of a subacute bacterial infection characterized by a long latent phase of low-grade fever, back pain, weight loss, and night sweats. It was mainly a right-heart disease of younger individuals with an infected native valve, and the predominant pathogens were streptococci, Dr. O’Gara said.

“I think in the current era endocarditis is more often characterized by an acute illness with toxic features in the context of adults with a high burden of degenerative diseases – for example, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis on immunosuppressive therapy, or diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and risk factors for hospital-acquired infection. Injectable drug use is through the roof, there’s a wider prevalence of cardiac implanted electronic devices, which are a wonderful place for bacteria to hide, and Staphylococcus aureus has certainly become the leading pathogen with regard to endocarditis in the United States, especially MRSA, often multidrug resistant,” said Dr. O’Gara, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Also, no talk about endocarditis is sufficient without paying some attention to the opioid crisis in which we find ourselves. It’s one of the top three causes of death among young men in the United States, along with accidents and gun violence. No region of the country is spared. This has completely inundated our ER and hospitalist services and our inpatient cardiology services with folks who are often repeat offenders when it comes to the difficulty in being able to give up an injectable drug use habit. They have multiple infections and hospitalizations, tricuspid valve involvement, and depending upon the aggressiveness of the Staphylococcus organism, typically they have left-sided disease with multiple complications, including aortic regurgitation and heart failure,” the cardiologist continued.

This description underscored one of Dr. O’Gara’s major points about the challenges posed by infective endocarditis in contemporary practice: “Expect the unexpected,” he advised. “When you’ve seen one case of infective endocarditis, you’ve seen one case of infective endocarditis.”
 

Outcomes are ‘sobering’

In the current era, outcomes are “sobering,” the cardiologist noted. Infective endocarditis carries a 6-month mortality rate of 20%-25% despite early surgery being performed during the index hospitalization in up to 60% of patients, with a relatively high perioperative mortality rate of about 10%. However, the risk of reinfection occurring in a newly implanted cardiac valve is impressively low at about 2%.

Refer early for multimodality imaging and surgical consultation

Transesophageal echocardiography is valuable in assessment of the infected valve. However, when extravalvular extension of the infection is suspected and the echo assessment is nondiagnostic or indeterminate, it’s time to quickly move on to advanced imaging, such as PET-CT.

The ACC/American Heart Association class I recommendations for early surgery in infected native valves haven’t changed substantially in over a decade. Based largely on observational data, there is an association between early surgery and lower in-hospital mortality (Lancet. 2012 Mar 10;379[9819]:965-975).

Class IIa recommendations for native valve surgery include recurrent emboli and a persistent vegetation despite appropriate antibiotic therapy. A “very controversial” class IIb recommendation for surgery because of weak supporting data is the identification of a mobile vegetation larger than 10 mm, particularly if it’s located on an anterior mitral valve leaflet, he said.

If the decision is made to forgo early surgery, be sure to repeat transesophageal echocardiography on day 7-10 to reassess the size of the patient’s vegetation.

“There is an association between size of vegetation and 1-year mortality, with a cut point of greater than 15 mm. Some would argue this constitutes a reasonable indication for early surgery,” Dr. O’Gara noted.

The embolization rate in patients with infective endocarditis is highest during the day before presentation, the day of presentation, and through the first 2 days afterward. The rate drops precipitously within 2 weeks after initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy. Thus, to utilize early surgery to maximum effect in order to decrease the risk of embolization, it makes sense to operate within the first several days following presentation, before antibiotics have had sufficient time to catch up with the evolving disease process.
 

Don’t use half measures when it comes to removal of cardiac implanted electronic devices

The guidelines are clear regarding infected pacemakers, implanted cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization devices: “It all needs to come out,” Dr. O’Gara emphasized. That includes all leads and the generator in patients with documented infection of only one portion of the device system, as a class I, level of evidence B recommendation. Moreover, complete removal of a pacemaker or defibrillator system is deemed “reasonable” as a class IIa recommendation in all patients with valvular infection caused by S. aureus or fungi even in the absence of evidence of device infection.

“I think we as general cardiologists have become increasingly impressed about how sick and festering these kinds of patients can become, even when we’re not able to prove that the lead is infected. The lead looks okay on transesophageal echo or PET-CT, blood cultures are negative, the valvular heart disease is really not that advanced, but several days go by and the patient is just not responding. We should have a high index of suspicion that there’s an infection we cannot appreciate. But obviously, you make these difficult decisions in consultation with your electrophysiology colleagues,” he added.
 

Know when the cardiologist should say ‘no’ to early aggressive surgery

While an aggressive early surgical approach often pays off in terms of prevention of embolic sequelae and a reduction in heart failure, the timing of surgery in the 20%-40% of patients with infective endocarditis who present with stroke or other neurologic complications remains controversial. An international group of Canadian and French cardiac surgeons and neurologists developed a useful algorithm regarding the types of neurologic complications for which early cardiac surgery is a poor idea because of the high risk of neurologic exacerbation. For example, a mycotic neuroaneurysm is grounds for postponement of cardiac surgery for at least 4 weeks (Circulation. 2016 Oct 25;134[17]:1280-92).

Dr. O’Gara reported receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, from Medtronic in conjunction with the ongoing pivotal APOLLO transcatheter mitral valve replacement trial, and from Edwards Lifesciences for the ongoing EARLY TAVR trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Infective endocarditis in 2019 is very different from the disease most physicians encountered in training, both in terms of epidemiology and clinical presentation, Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, observed at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The classic description of infective endocarditis provided by Sir William Osler, MD, was of a subacute bacterial infection characterized by a long latent phase of low-grade fever, back pain, weight loss, and night sweats. It was mainly a right-heart disease of younger individuals with an infected native valve, and the predominant pathogens were streptococci, Dr. O’Gara said.

“I think in the current era endocarditis is more often characterized by an acute illness with toxic features in the context of adults with a high burden of degenerative diseases – for example, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis on immunosuppressive therapy, or diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and risk factors for hospital-acquired infection. Injectable drug use is through the roof, there’s a wider prevalence of cardiac implanted electronic devices, which are a wonderful place for bacteria to hide, and Staphylococcus aureus has certainly become the leading pathogen with regard to endocarditis in the United States, especially MRSA, often multidrug resistant,” said Dr. O’Gara, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Also, no talk about endocarditis is sufficient without paying some attention to the opioid crisis in which we find ourselves. It’s one of the top three causes of death among young men in the United States, along with accidents and gun violence. No region of the country is spared. This has completely inundated our ER and hospitalist services and our inpatient cardiology services with folks who are often repeat offenders when it comes to the difficulty in being able to give up an injectable drug use habit. They have multiple infections and hospitalizations, tricuspid valve involvement, and depending upon the aggressiveness of the Staphylococcus organism, typically they have left-sided disease with multiple complications, including aortic regurgitation and heart failure,” the cardiologist continued.

This description underscored one of Dr. O’Gara’s major points about the challenges posed by infective endocarditis in contemporary practice: “Expect the unexpected,” he advised. “When you’ve seen one case of infective endocarditis, you’ve seen one case of infective endocarditis.”
 

Outcomes are ‘sobering’

In the current era, outcomes are “sobering,” the cardiologist noted. Infective endocarditis carries a 6-month mortality rate of 20%-25% despite early surgery being performed during the index hospitalization in up to 60% of patients, with a relatively high perioperative mortality rate of about 10%. However, the risk of reinfection occurring in a newly implanted cardiac valve is impressively low at about 2%.

Refer early for multimodality imaging and surgical consultation

Transesophageal echocardiography is valuable in assessment of the infected valve. However, when extravalvular extension of the infection is suspected and the echo assessment is nondiagnostic or indeterminate, it’s time to quickly move on to advanced imaging, such as PET-CT.

The ACC/American Heart Association class I recommendations for early surgery in infected native valves haven’t changed substantially in over a decade. Based largely on observational data, there is an association between early surgery and lower in-hospital mortality (Lancet. 2012 Mar 10;379[9819]:965-975).

Class IIa recommendations for native valve surgery include recurrent emboli and a persistent vegetation despite appropriate antibiotic therapy. A “very controversial” class IIb recommendation for surgery because of weak supporting data is the identification of a mobile vegetation larger than 10 mm, particularly if it’s located on an anterior mitral valve leaflet, he said.

If the decision is made to forgo early surgery, be sure to repeat transesophageal echocardiography on day 7-10 to reassess the size of the patient’s vegetation.

“There is an association between size of vegetation and 1-year mortality, with a cut point of greater than 15 mm. Some would argue this constitutes a reasonable indication for early surgery,” Dr. O’Gara noted.

The embolization rate in patients with infective endocarditis is highest during the day before presentation, the day of presentation, and through the first 2 days afterward. The rate drops precipitously within 2 weeks after initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy. Thus, to utilize early surgery to maximum effect in order to decrease the risk of embolization, it makes sense to operate within the first several days following presentation, before antibiotics have had sufficient time to catch up with the evolving disease process.
 

Don’t use half measures when it comes to removal of cardiac implanted electronic devices

The guidelines are clear regarding infected pacemakers, implanted cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization devices: “It all needs to come out,” Dr. O’Gara emphasized. That includes all leads and the generator in patients with documented infection of only one portion of the device system, as a class I, level of evidence B recommendation. Moreover, complete removal of a pacemaker or defibrillator system is deemed “reasonable” as a class IIa recommendation in all patients with valvular infection caused by S. aureus or fungi even in the absence of evidence of device infection.

“I think we as general cardiologists have become increasingly impressed about how sick and festering these kinds of patients can become, even when we’re not able to prove that the lead is infected. The lead looks okay on transesophageal echo or PET-CT, blood cultures are negative, the valvular heart disease is really not that advanced, but several days go by and the patient is just not responding. We should have a high index of suspicion that there’s an infection we cannot appreciate. But obviously, you make these difficult decisions in consultation with your electrophysiology colleagues,” he added.
 

Know when the cardiologist should say ‘no’ to early aggressive surgery

While an aggressive early surgical approach often pays off in terms of prevention of embolic sequelae and a reduction in heart failure, the timing of surgery in the 20%-40% of patients with infective endocarditis who present with stroke or other neurologic complications remains controversial. An international group of Canadian and French cardiac surgeons and neurologists developed a useful algorithm regarding the types of neurologic complications for which early cardiac surgery is a poor idea because of the high risk of neurologic exacerbation. For example, a mycotic neuroaneurysm is grounds for postponement of cardiac surgery for at least 4 weeks (Circulation. 2016 Oct 25;134[17]:1280-92).

Dr. O’Gara reported receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, from Medtronic in conjunction with the ongoing pivotal APOLLO transcatheter mitral valve replacement trial, and from Edwards Lifesciences for the ongoing EARLY TAVR trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Infective endocarditis in 2019 is very different from the disease most physicians encountered in training, both in terms of epidemiology and clinical presentation, Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, observed at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The classic description of infective endocarditis provided by Sir William Osler, MD, was of a subacute bacterial infection characterized by a long latent phase of low-grade fever, back pain, weight loss, and night sweats. It was mainly a right-heart disease of younger individuals with an infected native valve, and the predominant pathogens were streptococci, Dr. O’Gara said.

“I think in the current era endocarditis is more often characterized by an acute illness with toxic features in the context of adults with a high burden of degenerative diseases – for example, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis on immunosuppressive therapy, or diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and risk factors for hospital-acquired infection. Injectable drug use is through the roof, there’s a wider prevalence of cardiac implanted electronic devices, which are a wonderful place for bacteria to hide, and Staphylococcus aureus has certainly become the leading pathogen with regard to endocarditis in the United States, especially MRSA, often multidrug resistant,” said Dr. O’Gara, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Also, no talk about endocarditis is sufficient without paying some attention to the opioid crisis in which we find ourselves. It’s one of the top three causes of death among young men in the United States, along with accidents and gun violence. No region of the country is spared. This has completely inundated our ER and hospitalist services and our inpatient cardiology services with folks who are often repeat offenders when it comes to the difficulty in being able to give up an injectable drug use habit. They have multiple infections and hospitalizations, tricuspid valve involvement, and depending upon the aggressiveness of the Staphylococcus organism, typically they have left-sided disease with multiple complications, including aortic regurgitation and heart failure,” the cardiologist continued.

This description underscored one of Dr. O’Gara’s major points about the challenges posed by infective endocarditis in contemporary practice: “Expect the unexpected,” he advised. “When you’ve seen one case of infective endocarditis, you’ve seen one case of infective endocarditis.”
 

Outcomes are ‘sobering’

In the current era, outcomes are “sobering,” the cardiologist noted. Infective endocarditis carries a 6-month mortality rate of 20%-25% despite early surgery being performed during the index hospitalization in up to 60% of patients, with a relatively high perioperative mortality rate of about 10%. However, the risk of reinfection occurring in a newly implanted cardiac valve is impressively low at about 2%.

Refer early for multimodality imaging and surgical consultation

Transesophageal echocardiography is valuable in assessment of the infected valve. However, when extravalvular extension of the infection is suspected and the echo assessment is nondiagnostic or indeterminate, it’s time to quickly move on to advanced imaging, such as PET-CT.

The ACC/American Heart Association class I recommendations for early surgery in infected native valves haven’t changed substantially in over a decade. Based largely on observational data, there is an association between early surgery and lower in-hospital mortality (Lancet. 2012 Mar 10;379[9819]:965-975).

Class IIa recommendations for native valve surgery include recurrent emboli and a persistent vegetation despite appropriate antibiotic therapy. A “very controversial” class IIb recommendation for surgery because of weak supporting data is the identification of a mobile vegetation larger than 10 mm, particularly if it’s located on an anterior mitral valve leaflet, he said.

If the decision is made to forgo early surgery, be sure to repeat transesophageal echocardiography on day 7-10 to reassess the size of the patient’s vegetation.

“There is an association between size of vegetation and 1-year mortality, with a cut point of greater than 15 mm. Some would argue this constitutes a reasonable indication for early surgery,” Dr. O’Gara noted.

The embolization rate in patients with infective endocarditis is highest during the day before presentation, the day of presentation, and through the first 2 days afterward. The rate drops precipitously within 2 weeks after initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy. Thus, to utilize early surgery to maximum effect in order to decrease the risk of embolization, it makes sense to operate within the first several days following presentation, before antibiotics have had sufficient time to catch up with the evolving disease process.
 

Don’t use half measures when it comes to removal of cardiac implanted electronic devices

The guidelines are clear regarding infected pacemakers, implanted cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization devices: “It all needs to come out,” Dr. O’Gara emphasized. That includes all leads and the generator in patients with documented infection of only one portion of the device system, as a class I, level of evidence B recommendation. Moreover, complete removal of a pacemaker or defibrillator system is deemed “reasonable” as a class IIa recommendation in all patients with valvular infection caused by S. aureus or fungi even in the absence of evidence of device infection.

“I think we as general cardiologists have become increasingly impressed about how sick and festering these kinds of patients can become, even when we’re not able to prove that the lead is infected. The lead looks okay on transesophageal echo or PET-CT, blood cultures are negative, the valvular heart disease is really not that advanced, but several days go by and the patient is just not responding. We should have a high index of suspicion that there’s an infection we cannot appreciate. But obviously, you make these difficult decisions in consultation with your electrophysiology colleagues,” he added.
 

Know when the cardiologist should say ‘no’ to early aggressive surgery

While an aggressive early surgical approach often pays off in terms of prevention of embolic sequelae and a reduction in heart failure, the timing of surgery in the 20%-40% of patients with infective endocarditis who present with stroke or other neurologic complications remains controversial. An international group of Canadian and French cardiac surgeons and neurologists developed a useful algorithm regarding the types of neurologic complications for which early cardiac surgery is a poor idea because of the high risk of neurologic exacerbation. For example, a mycotic neuroaneurysm is grounds for postponement of cardiac surgery for at least 4 weeks (Circulation. 2016 Oct 25;134[17]:1280-92).

Dr. O’Gara reported receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, from Medtronic in conjunction with the ongoing pivotal APOLLO transcatheter mitral valve replacement trial, and from Edwards Lifesciences for the ongoing EARLY TAVR trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Hemodynamic complications of arteriovenous (AV) access are uncommon but can be potentially life threatening. Fistulas and grafts can cause a decrease in systemic vascular resistance and secondary increase in cardiac output in patients who may already have myocardial dysfunction secondary to their end-stage renal disease.¹ This increased cardiac output is usually insignificant but in rare cases can result in clinically significant cardiac failure. Patients with high-output fistulas with volume flow greater than 2 L/min may be at increased risk of heart failure but volume flow less than 2 L/min does not preclude this complication.²

In patients with AV access–related heart failure, optimal medical management and reduction of fistula flow or ligation of the dialysis access should be considered. If continued hemodialysis is necessary, loss of a functioning dialysis access is problematic and difficult management decisions must be made. Following successful renal transplantation, ligation of vascular access in the presence of symptomatic heart failure may represent a straightforward decision. Nonetheless, there is no clear consensus of how to manage patent fistulas or grafts in patients following renal transplantation in the absence of significant cardiac symptoms with particular concern to the important issues of transplant survival and long-term cardiac prognosis. Yaffe and Greenstein³ recommend preservation of almost all fistulas after transplantation in the absence of significant complications such as venous hypertension, pseudoaneurysm, significant high-output cardiac failure or hand ischemia. They recommend taking into account the 10-year adjusted renal transplantation graft survival rates and the relative paucity of donors, recognizing the possibility that the patient may have to return to dialysis at some point in the future. They also reference the lack of information regarding the beneficial impact of fistula ligation on cardiac morphology and function as a rationale for access preservation.

A recent presentation at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions by Michael B. Stokes, MD,⁴ from the department of cardiology at Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, suggests that cardiovascular disease is responsible for 40% of deaths among kidney transplant recipients and that left ventricular (LV) mass is strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality.

He states that, although there is no guideline consensus on the management of an AV fistula following successful renal transplantation, the fistula continues to contribute adversely to cardiac remodeling and function. The lack of previous randomized controlled trials in this area led Dr. Stokes and his colleagues to randomly assign 64 patients at least 1 year following successful kidney transplantation with stable renal function and a functioning AV fistula to either fistula ligation or no intervention. All patients underwent cardiac MRI at baseline and 6 months.

The primary endpoint of decrease in LV mass at 6 months was significant in the ligation group but not in the control group. The ligation group also had significant decrease in LV end diastolic volume, LV end systolic volume, and multiple other parameters. In addition, NT-proBNP levels and left atrial volume were significantly reduced in the ligation group when compared with the control group. Complications in the ligation group included six patients with thrombosis of their fistula vein and two infections, all of which resolved with outpatient anti-inflammatory or antimicrobial therapy.

Dr. Stokes believes that control patients in his study face “persisting and substantial deleterious cardiac remodeling” and that “further investigation would clarify the impact of AV fistula ligation on clinical outcomes following kidney transplantation.”

I believe this is important information and represents the first randomized controlled data regarding the long-term adverse cardiac effects of a patent fistula after renal transplantation. Unfortunately, information regarding baseline fistula volume flow is not provided in this abstract. As discussed earlier, patients with high-flow fistulas may be at increased risk of heart failure and hemodynamic data can be critical in establishing an algorithm for managing these challenging patients.

Ligation of a functioning and asymptomatic access in a patient with a successful renal transplant should be recommended only after informed discussion with the patient weighing the ongoing potential negative effects on cardiac function of continued access patency versus the potential need for future hemodialysis. Dr. Stokes presents interesting data that must be considered in this controversy. I believe that, in the absence of a universally applicable algorithm, the clinical decision to recommend AV fistula ligation after successful kidney transplantation should be individualized and based on ongoing assessment of cardiac and renal function and fistula complications and hemodynamics.

References

1. Eur Heart J 2017;38:1913-23.

2. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:282-7.

3. J Vasc Access 2012;13:405-8.

4. Stokes MB, et al. LBS.05 – Late Breaking Clinical Trial: Hot News in HF. Presented at American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. 2018 Nov 10-12. Chicago.
 

Larry A. Scher, MD, is a vascular surgeon at the Montefiore Greene Medical Arts Pavilion, New York, and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist.

Hemodynamic complications of arteriovenous (AV) access are uncommon but can be potentially life threatening. Fistulas and grafts can cause a decrease in systemic vascular resistance and secondary increase in cardiac output in patients who may already have myocardial dysfunction secondary to their end-stage renal disease.¹ This increased cardiac output is usually insignificant but in rare cases can result in clinically significant cardiac failure. Patients with high-output fistulas with volume flow greater than 2 L/min may be at increased risk of heart failure but volume flow less than 2 L/min does not preclude this complication.²

In patients with AV access–related heart failure, optimal medical management and reduction of fistula flow or ligation of the dialysis access should be considered. If continued hemodialysis is necessary, loss of a functioning dialysis access is problematic and difficult management decisions must be made. Following successful renal transplantation, ligation of vascular access in the presence of symptomatic heart failure may represent a straightforward decision. Nonetheless, there is no clear consensus of how to manage patent fistulas or grafts in patients following renal transplantation in the absence of significant cardiac symptoms with particular concern to the important issues of transplant survival and long-term cardiac prognosis. Yaffe and Greenstein³ recommend preservation of almost all fistulas after transplantation in the absence of significant complications such as venous hypertension, pseudoaneurysm, significant high-output cardiac failure or hand ischemia. They recommend taking into account the 10-year adjusted renal transplantation graft survival rates and the relative paucity of donors, recognizing the possibility that the patient may have to return to dialysis at some point in the future. They also reference the lack of information regarding the beneficial impact of fistula ligation on cardiac morphology and function as a rationale for access preservation.

A recent presentation at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions by Michael B. Stokes, MD,⁴ from the department of cardiology at Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, suggests that cardiovascular disease is responsible for 40% of deaths among kidney transplant recipients and that left ventricular (LV) mass is strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality.

He states that, although there is no guideline consensus on the management of an AV fistula following successful renal transplantation, the fistula continues to contribute adversely to cardiac remodeling and function. The lack of previous randomized controlled trials in this area led Dr. Stokes and his colleagues to randomly assign 64 patients at least 1 year following successful kidney transplantation with stable renal function and a functioning AV fistula to either fistula ligation or no intervention. All patients underwent cardiac MRI at baseline and 6 months.

The primary endpoint of decrease in LV mass at 6 months was significant in the ligation group but not in the control group. The ligation group also had significant decrease in LV end diastolic volume, LV end systolic volume, and multiple other parameters. In addition, NT-proBNP levels and left atrial volume were significantly reduced in the ligation group when compared with the control group. Complications in the ligation group included six patients with thrombosis of their fistula vein and two infections, all of which resolved with outpatient anti-inflammatory or antimicrobial therapy.

Dr. Stokes believes that control patients in his study face “persisting and substantial deleterious cardiac remodeling” and that “further investigation would clarify the impact of AV fistula ligation on clinical outcomes following kidney transplantation.”

I believe this is important information and represents the first randomized controlled data regarding the long-term adverse cardiac effects of a patent fistula after renal transplantation. Unfortunately, information regarding baseline fistula volume flow is not provided in this abstract. As discussed earlier, patients with high-flow fistulas may be at increased risk of heart failure and hemodynamic data can be critical in establishing an algorithm for managing these challenging patients.

Ligation of a functioning and asymptomatic access in a patient with a successful renal transplant should be recommended only after informed discussion with the patient weighing the ongoing potential negative effects on cardiac function of continued access patency versus the potential need for future hemodialysis. Dr. Stokes presents interesting data that must be considered in this controversy. I believe that, in the absence of a universally applicable algorithm, the clinical decision to recommend AV fistula ligation after successful kidney transplantation should be individualized and based on ongoing assessment of cardiac and renal function and fistula complications and hemodynamics.

References

1. Eur Heart J 2017;38:1913-23.

2. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:282-7.

3. J Vasc Access 2012;13:405-8.

4. Stokes MB, et al. LBS.05 – Late Breaking Clinical Trial: Hot News in HF. Presented at American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. 2018 Nov 10-12. Chicago.
 

Larry A. Scher, MD, is a vascular surgeon at the Montefiore Greene Medical Arts Pavilion, New York, and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist.

Hemodynamic complications of arteriovenous (AV) access are uncommon but can be potentially life threatening. Fistulas and grafts can cause a decrease in systemic vascular resistance and secondary increase in cardiac output in patients who may already have myocardial dysfunction secondary to their end-stage renal disease.¹ This increased cardiac output is usually insignificant but in rare cases can result in clinically significant cardiac failure. Patients with high-output fistulas with volume flow greater than 2 L/min may be at increased risk of heart failure but volume flow less than 2 L/min does not preclude this complication.²

In patients with AV access–related heart failure, optimal medical management and reduction of fistula flow or ligation of the dialysis access should be considered. If continued hemodialysis is necessary, loss of a functioning dialysis access is problematic and difficult management decisions must be made. Following successful renal transplantation, ligation of vascular access in the presence of symptomatic heart failure may represent a straightforward decision. Nonetheless, there is no clear consensus of how to manage patent fistulas or grafts in patients following renal transplantation in the absence of significant cardiac symptoms with particular concern to the important issues of transplant survival and long-term cardiac prognosis. Yaffe and Greenstein³ recommend preservation of almost all fistulas after transplantation in the absence of significant complications such as venous hypertension, pseudoaneurysm, significant high-output cardiac failure or hand ischemia. They recommend taking into account the 10-year adjusted renal transplantation graft survival rates and the relative paucity of donors, recognizing the possibility that the patient may have to return to dialysis at some point in the future. They also reference the lack of information regarding the beneficial impact of fistula ligation on cardiac morphology and function as a rationale for access preservation.

A recent presentation at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions by Michael B. Stokes, MD,⁴ from the department of cardiology at Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, suggests that cardiovascular disease is responsible for 40% of deaths among kidney transplant recipients and that left ventricular (LV) mass is strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality.

He states that, although there is no guideline consensus on the management of an AV fistula following successful renal transplantation, the fistula continues to contribute adversely to cardiac remodeling and function. The lack of previous randomized controlled trials in this area led Dr. Stokes and his colleagues to randomly assign 64 patients at least 1 year following successful kidney transplantation with stable renal function and a functioning AV fistula to either fistula ligation or no intervention. All patients underwent cardiac MRI at baseline and 6 months.

The primary endpoint of decrease in LV mass at 6 months was significant in the ligation group but not in the control group. The ligation group also had significant decrease in LV end diastolic volume, LV end systolic volume, and multiple other parameters. In addition, NT-proBNP levels and left atrial volume were significantly reduced in the ligation group when compared with the control group. Complications in the ligation group included six patients with thrombosis of their fistula vein and two infections, all of which resolved with outpatient anti-inflammatory or antimicrobial therapy.

Dr. Stokes believes that control patients in his study face “persisting and substantial deleterious cardiac remodeling” and that “further investigation would clarify the impact of AV fistula ligation on clinical outcomes following kidney transplantation.”

I believe this is important information and represents the first randomized controlled data regarding the long-term adverse cardiac effects of a patent fistula after renal transplantation. Unfortunately, information regarding baseline fistula volume flow is not provided in this abstract. As discussed earlier, patients with high-flow fistulas may be at increased risk of heart failure and hemodynamic data can be critical in establishing an algorithm for managing these challenging patients.

Ligation of a functioning and asymptomatic access in a patient with a successful renal transplant should be recommended only after informed discussion with the patient weighing the ongoing potential negative effects on cardiac function of continued access patency versus the potential need for future hemodialysis. Dr. Stokes presents interesting data that must be considered in this controversy. I believe that, in the absence of a universally applicable algorithm, the clinical decision to recommend AV fistula ligation after successful kidney transplantation should be individualized and based on ongoing assessment of cardiac and renal function and fistula complications and hemodynamics.

References

1. Eur Heart J 2017;38:1913-23.

2. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:282-7.

3. J Vasc Access 2012;13:405-8.

4. Stokes MB, et al. LBS.05 – Late Breaking Clinical Trial: Hot News in HF. Presented at American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. 2018 Nov 10-12. Chicago.
 

Larry A. Scher, MD, is a vascular surgeon at the Montefiore Greene Medical Arts Pavilion, New York, and an associate medical editor for Vascular Specialist.

People living with HIV (PLHIV) who have a low CD4 count or detectable viral load (VL) have an increased 30-day heart failure (HF) readmission rate as well as increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, compared with uninfected controls, according to Raza M. Alvi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his colleagues.

Thinkstock

Overall, the 30-day HF hospital readmission rate was higher among PLHIV versus non-HIV–infected individuals (49% vs. 32%, P less than .001), according to the results of their cohort study of 2,308 individuals admitted to the hospital with decompensated HF.

PLHIV and the non-HIV control groups were both followed over 2 years with a median follow-up period of 19 months, the authors wrote in the American Heart Journal. Demographic make-up of the two groups was similar; in particular, there was no difference in blood pressure and heart rate between the PLHIV and non-HIV controls, suggesting that adherence with HF medications may be similar between groups. The cohorts differed primarily in that pulmonary artery systolic pressure was significantly higher (45 vs. 40 mm Hg; P less than .001) in the HIV group, as was cocaine use (36% vs. 19%; P less than .001) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (13% vs. 7%; P less than .001).

The differing results between the two cohorts were primarily caused by the fact that, for PLHIV with HF, CD4 count and VL were risk factors for adverse outcomes among patients with all types of HF. Specifically, the subset of PLHIV with HF with a CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mm³ had worse outcomes (30-day HF readmission, cardiovascular [CV] mortality, and all-cause mortality), compared with those with CD4 count greater than or equal to 200 cells/mm^{3. In addition,} a low CD4 count/high VL independently related to an increased 30-day HF readmission rate even after the researchers controlled for major traditional and nontraditional HF risk factors.

“Rates of 30-day HF readmission, CV mortality, and all-cause mortality are worse among individuals with a low CD4 count or nonsuppressed viral load,” the researchers concluded.

The National Institutes of Health sponsored the study. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Alvi RM et al. Am Heart J. 2019 Apr;210:39-48.

People living with HIV (PLHIV) who have a low CD4 count or detectable viral load (VL) have an increased 30-day heart failure (HF) readmission rate as well as increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, compared with uninfected controls, according to Raza M. Alvi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his colleagues.

Thinkstock

Overall, the 30-day HF hospital readmission rate was higher among PLHIV versus non-HIV–infected individuals (49% vs. 32%, P less than .001), according to the results of their cohort study of 2,308 individuals admitted to the hospital with decompensated HF.

PLHIV and the non-HIV control groups were both followed over 2 years with a median follow-up period of 19 months, the authors wrote in the American Heart Journal. Demographic make-up of the two groups was similar; in particular, there was no difference in blood pressure and heart rate between the PLHIV and non-HIV controls, suggesting that adherence with HF medications may be similar between groups. The cohorts differed primarily in that pulmonary artery systolic pressure was significantly higher (45 vs. 40 mm Hg; P less than .001) in the HIV group, as was cocaine use (36% vs. 19%; P less than .001) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (13% vs. 7%; P less than .001).

The differing results between the two cohorts were primarily caused by the fact that, for PLHIV with HF, CD4 count and VL were risk factors for adverse outcomes among patients with all types of HF. Specifically, the subset of PLHIV with HF with a CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mm³ had worse outcomes (30-day HF readmission, cardiovascular [CV] mortality, and all-cause mortality), compared with those with CD4 count greater than or equal to 200 cells/mm^{3. In addition,} a low CD4 count/high VL independently related to an increased 30-day HF readmission rate even after the researchers controlled for major traditional and nontraditional HF risk factors.

“Rates of 30-day HF readmission, CV mortality, and all-cause mortality are worse among individuals with a low CD4 count or nonsuppressed viral load,” the researchers concluded.

The National Institutes of Health sponsored the study. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Alvi RM et al. Am Heart J. 2019 Apr;210:39-48.

People living with HIV (PLHIV) who have a low CD4 count or detectable viral load (VL) have an increased 30-day heart failure (HF) readmission rate as well as increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, compared with uninfected controls, according to Raza M. Alvi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his colleagues.

Thinkstock

Overall, the 30-day HF hospital readmission rate was higher among PLHIV versus non-HIV–infected individuals (49% vs. 32%, P less than .001), according to the results of their cohort study of 2,308 individuals admitted to the hospital with decompensated HF.

PLHIV and the non-HIV control groups were both followed over 2 years with a median follow-up period of 19 months, the authors wrote in the American Heart Journal. Demographic make-up of the two groups was similar; in particular, there was no difference in blood pressure and heart rate between the PLHIV and non-HIV controls, suggesting that adherence with HF medications may be similar between groups. The cohorts differed primarily in that pulmonary artery systolic pressure was significantly higher (45 vs. 40 mm Hg; P less than .001) in the HIV group, as was cocaine use (36% vs. 19%; P less than .001) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (13% vs. 7%; P less than .001).

The differing results between the two cohorts were primarily caused by the fact that, for PLHIV with HF, CD4 count and VL were risk factors for adverse outcomes among patients with all types of HF. Specifically, the subset of PLHIV with HF with a CD4 count of less than 200 cells/mm³ had worse outcomes (30-day HF readmission, cardiovascular [CV] mortality, and all-cause mortality), compared with those with CD4 count greater than or equal to 200 cells/mm^{3. In addition,} a low CD4 count/high VL independently related to an increased 30-day HF readmission rate even after the researchers controlled for major traditional and nontraditional HF risk factors.

“Rates of 30-day HF readmission, CV mortality, and all-cause mortality are worse among individuals with a low CD4 count or nonsuppressed viral load,” the researchers concluded.

The National Institutes of Health sponsored the study. The authors reported that they had no conflicts.

mlesney@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Alvi RM et al. Am Heart J. 2019 Apr;210:39-48.

This week in MDedge Cardiocast: Most tPA-eligible stroke patients now get treated within an hour, atrial fib patients with prior hemorrhagic stroke who get their LAA closed can be safely treated, SGLT2 inhibitors are quickly morphing from diabetes to heart failure drugs, and the MESA cardiovascular disease risk calculator can be an improvement on the ACC/AHA version.

Amazon AlexaApple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

TuneIn

This week in MDedge Cardiocast: Most tPA-eligible stroke patients now get treated within an hour, atrial fib patients with prior hemorrhagic stroke who get their LAA closed can be safely treated, SGLT2 inhibitors are quickly morphing from diabetes to heart failure drugs, and the MESA cardiovascular disease risk calculator can be an improvement on the ACC/AHA version.

Amazon AlexaApple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

TuneIn

This week in MDedge Cardiocast: Most tPA-eligible stroke patients now get treated within an hour, atrial fib patients with prior hemorrhagic stroke who get their LAA closed can be safely treated, SGLT2 inhibitors are quickly morphing from diabetes to heart failure drugs, and the MESA cardiovascular disease risk calculator can be an improvement on the ACC/AHA version.

Amazon AlexaApple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

TuneIn

WASHINGTON – The cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with advanced prostate cancer are less severe than once feared, but there is evidence to suggest that men with preexisting heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction could be at excess risk for death from cardiovascular causes when they receive ADT, according to a leading prostate cancer expert.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“I think there are concerns about potential cardiovascular harm of ADT, and I think this has reduced ADT use, despite the fact that we know for most men it improves overall survival,” said Paul Nguyen, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

“In fact, when we looked recently at men with high-risk prostate cancer, this is a group where overall survival is improved by 50% if they get ADT – so it cuts the risk of death in half – but it turns out that nearly a quarter of those patients are not receiving ADT. I think that the concern about cardiovascular harm and the confusion as to where that data stands is a lot of what’s driving that right now,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
 

Randomized trial data

Dr. Nguyen noted that the evidence suggesting that ADT can increase the risk of death from cardiovascular causes came largely from three major studies:

• A 2006 study of 73,196 Medicare enrollees aged 66 or older, which found that ADT with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist was possibly associated with increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24[27]:4448-56.).
• A 2007 analysis of data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CAPSURE) database on 3,262 men treated with radical prostatectomy and 1,630 men treated with radiation or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer, which found that among those 65 and older the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% for patients who received ADT, vs. 2% for those who did not (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 17;99[20]:1516-24).
• A 2007 study of 1,372 men in three randomized trials of radiation therapy with or without androgen suppression therapy up to 8 months in duration, which found that men 65 and older who received 6 months of androgen suppression had significantly shorter times to fatal MIs than did men who did not receive the therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25[17]:2420-5).

These studies, combined with observational data, led to a 2010 consensus statement from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association, with endorsement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, which stated that “there may be a relation between ADT and cardiovascular events and death.”

Also in 2010, the Food and Drug Administration required new labeling on GnRH agonists warning of “increased risk of diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, sudden cardiac death, stroke).”
 

Not unanimous

Two other large randomized studies (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26[4]:585-91 and J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 1;27[1]:92-9) and two retrospective studies (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27[21]:3452-8 and J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 10;29[26]3510-16) found no excess risk of cardiovascular disease from ADT, Dr. Nguyen said, prompting him and his colleagues to see whether they could get a better estimate of the actual risk.

They did so through a 2011 meta-analysis (JAMA. 2011;306[21]:2359-66) of data on 4,141 patients from eight randomized trials. They found that among patients with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, but was associated with lower risks for both prostate-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

Subpopulations may still be at risk

Dr. Nguyen said that the principal finding of the meta-analysis, while reassuring, “doesn’t let ADT off the hook for metabolic events, diabetes which we know happens, and the possibility of nonfatal cardiac events.”

He noted that while ADT was not associated with cardiovascular disease in clinical trials, observational studies showed significantly increased risk for fatal or non-fatal MI.

One possible explanation for the difference is that observational studies included nonfatal MI, while randomized trials looked only at cardiovascular deaths. It’s also possible that ADT causes harm primarily in men with preexisting comorbidities, who are often excluded from or underrepresented in clinical trials.

Evidence from a 2009 study (JAMA. 2009 Aug 26;302[8]:866-73) showed that among men with clinical stage T1 to T3 noninvasive, nonmetastatic prostate cancer, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy with both a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality for those with a history of coronary artery disease–induced heart failure, but not for men with either no comorbidities or only a single comorbidity such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes.
 

Clinical considerations

The decision to treat men with prostate cancer with ADT is therefore a balancing act, Dr. Nguyen said.

“As the risk of prostate cancer death goes up, the benefit of ADT goes up. However, as the comorbidity level goes up, the potential cardiovascular harm of ADT goes up,” he said.

For patients at the extreme ends of each continuum, such as a patient with high-risk prostate cancer and no cardiovascular comorbidities or a patient with low-risk cancer but multiple CV risk factors, the decision to give or withhold ADT is relatively simple, he said.

But for patients in between, such as a man with intermediate-risk cancer and one risk factor or a man with high risk disease with multiple comorbidities, the decision is far more complex.

“This where I think the dialogue with the cardiologist really needs to come into this decision,” he said.

Evidence to support the decision comes from retrospective studies suggesting that even men with high-risk prostate cancer have poorer overall survival with ADT if they have a history of heart failure or MI.

For patients with low-risk cancer and diabetes, ADT is associated with worse overall survival, but ADT does not cause additional harm to men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who have concomitant diabetes, Dr. Nguyen said.

“My view is that ADT has not been shown to increase cardiovascular death in randomized trials, so I think that for the vast majority of patients it probably does not increase cardiovascular deaths. But I think there could very well be a vulnerable 5% of patients who might have an excess risk of cardiovascular death, and I think we have to be careful, but we still have to balance it out against their risks for prostate cancer death,” he said.

Dr. Nguyen reported consulting fees/honoraria from Astellas, Augmenix, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Dendreon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenomeDx, Janssen, and Nanobiotix.

WASHINGTON – The cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with advanced prostate cancer are less severe than once feared, but there is evidence to suggest that men with preexisting heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction could be at excess risk for death from cardiovascular causes when they receive ADT, according to a leading prostate cancer expert.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“I think there are concerns about potential cardiovascular harm of ADT, and I think this has reduced ADT use, despite the fact that we know for most men it improves overall survival,” said Paul Nguyen, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

“In fact, when we looked recently at men with high-risk prostate cancer, this is a group where overall survival is improved by 50% if they get ADT – so it cuts the risk of death in half – but it turns out that nearly a quarter of those patients are not receiving ADT. I think that the concern about cardiovascular harm and the confusion as to where that data stands is a lot of what’s driving that right now,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
 

Randomized trial data

Dr. Nguyen noted that the evidence suggesting that ADT can increase the risk of death from cardiovascular causes came largely from three major studies:

• A 2006 study of 73,196 Medicare enrollees aged 66 or older, which found that ADT with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist was possibly associated with increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24[27]:4448-56.).
• A 2007 analysis of data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CAPSURE) database on 3,262 men treated with radical prostatectomy and 1,630 men treated with radiation or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer, which found that among those 65 and older the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% for patients who received ADT, vs. 2% for those who did not (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 17;99[20]:1516-24).
• A 2007 study of 1,372 men in three randomized trials of radiation therapy with or without androgen suppression therapy up to 8 months in duration, which found that men 65 and older who received 6 months of androgen suppression had significantly shorter times to fatal MIs than did men who did not receive the therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25[17]:2420-5).

These studies, combined with observational data, led to a 2010 consensus statement from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association, with endorsement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, which stated that “there may be a relation between ADT and cardiovascular events and death.”

Also in 2010, the Food and Drug Administration required new labeling on GnRH agonists warning of “increased risk of diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, sudden cardiac death, stroke).”
 

Not unanimous

Two other large randomized studies (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26[4]:585-91 and J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 1;27[1]:92-9) and two retrospective studies (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27[21]:3452-8 and J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 10;29[26]3510-16) found no excess risk of cardiovascular disease from ADT, Dr. Nguyen said, prompting him and his colleagues to see whether they could get a better estimate of the actual risk.

They did so through a 2011 meta-analysis (JAMA. 2011;306[21]:2359-66) of data on 4,141 patients from eight randomized trials. They found that among patients with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, but was associated with lower risks for both prostate-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

Subpopulations may still be at risk

Dr. Nguyen said that the principal finding of the meta-analysis, while reassuring, “doesn’t let ADT off the hook for metabolic events, diabetes which we know happens, and the possibility of nonfatal cardiac events.”

He noted that while ADT was not associated with cardiovascular disease in clinical trials, observational studies showed significantly increased risk for fatal or non-fatal MI.

One possible explanation for the difference is that observational studies included nonfatal MI, while randomized trials looked only at cardiovascular deaths. It’s also possible that ADT causes harm primarily in men with preexisting comorbidities, who are often excluded from or underrepresented in clinical trials.

Evidence from a 2009 study (JAMA. 2009 Aug 26;302[8]:866-73) showed that among men with clinical stage T1 to T3 noninvasive, nonmetastatic prostate cancer, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy with both a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality for those with a history of coronary artery disease–induced heart failure, but not for men with either no comorbidities or only a single comorbidity such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes.
 

Clinical considerations

The decision to treat men with prostate cancer with ADT is therefore a balancing act, Dr. Nguyen said.

“As the risk of prostate cancer death goes up, the benefit of ADT goes up. However, as the comorbidity level goes up, the potential cardiovascular harm of ADT goes up,” he said.

For patients at the extreme ends of each continuum, such as a patient with high-risk prostate cancer and no cardiovascular comorbidities or a patient with low-risk cancer but multiple CV risk factors, the decision to give or withhold ADT is relatively simple, he said.

But for patients in between, such as a man with intermediate-risk cancer and one risk factor or a man with high risk disease with multiple comorbidities, the decision is far more complex.

“This where I think the dialogue with the cardiologist really needs to come into this decision,” he said.

Evidence to support the decision comes from retrospective studies suggesting that even men with high-risk prostate cancer have poorer overall survival with ADT if they have a history of heart failure or MI.

For patients with low-risk cancer and diabetes, ADT is associated with worse overall survival, but ADT does not cause additional harm to men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who have concomitant diabetes, Dr. Nguyen said.

“My view is that ADT has not been shown to increase cardiovascular death in randomized trials, so I think that for the vast majority of patients it probably does not increase cardiovascular deaths. But I think there could very well be a vulnerable 5% of patients who might have an excess risk of cardiovascular death, and I think we have to be careful, but we still have to balance it out against their risks for prostate cancer death,” he said.

Dr. Nguyen reported consulting fees/honoraria from Astellas, Augmenix, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Dendreon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenomeDx, Janssen, and Nanobiotix.

WASHINGTON – The cardiovascular effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with advanced prostate cancer are less severe than once feared, but there is evidence to suggest that men with preexisting heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction could be at excess risk for death from cardiovascular causes when they receive ADT, according to a leading prostate cancer expert.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“I think there are concerns about potential cardiovascular harm of ADT, and I think this has reduced ADT use, despite the fact that we know for most men it improves overall survival,” said Paul Nguyen, MD, a radiation oncologist at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center in Boston.

“In fact, when we looked recently at men with high-risk prostate cancer, this is a group where overall survival is improved by 50% if they get ADT – so it cuts the risk of death in half – but it turns out that nearly a quarter of those patients are not receiving ADT. I think that the concern about cardiovascular harm and the confusion as to where that data stands is a lot of what’s driving that right now,” he said at the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient meeting.
 

Randomized trial data

Dr. Nguyen noted that the evidence suggesting that ADT can increase the risk of death from cardiovascular causes came largely from three major studies:

• A 2006 study of 73,196 Medicare enrollees aged 66 or older, which found that ADT with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist was possibly associated with increased risk of incident diabetes and cardiovascular disease (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Sep 20;24[27]:4448-56.).
• A 2007 analysis of data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CAPSURE) database on 3,262 men treated with radical prostatectomy and 1,630 men treated with radiation or cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer, which found that among those 65 and older the 5-year cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was 5.5% for patients who received ADT, vs. 2% for those who did not (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Oct 17;99[20]:1516-24).
• A 2007 study of 1,372 men in three randomized trials of radiation therapy with or without androgen suppression therapy up to 8 months in duration, which found that men 65 and older who received 6 months of androgen suppression had significantly shorter times to fatal MIs than did men who did not receive the therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25[17]:2420-5).

These studies, combined with observational data, led to a 2010 consensus statement from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and American Urological Association, with endorsement from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, which stated that “there may be a relation between ADT and cardiovascular events and death.”

Also in 2010, the Food and Drug Administration required new labeling on GnRH agonists warning of “increased risk of diabetes and certain cardiovascular diseases (heart attack, sudden cardiac death, stroke).”
 

Not unanimous

Two other large randomized studies (J Clin Oncol. 2008 Feb 1;26[4]:585-91 and J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 1;27[1]:92-9) and two retrospective studies (J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27[21]:3452-8 and J Clin Oncol. 2011 Sep 10;29[26]3510-16) found no excess risk of cardiovascular disease from ADT, Dr. Nguyen said, prompting him and his colleagues to see whether they could get a better estimate of the actual risk.

They did so through a 2011 meta-analysis (JAMA. 2011;306[21]:2359-66) of data on 4,141 patients from eight randomized trials. They found that among patients with unfavorable-risk prostate cancer, ADT was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, but was associated with lower risks for both prostate-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

Subpopulations may still be at risk

Dr. Nguyen said that the principal finding of the meta-analysis, while reassuring, “doesn’t let ADT off the hook for metabolic events, diabetes which we know happens, and the possibility of nonfatal cardiac events.”

He noted that while ADT was not associated with cardiovascular disease in clinical trials, observational studies showed significantly increased risk for fatal or non-fatal MI.

One possible explanation for the difference is that observational studies included nonfatal MI, while randomized trials looked only at cardiovascular deaths. It’s also possible that ADT causes harm primarily in men with preexisting comorbidities, who are often excluded from or underrepresented in clinical trials.

Evidence from a 2009 study (JAMA. 2009 Aug 26;302[8]:866-73) showed that among men with clinical stage T1 to T3 noninvasive, nonmetastatic prostate cancer, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy with both a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen was associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality for those with a history of coronary artery disease–induced heart failure, but not for men with either no comorbidities or only a single comorbidity such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, or diabetes.
 

Clinical considerations

The decision to treat men with prostate cancer with ADT is therefore a balancing act, Dr. Nguyen said.

“As the risk of prostate cancer death goes up, the benefit of ADT goes up. However, as the comorbidity level goes up, the potential cardiovascular harm of ADT goes up,” he said.

For patients at the extreme ends of each continuum, such as a patient with high-risk prostate cancer and no cardiovascular comorbidities or a patient with low-risk cancer but multiple CV risk factors, the decision to give or withhold ADT is relatively simple, he said.

But for patients in between, such as a man with intermediate-risk cancer and one risk factor or a man with high risk disease with multiple comorbidities, the decision is far more complex.

“This where I think the dialogue with the cardiologist really needs to come into this decision,” he said.

Evidence to support the decision comes from retrospective studies suggesting that even men with high-risk prostate cancer have poorer overall survival with ADT if they have a history of heart failure or MI.

For patients with low-risk cancer and diabetes, ADT is associated with worse overall survival, but ADT does not cause additional harm to men with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer who have concomitant diabetes, Dr. Nguyen said.

“My view is that ADT has not been shown to increase cardiovascular death in randomized trials, so I think that for the vast majority of patients it probably does not increase cardiovascular deaths. But I think there could very well be a vulnerable 5% of patients who might have an excess risk of cardiovascular death, and I think we have to be careful, but we still have to balance it out against their risks for prostate cancer death,” he said.

Dr. Nguyen reported consulting fees/honoraria from Astellas, Augmenix, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Cota, Dendreon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenomeDx, Janssen, and Nanobiotix.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The oral sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are the focus of a slew of ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in patients with symptomatic heart failure but no diabetes.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We have a wide array of exciting opportunities to modify cardiovascular risk with agents that were initially developed for the therapy of diabetes. I think we’re increasingly moving to an age where these agents are actually cardiovascular drugs that happen to lower blood glucose, rather than the other way around, which is how they were initially conceived,” Akshay S. Desai, MD, observed at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

These are each multi-thousand-patient trials, variously due to be completed in 2019-2021. Of note, several of them are restricted to nondiabetic patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a common, serious, understudied, extremely high-cost disease sorely in need of effective pharmacotherapies, added Dr. Desai, director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

All of these placebo-controlled trials have as their composite primary endpoint cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization.

EMPEROR-Preserved has randomized 4,126 patients with HFpEF to empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo, while EMPEROR-Reduced involves 2,850 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Both are due to be completed in 2020.

In addition, the DELIVER trial is focused on 4,700 HFpEF patients randomized to dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or placebo, while Dapa-HF employs the SGLT2 inhibitor in a study of 4,500 patients with HFrEF. Dapa-HF will be completed by late 2019. DELIVER wraps up in mid-2021.

Again, remarkably, none of the participants in these trials has diabetes. All have symptomatic heart failure with elevated N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide levels. The impetus for this ongoing round of studies was the impressive reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure seen in the pivotal trials that earned the SGLT2 inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin (Invokana), and dapagliflozin marketing approval for treatment of type 2 diabetes from the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Desai called attention to a new systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes in randomized, placebo-controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in more than 34,000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The conclusion: These drugs impressively reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization by 32% in patients with a baseline history of heart failure and similarly by 29% in those with no such history. Also notable was the 45% reduction in the risk of progression of renal disease regardless of whether patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

Only one of the ongoing round of phase 3 trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure is being conducted in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes: the 4,000-subject SOLOIST-WHF trial. This study features the investigational dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and 2, sotagliflozin, with a primary outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Results are expected in early 2021.


 

What the latest guidelines say

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes joint consensus statement on management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes reflects an appreciation of the cardiovascular benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists, which have shown significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events in pivotal trials including LEADER, HARMONY, and REWIND, albeit without the impressive reduction in heart failure hospitalizations documented with the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The consensus statement emphasizes that aggressive lifestyle modification advice is step No. 1, with the first-line medication being metformin titrated to a target of 1,000 mg twice daily. For patients with clinical heart failure or chronic kidney disease and atherosclerotic cardiovascular heart disease, the next drug recommended is an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit. A GLP-1 agonist is recommended as the first injectable medication, ahead of insulin.
 

Who will take the lead in this new treatment strategy?

Dr. Desai presented data showing that overall utilization of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists is going up, but not as steeply as it should.

“Cardiologists need to take a more active role,” he declared.

“It’s increasingly clear that, if we’re interested in modifying cardiovascular outcomes, we need to take ownership of this problem, much as we’ve done for lipids and hypertension, because modulating cardiovascular risk is our job,” Dr. Desai asserted. “These drugs may have modest influence on glycemic control, but the primary goal with these agents is to influence cardiovascular outcomes – and if we leave that job to our colleagues, then it often is just a can that gets kicked down the road.”

As a practical matter in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, he emphasized the value of partnering with a primary care physician, endocrinologist, and/or pharmacist by creating pathways for accelerated referral for pharmacologic teaching and, in the case of GLP-1 agonists, injection-related instruction. Pharmacists are often particularly helpful in obtaining prior authorization and financial approval for these medications, and they are familiar with drug discounts and vouchers.

“A great way to jump start collaboration is to provide the patient with a prescription before leaving your office. I think often what we do is just suggest it to the patient, and then a year later they come back and nothing has changed,” the cardiologist said.

Dr. Desai reported serving as a paid consultant to more than half a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The oral sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are the focus of a slew of ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in patients with symptomatic heart failure but no diabetes.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We have a wide array of exciting opportunities to modify cardiovascular risk with agents that were initially developed for the therapy of diabetes. I think we’re increasingly moving to an age where these agents are actually cardiovascular drugs that happen to lower blood glucose, rather than the other way around, which is how they were initially conceived,” Akshay S. Desai, MD, observed at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

These are each multi-thousand-patient trials, variously due to be completed in 2019-2021. Of note, several of them are restricted to nondiabetic patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a common, serious, understudied, extremely high-cost disease sorely in need of effective pharmacotherapies, added Dr. Desai, director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

All of these placebo-controlled trials have as their composite primary endpoint cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization.

EMPEROR-Preserved has randomized 4,126 patients with HFpEF to empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo, while EMPEROR-Reduced involves 2,850 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Both are due to be completed in 2020.

In addition, the DELIVER trial is focused on 4,700 HFpEF patients randomized to dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or placebo, while Dapa-HF employs the SGLT2 inhibitor in a study of 4,500 patients with HFrEF. Dapa-HF will be completed by late 2019. DELIVER wraps up in mid-2021.

Again, remarkably, none of the participants in these trials has diabetes. All have symptomatic heart failure with elevated N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide levels. The impetus for this ongoing round of studies was the impressive reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure seen in the pivotal trials that earned the SGLT2 inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin (Invokana), and dapagliflozin marketing approval for treatment of type 2 diabetes from the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Desai called attention to a new systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes in randomized, placebo-controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in more than 34,000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The conclusion: These drugs impressively reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization by 32% in patients with a baseline history of heart failure and similarly by 29% in those with no such history. Also notable was the 45% reduction in the risk of progression of renal disease regardless of whether patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

Only one of the ongoing round of phase 3 trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure is being conducted in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes: the 4,000-subject SOLOIST-WHF trial. This study features the investigational dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and 2, sotagliflozin, with a primary outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Results are expected in early 2021.


 

What the latest guidelines say

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes joint consensus statement on management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes reflects an appreciation of the cardiovascular benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists, which have shown significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events in pivotal trials including LEADER, HARMONY, and REWIND, albeit without the impressive reduction in heart failure hospitalizations documented with the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The consensus statement emphasizes that aggressive lifestyle modification advice is step No. 1, with the first-line medication being metformin titrated to a target of 1,000 mg twice daily. For patients with clinical heart failure or chronic kidney disease and atherosclerotic cardiovascular heart disease, the next drug recommended is an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit. A GLP-1 agonist is recommended as the first injectable medication, ahead of insulin.
 

Who will take the lead in this new treatment strategy?

Dr. Desai presented data showing that overall utilization of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists is going up, but not as steeply as it should.

“Cardiologists need to take a more active role,” he declared.

“It’s increasingly clear that, if we’re interested in modifying cardiovascular outcomes, we need to take ownership of this problem, much as we’ve done for lipids and hypertension, because modulating cardiovascular risk is our job,” Dr. Desai asserted. “These drugs may have modest influence on glycemic control, but the primary goal with these agents is to influence cardiovascular outcomes – and if we leave that job to our colleagues, then it often is just a can that gets kicked down the road.”

As a practical matter in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, he emphasized the value of partnering with a primary care physician, endocrinologist, and/or pharmacist by creating pathways for accelerated referral for pharmacologic teaching and, in the case of GLP-1 agonists, injection-related instruction. Pharmacists are often particularly helpful in obtaining prior authorization and financial approval for these medications, and they are familiar with drug discounts and vouchers.

“A great way to jump start collaboration is to provide the patient with a prescription before leaving your office. I think often what we do is just suggest it to the patient, and then a year later they come back and nothing has changed,” the cardiologist said.

Dr. Desai reported serving as a paid consultant to more than half a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The oral sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are the focus of a slew of ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in patients with symptomatic heart failure but no diabetes.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We have a wide array of exciting opportunities to modify cardiovascular risk with agents that were initially developed for the therapy of diabetes. I think we’re increasingly moving to an age where these agents are actually cardiovascular drugs that happen to lower blood glucose, rather than the other way around, which is how they were initially conceived,” Akshay S. Desai, MD, observed at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

These are each multi-thousand-patient trials, variously due to be completed in 2019-2021. Of note, several of them are restricted to nondiabetic patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a common, serious, understudied, extremely high-cost disease sorely in need of effective pharmacotherapies, added Dr. Desai, director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

All of these placebo-controlled trials have as their composite primary endpoint cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization.

EMPEROR-Preserved has randomized 4,126 patients with HFpEF to empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo, while EMPEROR-Reduced involves 2,850 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Both are due to be completed in 2020.

In addition, the DELIVER trial is focused on 4,700 HFpEF patients randomized to dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or placebo, while Dapa-HF employs the SGLT2 inhibitor in a study of 4,500 patients with HFrEF. Dapa-HF will be completed by late 2019. DELIVER wraps up in mid-2021.

Again, remarkably, none of the participants in these trials has diabetes. All have symptomatic heart failure with elevated N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide levels. The impetus for this ongoing round of studies was the impressive reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure seen in the pivotal trials that earned the SGLT2 inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin (Invokana), and dapagliflozin marketing approval for treatment of type 2 diabetes from the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Desai called attention to a new systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes in randomized, placebo-controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in more than 34,000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The conclusion: These drugs impressively reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization by 32% in patients with a baseline history of heart failure and similarly by 29% in those with no such history. Also notable was the 45% reduction in the risk of progression of renal disease regardless of whether patients had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

Only one of the ongoing round of phase 3 trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure is being conducted in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes: the 4,000-subject SOLOIST-WHF trial. This study features the investigational dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and 2, sotagliflozin, with a primary outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Results are expected in early 2021.


 

What the latest guidelines say

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes joint consensus statement on management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes reflects an appreciation of the cardiovascular benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists, which have shown significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events in pivotal trials including LEADER, HARMONY, and REWIND, albeit without the impressive reduction in heart failure hospitalizations documented with the SGLT2 inhibitors.

The consensus statement emphasizes that aggressive lifestyle modification advice is step No. 1, with the first-line medication being metformin titrated to a target of 1,000 mg twice daily. For patients with clinical heart failure or chronic kidney disease and atherosclerotic cardiovascular heart disease, the next drug recommended is an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit. A GLP-1 agonist is recommended as the first injectable medication, ahead of insulin.
 

Who will take the lead in this new treatment strategy?

Dr. Desai presented data showing that overall utilization of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists is going up, but not as steeply as it should.

“Cardiologists need to take a more active role,” he declared.

“It’s increasingly clear that, if we’re interested in modifying cardiovascular outcomes, we need to take ownership of this problem, much as we’ve done for lipids and hypertension, because modulating cardiovascular risk is our job,” Dr. Desai asserted. “These drugs may have modest influence on glycemic control, but the primary goal with these agents is to influence cardiovascular outcomes – and if we leave that job to our colleagues, then it often is just a can that gets kicked down the road.”

As a practical matter in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, he emphasized the value of partnering with a primary care physician, endocrinologist, and/or pharmacist by creating pathways for accelerated referral for pharmacologic teaching and, in the case of GLP-1 agonists, injection-related instruction. Pharmacists are often particularly helpful in obtaining prior authorization and financial approval for these medications, and they are familiar with drug discounts and vouchers.

“A great way to jump start collaboration is to provide the patient with a prescription before leaving your office. I think often what we do is just suggest it to the patient, and then a year later they come back and nothing has changed,” the cardiologist said.

Dr. Desai reported serving as a paid consultant to more than half a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com