Heart Failure

LISBON – A 70% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) given an intensified, multifactorial intervention versus conventional treatment in a long-term follow up of the STENO-2 study.

Over 21 years, 34 (21%) of 160 study subjects developed heart failure; 24 (30%) had initially been treated conventionally, and 10 (13%) had initially received intensive treatment. The annualized rates of heart failure were calculated as a respective 2.4% and 0.8% (hazard ratio, 0.30; P less than .002), Jens Øllgaard, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Furthermore, after adjustment was made for subject age, gender, prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, and ejection fraction at recruitment, there was a 76% relative risk reduction in heart failure with the intensified strategy versus conventional treatment.

“Heart failure in diabetes is frequent, fatal, and at least until very recently, quite forgotten,” said Dr. Øllgaard, who presented the research performed while he was at the STENO Diabetes Center in Copenhagen.

Dr. Øllgaard, who now works for Novo Nordisk, noted that heart failure was four times more likely to occur in patients with T2DM who had microalbuminuria than in those with normal albumin levels in the urine, and the median survival was around 3.5 years. While there is no regulatory requirement at present to stipulate that heart failure should be assessed in trials looking at the cardiovascular safety of T2DM treatments, recording such information is something that the STENO-2 investigators would recommend.

STENO-2 was an open, parallel group study initiated in 1993 to compare conventional multifactorial treatment of T2DM with an intensified approach over an 8-year period. After the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint was assessed, the trial continued as an observational study, with all patients given the intensified, multifactorial treatment that consisted of lifestyle measures and medications targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hypercoagulation.

The primary endpoint of the long-term follow-up study was the difference in median survival time between the original treatment groups with and without incident cardiovascular disease. The results showed a 48% relative reduction in the risk of death; those initially given the intensified treatment had an increased lifespan of 7.9 years and an 8.1-year increased survival without cardiovascular disease versus those who had initially received conventional treatment (Diabetologica 2016;59:2298-307).

Dr. Øllgaard presented data on heart failure outcomes obtained from a post-hoc analysis of prospectively collected and externally adjudicated patient records.

In addition to the reductions in the primary outcome of time to heart failure, the secondary outcomes of time to heart failure or cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; P = .006) and heart failure or all-cause mortality (relative risk reduction, 49%; P = .001) also favored initial intensive treatment versus conventional treatment.

The number of patients who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent one heart failure event was 63. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent heart failure or cardiovascular death was 48, and the NNT or heart failure or all-cause death was 37.

“Intensified, multifactorial intervention reduces the risk of heart failure and underlines the need for early, intensive treatment in these patients,” Dr. Øllgaard said. “Diabetologists should be aware of this increased risk and the early clinical signs and biomarkers of heart failure.” He added the study “also emphasizes the need for close collaboration, locally and globally, between endocrinologists and cardiologists.”

The STENO-2 long-term follow-up analysis was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Øllgaard disclosed being employed by Novo Nordisk after the submission of the abstract for presentation at the EASD meeting.

LISBON – A 70% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) given an intensified, multifactorial intervention versus conventional treatment in a long-term follow up of the STENO-2 study.

Over 21 years, 34 (21%) of 160 study subjects developed heart failure; 24 (30%) had initially been treated conventionally, and 10 (13%) had initially received intensive treatment. The annualized rates of heart failure were calculated as a respective 2.4% and 0.8% (hazard ratio, 0.30; P less than .002), Jens Øllgaard, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Furthermore, after adjustment was made for subject age, gender, prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, and ejection fraction at recruitment, there was a 76% relative risk reduction in heart failure with the intensified strategy versus conventional treatment.

“Heart failure in diabetes is frequent, fatal, and at least until very recently, quite forgotten,” said Dr. Øllgaard, who presented the research performed while he was at the STENO Diabetes Center in Copenhagen.

Dr. Øllgaard, who now works for Novo Nordisk, noted that heart failure was four times more likely to occur in patients with T2DM who had microalbuminuria than in those with normal albumin levels in the urine, and the median survival was around 3.5 years. While there is no regulatory requirement at present to stipulate that heart failure should be assessed in trials looking at the cardiovascular safety of T2DM treatments, recording such information is something that the STENO-2 investigators would recommend.

STENO-2 was an open, parallel group study initiated in 1993 to compare conventional multifactorial treatment of T2DM with an intensified approach over an 8-year period. After the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint was assessed, the trial continued as an observational study, with all patients given the intensified, multifactorial treatment that consisted of lifestyle measures and medications targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hypercoagulation.

The primary endpoint of the long-term follow-up study was the difference in median survival time between the original treatment groups with and without incident cardiovascular disease. The results showed a 48% relative reduction in the risk of death; those initially given the intensified treatment had an increased lifespan of 7.9 years and an 8.1-year increased survival without cardiovascular disease versus those who had initially received conventional treatment (Diabetologica 2016;59:2298-307).

Dr. Øllgaard presented data on heart failure outcomes obtained from a post-hoc analysis of prospectively collected and externally adjudicated patient records.

In addition to the reductions in the primary outcome of time to heart failure, the secondary outcomes of time to heart failure or cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; P = .006) and heart failure or all-cause mortality (relative risk reduction, 49%; P = .001) also favored initial intensive treatment versus conventional treatment.

The number of patients who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent one heart failure event was 63. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent heart failure or cardiovascular death was 48, and the NNT or heart failure or all-cause death was 37.

“Intensified, multifactorial intervention reduces the risk of heart failure and underlines the need for early, intensive treatment in these patients,” Dr. Øllgaard said. “Diabetologists should be aware of this increased risk and the early clinical signs and biomarkers of heart failure.” He added the study “also emphasizes the need for close collaboration, locally and globally, between endocrinologists and cardiologists.”

The STENO-2 long-term follow-up analysis was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Øllgaard disclosed being employed by Novo Nordisk after the submission of the abstract for presentation at the EASD meeting.

LISBON – A 70% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure was achieved in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) given an intensified, multifactorial intervention versus conventional treatment in a long-term follow up of the STENO-2 study.

Over 21 years, 34 (21%) of 160 study subjects developed heart failure; 24 (30%) had initially been treated conventionally, and 10 (13%) had initially received intensive treatment. The annualized rates of heart failure were calculated as a respective 2.4% and 0.8% (hazard ratio, 0.30; P less than .002), Jens Øllgaard, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Furthermore, after adjustment was made for subject age, gender, prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, and ejection fraction at recruitment, there was a 76% relative risk reduction in heart failure with the intensified strategy versus conventional treatment.

“Heart failure in diabetes is frequent, fatal, and at least until very recently, quite forgotten,” said Dr. Øllgaard, who presented the research performed while he was at the STENO Diabetes Center in Copenhagen.

Dr. Øllgaard, who now works for Novo Nordisk, noted that heart failure was four times more likely to occur in patients with T2DM who had microalbuminuria than in those with normal albumin levels in the urine, and the median survival was around 3.5 years. While there is no regulatory requirement at present to stipulate that heart failure should be assessed in trials looking at the cardiovascular safety of T2DM treatments, recording such information is something that the STENO-2 investigators would recommend.

STENO-2 was an open, parallel group study initiated in 1993 to compare conventional multifactorial treatment of T2DM with an intensified approach over an 8-year period. After the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint was assessed, the trial continued as an observational study, with all patients given the intensified, multifactorial treatment that consisted of lifestyle measures and medications targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hypercoagulation.

The primary endpoint of the long-term follow-up study was the difference in median survival time between the original treatment groups with and without incident cardiovascular disease. The results showed a 48% relative reduction in the risk of death; those initially given the intensified treatment had an increased lifespan of 7.9 years and an 8.1-year increased survival without cardiovascular disease versus those who had initially received conventional treatment (Diabetologica 2016;59:2298-307).

Dr. Øllgaard presented data on heart failure outcomes obtained from a post-hoc analysis of prospectively collected and externally adjudicated patient records.

In addition to the reductions in the primary outcome of time to heart failure, the secondary outcomes of time to heart failure or cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; P = .006) and heart failure or all-cause mortality (relative risk reduction, 49%; P = .001) also favored initial intensive treatment versus conventional treatment.

The number of patients who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent one heart failure event was 63. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent heart failure or cardiovascular death was 48, and the NNT or heart failure or all-cause death was 37.

“Intensified, multifactorial intervention reduces the risk of heart failure and underlines the need for early, intensive treatment in these patients,” Dr. Øllgaard said. “Diabetologists should be aware of this increased risk and the early clinical signs and biomarkers of heart failure.” He added the study “also emphasizes the need for close collaboration, locally and globally, between endocrinologists and cardiologists.”

The STENO-2 long-term follow-up analysis was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Øllgaard disclosed being employed by Novo Nordisk after the submission of the abstract for presentation at the EASD meeting.

DALLAS – Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensation had a significantly smaller rise in serum creatinine when treated with intermittent, bolus doses of furosemide, compared with patients who received a continuous furosemide infusion in a single-center, randomized trial with 90 patients.

Intermittent furosemide also resulted in many fewer episodes of worsening renal function. In the trial, 12% of patients who received bolus furosemide doses developed worsening renal function during hospitalization compared with 36% of patients treated with a continuous furosemide infusion, Kavita Sharma, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

While acknowledging that this finding is preliminary because it was made in a relatively small, single-center study, “I’d be cautious about continuous infusion” in acute decompensated patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); “bolus is preferred,” Dr. Sharma said in a video interview.

Results from the prior Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial, published in 2011, had shown no significant difference in renal function in hospitalized heart failure patients randomized to receive either bolus or continuous furosemide, but that study largely enrolled patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3;364[9]:797-805).

“When patients with HFpEF are hospitalized with acute heart failure there is a high rate of kidney injury, that often results in slowing diuresis leading to longer hospital stays. With adjustment for changes in blood pressure and volume of diuresis we saw a fourfold increase in worsening renal failure [with continuous infusion], so you should think twice before using continuous dosing,” said Dr. Sharma, a heart failure cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

She presented results from Diuretics and Dopamine in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (ROPA-DOP), which randomized 90 hospitalized heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 15 mL/min/1.73 m². The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, 61% were women, their average body mass index was 41 kg/m², and their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 58 mL/min/1.73 m^2.

The study’s primary endpoint was percent change in creatinine during hospitalization, which rose by an average 5% in the patients who received intermittent bolus furosemide and by an average 16% in patient who received a continuous infusion, a statistically significant difference. In a regression analysis that controlled for between-group differences in patient’s age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, changes in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, fluid balance after 72 hours, and other variables, patients treated with continuous furosemide infusion averaged an 11% greater increase in serum creatinine, Dr. Sharma reported. After similar adjustments, the secondary endpoint rate of worsening renal function was more than four times more likely to occur in the patients on continuous infusion compared with those who received intermittent bolus treatment, she said.

A second aspect of the ROPA-DOP trial randomized the same patients to received either low dose (3 mcg/kg per min) dopamine or placebo during hospitalization. The results showed that low-dose dopamine had no significant impact on either change in creatinine levels or on the incidence of worsening renal function compared with placebo, though dopamine treatment did link with a nonsignificant trend toward somewhat greater diuresis. These results were consistent with prior findings in the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial (JAMA. 2013 Nov 18;310[23]:2533-43), which used a mixed population of patients with HFpEF or HFrEF but predominantly patients with HFrEF, Dr. Sharma noted.

“It was a neutral finding [for dopamine in ROPA-DOP], and while there was no harm from dopamine there was clearly no benefit,” she said. It is possible that HFpEF patients with right ventricular dysfunction secondary to pulmonary hypertension might benefit from low-dose dopamine, but this needs further study, Dr. Sharma said.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensation had a significantly smaller rise in serum creatinine when treated with intermittent, bolus doses of furosemide, compared with patients who received a continuous furosemide infusion in a single-center, randomized trial with 90 patients.

Intermittent furosemide also resulted in many fewer episodes of worsening renal function. In the trial, 12% of patients who received bolus furosemide doses developed worsening renal function during hospitalization compared with 36% of patients treated with a continuous furosemide infusion, Kavita Sharma, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

While acknowledging that this finding is preliminary because it was made in a relatively small, single-center study, “I’d be cautious about continuous infusion” in acute decompensated patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); “bolus is preferred,” Dr. Sharma said in a video interview.

Results from the prior Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial, published in 2011, had shown no significant difference in renal function in hospitalized heart failure patients randomized to receive either bolus or continuous furosemide, but that study largely enrolled patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3;364[9]:797-805).

“When patients with HFpEF are hospitalized with acute heart failure there is a high rate of kidney injury, that often results in slowing diuresis leading to longer hospital stays. With adjustment for changes in blood pressure and volume of diuresis we saw a fourfold increase in worsening renal failure [with continuous infusion], so you should think twice before using continuous dosing,” said Dr. Sharma, a heart failure cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

She presented results from Diuretics and Dopamine in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (ROPA-DOP), which randomized 90 hospitalized heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 15 mL/min/1.73 m². The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, 61% were women, their average body mass index was 41 kg/m², and their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 58 mL/min/1.73 m^2.

The study’s primary endpoint was percent change in creatinine during hospitalization, which rose by an average 5% in the patients who received intermittent bolus furosemide and by an average 16% in patient who received a continuous infusion, a statistically significant difference. In a regression analysis that controlled for between-group differences in patient’s age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, changes in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, fluid balance after 72 hours, and other variables, patients treated with continuous furosemide infusion averaged an 11% greater increase in serum creatinine, Dr. Sharma reported. After similar adjustments, the secondary endpoint rate of worsening renal function was more than four times more likely to occur in the patients on continuous infusion compared with those who received intermittent bolus treatment, she said.

A second aspect of the ROPA-DOP trial randomized the same patients to received either low dose (3 mcg/kg per min) dopamine or placebo during hospitalization. The results showed that low-dose dopamine had no significant impact on either change in creatinine levels or on the incidence of worsening renal function compared with placebo, though dopamine treatment did link with a nonsignificant trend toward somewhat greater diuresis. These results were consistent with prior findings in the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial (JAMA. 2013 Nov 18;310[23]:2533-43), which used a mixed population of patients with HFpEF or HFrEF but predominantly patients with HFrEF, Dr. Sharma noted.

“It was a neutral finding [for dopamine in ROPA-DOP], and while there was no harm from dopamine there was clearly no benefit,” she said. It is possible that HFpEF patients with right ventricular dysfunction secondary to pulmonary hypertension might benefit from low-dose dopamine, but this needs further study, Dr. Sharma said.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensation had a significantly smaller rise in serum creatinine when treated with intermittent, bolus doses of furosemide, compared with patients who received a continuous furosemide infusion in a single-center, randomized trial with 90 patients.

Intermittent furosemide also resulted in many fewer episodes of worsening renal function. In the trial, 12% of patients who received bolus furosemide doses developed worsening renal function during hospitalization compared with 36% of patients treated with a continuous furosemide infusion, Kavita Sharma, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

While acknowledging that this finding is preliminary because it was made in a relatively small, single-center study, “I’d be cautious about continuous infusion” in acute decompensated patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); “bolus is preferred,” Dr. Sharma said in a video interview.

Results from the prior Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial, published in 2011, had shown no significant difference in renal function in hospitalized heart failure patients randomized to receive either bolus or continuous furosemide, but that study largely enrolled patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3;364[9]:797-805).

“When patients with HFpEF are hospitalized with acute heart failure there is a high rate of kidney injury, that often results in slowing diuresis leading to longer hospital stays. With adjustment for changes in blood pressure and volume of diuresis we saw a fourfold increase in worsening renal failure [with continuous infusion], so you should think twice before using continuous dosing,” said Dr. Sharma, a heart failure cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

She presented results from Diuretics and Dopamine in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (ROPA-DOP), which randomized 90 hospitalized heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 15 mL/min/1.73 m². The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, 61% were women, their average body mass index was 41 kg/m², and their average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 58 mL/min/1.73 m^2.

The study’s primary endpoint was percent change in creatinine during hospitalization, which rose by an average 5% in the patients who received intermittent bolus furosemide and by an average 16% in patient who received a continuous infusion, a statistically significant difference. In a regression analysis that controlled for between-group differences in patient’s age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking status, changes in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, fluid balance after 72 hours, and other variables, patients treated with continuous furosemide infusion averaged an 11% greater increase in serum creatinine, Dr. Sharma reported. After similar adjustments, the secondary endpoint rate of worsening renal function was more than four times more likely to occur in the patients on continuous infusion compared with those who received intermittent bolus treatment, she said.

A second aspect of the ROPA-DOP trial randomized the same patients to received either low dose (3 mcg/kg per min) dopamine or placebo during hospitalization. The results showed that low-dose dopamine had no significant impact on either change in creatinine levels or on the incidence of worsening renal function compared with placebo, though dopamine treatment did link with a nonsignificant trend toward somewhat greater diuresis. These results were consistent with prior findings in the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial (JAMA. 2013 Nov 18;310[23]:2533-43), which used a mixed population of patients with HFpEF or HFrEF but predominantly patients with HFrEF, Dr. Sharma noted.

“It was a neutral finding [for dopamine in ROPA-DOP], and while there was no harm from dopamine there was clearly no benefit,” she said. It is possible that HFpEF patients with right ventricular dysfunction secondary to pulmonary hypertension might benefit from low-dose dopamine, but this needs further study, Dr. Sharma said.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS– Heart failure patients with central sleep apnea who received treatment with a transvenous phrenic nerve–stimulating device showed dramatic improvement in their global self-assessment, compared with control patients, in a subgroup analysis of 80 patients enrolled in the device’s pivotal trial.

Among 35 patients with heart failure enrolled in the remedē System pivotal trial and treated for 6 months with phrenic nerve stimulation, 57% reported that they had “markedly” or “moderately” improved, compared with a 9% rate for this self-rating among 44 control heart failure patients in the trial, a statistically significant difference, Lee R. Goldberg, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The trial was sponsored by Respicardia, the company developing the remedē System. Dr. Goldberg has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Respicardia. Dr. Stevenson had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS– Heart failure patients with central sleep apnea who received treatment with a transvenous phrenic nerve–stimulating device showed dramatic improvement in their global self-assessment, compared with control patients, in a subgroup analysis of 80 patients enrolled in the device’s pivotal trial.

Among 35 patients with heart failure enrolled in the remedē System pivotal trial and treated for 6 months with phrenic nerve stimulation, 57% reported that they had “markedly” or “moderately” improved, compared with a 9% rate for this self-rating among 44 control heart failure patients in the trial, a statistically significant difference, Lee R. Goldberg, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The trial was sponsored by Respicardia, the company developing the remedē System. Dr. Goldberg has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Respicardia. Dr. Stevenson had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS– Heart failure patients with central sleep apnea who received treatment with a transvenous phrenic nerve–stimulating device showed dramatic improvement in their global self-assessment, compared with control patients, in a subgroup analysis of 80 patients enrolled in the device’s pivotal trial.

Among 35 patients with heart failure enrolled in the remedē System pivotal trial and treated for 6 months with phrenic nerve stimulation, 57% reported that they had “markedly” or “moderately” improved, compared with a 9% rate for this self-rating among 44 control heart failure patients in the trial, a statistically significant difference, Lee R. Goldberg, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The trial was sponsored by Respicardia, the company developing the remedē System. Dr. Goldberg has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Respicardia. Dr. Stevenson had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Cardio-oncology is expanding, fed by a steadily increasing population of cancer survivors at elevated risk for a range of cardiovascular diseases and complications because of the anticancer treatments they received. Cardio-oncology’s quick growth has also been driven by the rapidly expanding universe of cancer treatments with direct or indirect adverse effects on a diverse range of cardiovascular functions.

During the past year, the field’s rapid evolution has featured the first formal diagnostic and care standards in two iterations: A position paper on the cardiovascular toxicities of cancer treatment from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), released in August 2016 (Eur Heart J. 2016 Sept 21;37[36]:2766-801); and a guideline for preventing and monitoring cardiac dysfunction in adult cancer survivors, issued last December by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and endorsed by the American Heart Association (J Clin Oncol. 2017 March 10;35[8]:893-913), but notably not endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, despite having an ACC representative on the guideline panel. In 2015, the ACC started a Cardio-Oncology Section, one of 20 special-interest sections it maintains, and by mid-2017 the section had some 500 members.

More than just heart failure

A few decades ago, in the primordial days of cardio-oncology, the concept of cardiovascular damage during cancer therapy focused entirely on myocardial damage caused by anthracyclines and chest radiation, a concern that eventually expanded to include trastuzumab (Herceptin) and other agents that target the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). These treatments cause significantly reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and heart failure in a significant minority of treated patients. Patients who receive combined treatment with an anthracycline and trastuzumab are at the highest risk for developing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but even among patients treated with this combination, fewer than 5% develop outright heart failure.

While this parochial view of cardio-oncology has recently shifted, it remains true that myocardial damage from a relatively large cumulative anthracycline dose, or from radiation, causes some of the most extreme cases of cardiovascular adverse effects and remains an ongoing problem as these treatments stay front line for selected cancer patients.

But some of the recent burgeoning of cardio-oncology has followed the recognition that many other drugs and drug classes can cause a spectrum of adverse cardiovascular effects.

Cardio-oncology centers or community practice?

The rise of cardio-oncology, especially over the last decade or so, has given rise to a new academic niche, the cardio-oncology clinic. Starting from almost no programs a few years ago, by 2016 one tally put the total number of U.S. self-designated cardio-oncology centers at about 40 (Heart Fail Clin. 2017 April;13[2]:347-55), and that number undoubtedly grew even more during the year since. While these programs promote and advance the nascent subspecialty of cardio-oncology, and provide a foundation for development of formalized training programs, many experts see a clear hierarchy of risk that distinguishes the patients who should ideally be managed at these focused, multidisciplinary programs from the lower-risk patients who probably do fine under the care of just their oncologist or their oncologist in collaboration with a community cardiologist or primary care physician.

“The cardio-oncology community recognizes that it is nice to have programs at academic centers but it’s more important to deliver this care in the community,” said Dr. Lenihan. “Many cancer patients have no prior history of cardiovascular disease. These low-risk patients don’t necessarily need a cardio-oncologist. They may need to have their blood pressure managed more effectively or receive other preventive care, but that can certainly be done locally. There are low-risk patients who don’t need to go to a major center.” Dr. Lenihan and other cardio-oncologists see the majority of cancer patients as low risk when it comes to cardiovascular complications.

But it’s different when patients receive an anthracycline or an anthracycline plus trastuzumab. “This high-risk population is best seen at a cardio-oncology center.” Dr. Lenihan also included in this high-risk subgroup patients treated with mediastinal radiation, an option often used during the 1980s-2000s.

“Any time a patient receives treatment with the potential to cause a cardiovascular effect, which is pretty much any drug that now comes out, you need an accurate baseline assessment. But that doesn’t mean you need do anything different; you still treat the patient’s cancer. A thorough baseline assessment is a necessity, but it does not need to be done at a cardio-oncology center,” Dr. Lenihan said in an interview.

“For the vast majority of patients, care can be at community hospitals, similar to the delivery of the vast majority of oncology care. Some patients need referral to tertiary cardiology centers for advanced heart failure or to undergo advanced procedures, but that is a very small percentage of patients,” said Ana Barac, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at the MedStar Heart Institute in Washington, and chair of the ACC’s Cardio-Oncology Section.

“Patients receiving more novel or unusual therapies, and those participating in trials” are appropriate for centers, while community care by a cardiologist and oncologist should suffice for more routine patients, said Dr. Fradley.

“Cardio-oncology centers are good for patients with type I damage from anthracycline treatment, especially patients who already had underlying heart disease,” said Michael S. Ewer, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Specialist centers are also for patients with cardiovascular risk factors: older age, diabetes, preexisting coronary artery disease, and patients who receive cardiotoxic type I therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2005 May;23[13]:2900-2). Also, patients with a significant, immediate cardiac reaction to treatment, and those with an unexpected cardiac reaction, Dr. Ewer said.

A somewhat more expansive view of the typical cardio-oncology patient came from Dr. Neilan, based on the patients he sees at his program in Boston. Dr. Neilan estimated that roughly 60%-70% of his patients first present while they undergo active cancer treatment, with another 20% coming to the program as cancer survivors, and a small percentage of patients showing up for cardiology assessments and treatments without a cancer history. Among those with a cancer history, he guessed that perhaps 10%-20% were treated with an anthracycline, at least 10% received trastuzumab, and about 10% received radiation treatment. “I also see a lot of patients with complications from treatment” with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, VEGF inhibitors, and immunotherapies. “I don’t see a lot of patients for cardiovascular disease assessment before they start cancer therapy,” Dr. Neilan added.
 

Cardio-oncology heads toward a new cardiology subspecialty

These views of how cardio-oncology is practiced in the real world raise a question about the role of the growing roster of U.S. cardio-oncology programs. If most cancer patients can have their cardiology needs taken care of in the community, how do all the academic programs fit in? The answer seems to be that they model successful oncology and cardiology collaborations, provide a training ground for physicians from both specialties to learn how to collaborate, and serve as the home for research that broadens the field’s evidence base and moves knowledge forward.

“Education and partnerships with oncology teams is the key,” said Dr. Barac. “Our traditional subspecialty training focused on ‘treating cancer’ and ‘treating cardiovascular disease.’ Learning about and seeing effective partnerships during training” is the best model to foster cardiology and oncology partnerships among early-career physicians, she suggested.

“What is the spectrum of knowledge required to be proficient in cardio-oncology, and how do we enhance training at the resident or fellowship level? How do we get [all cardiology] trainees exposed to this knowledge?” wondered Dr. Lenihan, who viewed cardio-oncology programs as a way to meet these needs. “Cardio-oncology is not an established subspecialty. A goal is to establish training requirements and expand training opportunities. And the whole field needs to contribute to clinical research. We need cardio-oncologists to share their experience and improve our level of research.”

ASCO’s cardiac dysfunction practice guideline, first released last December and formally published in March, is likely helping to further entrench cardio-oncology as a new subspecialty. The guideline was “a remarkable step forward,” said Dr. Barac. In addition to establishing a U.S. standard of care for preventing and monitoring cardiac dysfunction in cancer patients, “I use it as a guide for creation of referral pathways with my oncology colleagues, as well as in education of cardiovascular and oncology trainees,” she said in an interview.

Though produced primarily through ASCO’s leadership, the target audience for the guideline seems to be as much cardiologists as it is oncologists. Dissemination of the guideline to cardiologists snagged when it failed to appear in the cardiology literature. That wasn’t the original plan, said guideline participants.

“Before we started, it was agreed that both ASCO and the ACC would publish it. We had a [letter] signed by the president of the ACC saying the ACC would publish it,” recalled Dr. Lenihan, a guideline coauthor. “After all the details were settled, the ACC bailed. They said that they had changed their organizational structure and that they wouldn’t publish the guideline even though they had agreed to.” Not having the guideline appear simultaneously in the cardiology literature “hinders getting the message to the cardiology community,” he said, a sentiment echoed by other cardio-oncologists.

“I served as the ACC representative on the guideline, and the lack of ACC endorsement was the unfortunate consequence of approval and publication timing that coincided with restructuring of the ACC committees,” said Dr. Barac. “It absolutely does not reflect a lack of interest from the ACC.” As an example of the College’s commitment example, she cited an ACC 1.5-day educational course on cardiovascular care of oncology patients held for the first time in February 2017 and scheduled for a second edition next February.

Publication of the guideline in a cardiology journal “would indeed help dissemination among U.S. cardiologists,” agreed Pamela S. Douglas, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and another of the several cardiologists who served on the ASCO guideline’s panel.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Cardio-oncology is expanding, fed by a steadily increasing population of cancer survivors at elevated risk for a range of cardiovascular diseases and complications because of the anticancer treatments they received. Cardio-oncology’s quick growth has also been driven by the rapidly expanding universe of cancer treatments with direct or indirect adverse effects on a diverse range of cardiovascular functions.

During the past year, the field’s rapid evolution has featured the first formal diagnostic and care standards in two iterations: A position paper on the cardiovascular toxicities of cancer treatment from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), released in August 2016 (Eur Heart J. 2016 Sept 21;37[36]:2766-801); and a guideline for preventing and monitoring cardiac dysfunction in adult cancer survivors, issued last December by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and endorsed by the American Heart Association (J Clin Oncol. 2017 March 10;35[8]:893-913), but notably not endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, despite having an ACC representative on the guideline panel. In 2015, the ACC started a Cardio-Oncology Section, one of 20 special-interest sections it maintains, and by mid-2017 the section had some 500 members.

More than just heart failure

A few decades ago, in the primordial days of cardio-oncology, the concept of cardiovascular damage during cancer therapy focused entirely on myocardial damage caused by anthracyclines and chest radiation, a concern that eventually expanded to include trastuzumab (Herceptin) and other agents that target the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). These treatments cause significantly reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and heart failure in a significant minority of treated patients. Patients who receive combined treatment with an anthracycline and trastuzumab are at the highest risk for developing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but even among patients treated with this combination, fewer than 5% develop outright heart failure.

While this parochial view of cardio-oncology has recently shifted, it remains true that myocardial damage from a relatively large cumulative anthracycline dose, or from radiation, causes some of the most extreme cases of cardiovascular adverse effects and remains an ongoing problem as these treatments stay front line for selected cancer patients.

But some of the recent burgeoning of cardio-oncology has followed the recognition that many other drugs and drug classes can cause a spectrum of adverse cardiovascular effects.

Cardio-oncology centers or community practice?

The rise of cardio-oncology, especially over the last decade or so, has given rise to a new academic niche, the cardio-oncology clinic. Starting from almost no programs a few years ago, by 2016 one tally put the total number of U.S. self-designated cardio-oncology centers at about 40 (Heart Fail Clin. 2017 April;13[2]:347-55), and that number undoubtedly grew even more during the year since. While these programs promote and advance the nascent subspecialty of cardio-oncology, and provide a foundation for development of formalized training programs, many experts see a clear hierarchy of risk that distinguishes the patients who should ideally be managed at these focused, multidisciplinary programs from the lower-risk patients who probably do fine under the care of just their oncologist or their oncologist in collaboration with a community cardiologist or primary care physician.

“The cardio-oncology community recognizes that it is nice to have programs at academic centers but it’s more important to deliver this care in the community,” said Dr. Lenihan. “Many cancer patients have no prior history of cardiovascular disease. These low-risk patients don’t necessarily need a cardio-oncologist. They may need to have their blood pressure managed more effectively or receive other preventive care, but that can certainly be done locally. There are low-risk patients who don’t need to go to a major center.” Dr. Lenihan and other cardio-oncologists see the majority of cancer patients as low risk when it comes to cardiovascular complications.

But it’s different when patients receive an anthracycline or an anthracycline plus trastuzumab. “This high-risk population is best seen at a cardio-oncology center.” Dr. Lenihan also included in this high-risk subgroup patients treated with mediastinal radiation, an option often used during the 1980s-2000s.

“Any time a patient receives treatment with the potential to cause a cardiovascular effect, which is pretty much any drug that now comes out, you need an accurate baseline assessment. But that doesn’t mean you need do anything different; you still treat the patient’s cancer. A thorough baseline assessment is a necessity, but it does not need to be done at a cardio-oncology center,” Dr. Lenihan said in an interview.

“For the vast majority of patients, care can be at community hospitals, similar to the delivery of the vast majority of oncology care. Some patients need referral to tertiary cardiology centers for advanced heart failure or to undergo advanced procedures, but that is a very small percentage of patients,” said Ana Barac, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at the MedStar Heart Institute in Washington, and chair of the ACC’s Cardio-Oncology Section.

“Patients receiving more novel or unusual therapies, and those participating in trials” are appropriate for centers, while community care by a cardiologist and oncologist should suffice for more routine patients, said Dr. Fradley.

“Cardio-oncology centers are good for patients with type I damage from anthracycline treatment, especially patients who already had underlying heart disease,” said Michael S. Ewer, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Specialist centers are also for patients with cardiovascular risk factors: older age, diabetes, preexisting coronary artery disease, and patients who receive cardiotoxic type I therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2005 May;23[13]:2900-2). Also, patients with a significant, immediate cardiac reaction to treatment, and those with an unexpected cardiac reaction, Dr. Ewer said.

A somewhat more expansive view of the typical cardio-oncology patient came from Dr. Neilan, based on the patients he sees at his program in Boston. Dr. Neilan estimated that roughly 60%-70% of his patients first present while they undergo active cancer treatment, with another 20% coming to the program as cancer survivors, and a small percentage of patients showing up for cardiology assessments and treatments without a cancer history. Among those with a cancer history, he guessed that perhaps 10%-20% were treated with an anthracycline, at least 10% received trastuzumab, and about 10% received radiation treatment. “I also see a lot of patients with complications from treatment” with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, VEGF inhibitors, and immunotherapies. “I don’t see a lot of patients for cardiovascular disease assessment before they start cancer therapy,” Dr. Neilan added.
 

Cardio-oncology heads toward a new cardiology subspecialty

These views of how cardio-oncology is practiced in the real world raise a question about the role of the growing roster of U.S. cardio-oncology programs. If most cancer patients can have their cardiology needs taken care of in the community, how do all the academic programs fit in? The answer seems to be that they model successful oncology and cardiology collaborations, provide a training ground for physicians from both specialties to learn how to collaborate, and serve as the home for research that broadens the field’s evidence base and moves knowledge forward.

“Education and partnerships with oncology teams is the key,” said Dr. Barac. “Our traditional subspecialty training focused on ‘treating cancer’ and ‘treating cardiovascular disease.’ Learning about and seeing effective partnerships during training” is the best model to foster cardiology and oncology partnerships among early-career physicians, she suggested.

“What is the spectrum of knowledge required to be proficient in cardio-oncology, and how do we enhance training at the resident or fellowship level? How do we get [all cardiology] trainees exposed to this knowledge?” wondered Dr. Lenihan, who viewed cardio-oncology programs as a way to meet these needs. “Cardio-oncology is not an established subspecialty. A goal is to establish training requirements and expand training opportunities. And the whole field needs to contribute to clinical research. We need cardio-oncologists to share their experience and improve our level of research.”

ASCO’s cardiac dysfunction practice guideline, first released last December and formally published in March, is likely helping to further entrench cardio-oncology as a new subspecialty. The guideline was “a remarkable step forward,” said Dr. Barac. In addition to establishing a U.S. standard of care for preventing and monitoring cardiac dysfunction in cancer patients, “I use it as a guide for creation of referral pathways with my oncology colleagues, as well as in education of cardiovascular and oncology trainees,” she said in an interview.

Though produced primarily through ASCO’s leadership, the target audience for the guideline seems to be as much cardiologists as it is oncologists. Dissemination of the guideline to cardiologists snagged when it failed to appear in the cardiology literature. That wasn’t the original plan, said guideline participants.

“Before we started, it was agreed that both ASCO and the ACC would publish it. We had a [letter] signed by the president of the ACC saying the ACC would publish it,” recalled Dr. Lenihan, a guideline coauthor. “After all the details were settled, the ACC bailed. They said that they had changed their organizational structure and that they wouldn’t publish the guideline even though they had agreed to.” Not having the guideline appear simultaneously in the cardiology literature “hinders getting the message to the cardiology community,” he said, a sentiment echoed by other cardio-oncologists.

“I served as the ACC representative on the guideline, and the lack of ACC endorsement was the unfortunate consequence of approval and publication timing that coincided with restructuring of the ACC committees,” said Dr. Barac. “It absolutely does not reflect a lack of interest from the ACC.” As an example of the College’s commitment example, she cited an ACC 1.5-day educational course on cardiovascular care of oncology patients held for the first time in February 2017 and scheduled for a second edition next February.

Publication of the guideline in a cardiology journal “would indeed help dissemination among U.S. cardiologists,” agreed Pamela S. Douglas, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and another of the several cardiologists who served on the ASCO guideline’s panel.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Cardio-oncology is expanding, fed by a steadily increasing population of cancer survivors at elevated risk for a range of cardiovascular diseases and complications because of the anticancer treatments they received. Cardio-oncology’s quick growth has also been driven by the rapidly expanding universe of cancer treatments with direct or indirect adverse effects on a diverse range of cardiovascular functions.

During the past year, the field’s rapid evolution has featured the first formal diagnostic and care standards in two iterations: A position paper on the cardiovascular toxicities of cancer treatment from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), released in August 2016 (Eur Heart J. 2016 Sept 21;37[36]:2766-801); and a guideline for preventing and monitoring cardiac dysfunction in adult cancer survivors, issued last December by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and endorsed by the American Heart Association (J Clin Oncol. 2017 March 10;35[8]:893-913), but notably not endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, despite having an ACC representative on the guideline panel. In 2015, the ACC started a Cardio-Oncology Section, one of 20 special-interest sections it maintains, and by mid-2017 the section had some 500 members.

More than just heart failure

A few decades ago, in the primordial days of cardio-oncology, the concept of cardiovascular damage during cancer therapy focused entirely on myocardial damage caused by anthracyclines and chest radiation, a concern that eventually expanded to include trastuzumab (Herceptin) and other agents that target the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). These treatments cause significantly reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and heart failure in a significant minority of treated patients. Patients who receive combined treatment with an anthracycline and trastuzumab are at the highest risk for developing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but even among patients treated with this combination, fewer than 5% develop outright heart failure.

While this parochial view of cardio-oncology has recently shifted, it remains true that myocardial damage from a relatively large cumulative anthracycline dose, or from radiation, causes some of the most extreme cases of cardiovascular adverse effects and remains an ongoing problem as these treatments stay front line for selected cancer patients.

But some of the recent burgeoning of cardio-oncology has followed the recognition that many other drugs and drug classes can cause a spectrum of adverse cardiovascular effects.

Cardio-oncology centers or community practice?

The rise of cardio-oncology, especially over the last decade or so, has given rise to a new academic niche, the cardio-oncology clinic. Starting from almost no programs a few years ago, by 2016 one tally put the total number of U.S. self-designated cardio-oncology centers at about 40 (Heart Fail Clin. 2017 April;13[2]:347-55), and that number undoubtedly grew even more during the year since. While these programs promote and advance the nascent subspecialty of cardio-oncology, and provide a foundation for development of formalized training programs, many experts see a clear hierarchy of risk that distinguishes the patients who should ideally be managed at these focused, multidisciplinary programs from the lower-risk patients who probably do fine under the care of just their oncologist or their oncologist in collaboration with a community cardiologist or primary care physician.

“The cardio-oncology community recognizes that it is nice to have programs at academic centers but it’s more important to deliver this care in the community,” said Dr. Lenihan. “Many cancer patients have no prior history of cardiovascular disease. These low-risk patients don’t necessarily need a cardio-oncologist. They may need to have their blood pressure managed more effectively or receive other preventive care, but that can certainly be done locally. There are low-risk patients who don’t need to go to a major center.” Dr. Lenihan and other cardio-oncologists see the majority of cancer patients as low risk when it comes to cardiovascular complications.

But it’s different when patients receive an anthracycline or an anthracycline plus trastuzumab. “This high-risk population is best seen at a cardio-oncology center.” Dr. Lenihan also included in this high-risk subgroup patients treated with mediastinal radiation, an option often used during the 1980s-2000s.

“Any time a patient receives treatment with the potential to cause a cardiovascular effect, which is pretty much any drug that now comes out, you need an accurate baseline assessment. But that doesn’t mean you need do anything different; you still treat the patient’s cancer. A thorough baseline assessment is a necessity, but it does not need to be done at a cardio-oncology center,” Dr. Lenihan said in an interview.

“For the vast majority of patients, care can be at community hospitals, similar to the delivery of the vast majority of oncology care. Some patients need referral to tertiary cardiology centers for advanced heart failure or to undergo advanced procedures, but that is a very small percentage of patients,” said Ana Barac, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at the MedStar Heart Institute in Washington, and chair of the ACC’s Cardio-Oncology Section.

“Patients receiving more novel or unusual therapies, and those participating in trials” are appropriate for centers, while community care by a cardiologist and oncologist should suffice for more routine patients, said Dr. Fradley.

“Cardio-oncology centers are good for patients with type I damage from anthracycline treatment, especially patients who already had underlying heart disease,” said Michael S. Ewer, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Specialist centers are also for patients with cardiovascular risk factors: older age, diabetes, preexisting coronary artery disease, and patients who receive cardiotoxic type I therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2005 May;23[13]:2900-2). Also, patients with a significant, immediate cardiac reaction to treatment, and those with an unexpected cardiac reaction, Dr. Ewer said.

A somewhat more expansive view of the typical cardio-oncology patient came from Dr. Neilan, based on the patients he sees at his program in Boston. Dr. Neilan estimated that roughly 60%-70% of his patients first present while they undergo active cancer treatment, with another 20% coming to the program as cancer survivors, and a small percentage of patients showing up for cardiology assessments and treatments without a cancer history. Among those with a cancer history, he guessed that perhaps 10%-20% were treated with an anthracycline, at least 10% received trastuzumab, and about 10% received radiation treatment. “I also see a lot of patients with complications from treatment” with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, VEGF inhibitors, and immunotherapies. “I don’t see a lot of patients for cardiovascular disease assessment before they start cancer therapy,” Dr. Neilan added.
 

Cardio-oncology heads toward a new cardiology subspecialty

These views of how cardio-oncology is practiced in the real world raise a question about the role of the growing roster of U.S. cardio-oncology programs. If most cancer patients can have their cardiology needs taken care of in the community, how do all the academic programs fit in? The answer seems to be that they model successful oncology and cardiology collaborations, provide a training ground for physicians from both specialties to learn how to collaborate, and serve as the home for research that broadens the field’s evidence base and moves knowledge forward.

“Education and partnerships with oncology teams is the key,” said Dr. Barac. “Our traditional subspecialty training focused on ‘treating cancer’ and ‘treating cardiovascular disease.’ Learning about and seeing effective partnerships during training” is the best model to foster cardiology and oncology partnerships among early-career physicians, she suggested.

“What is the spectrum of knowledge required to be proficient in cardio-oncology, and how do we enhance training at the resident or fellowship level? How do we get [all cardiology] trainees exposed to this knowledge?” wondered Dr. Lenihan, who viewed cardio-oncology programs as a way to meet these needs. “Cardio-oncology is not an established subspecialty. A goal is to establish training requirements and expand training opportunities. And the whole field needs to contribute to clinical research. We need cardio-oncologists to share their experience and improve our level of research.”

ASCO’s cardiac dysfunction practice guideline, first released last December and formally published in March, is likely helping to further entrench cardio-oncology as a new subspecialty. The guideline was “a remarkable step forward,” said Dr. Barac. In addition to establishing a U.S. standard of care for preventing and monitoring cardiac dysfunction in cancer patients, “I use it as a guide for creation of referral pathways with my oncology colleagues, as well as in education of cardiovascular and oncology trainees,” she said in an interview.

Though produced primarily through ASCO’s leadership, the target audience for the guideline seems to be as much cardiologists as it is oncologists. Dissemination of the guideline to cardiologists snagged when it failed to appear in the cardiology literature. That wasn’t the original plan, said guideline participants.

“Before we started, it was agreed that both ASCO and the ACC would publish it. We had a [letter] signed by the president of the ACC saying the ACC would publish it,” recalled Dr. Lenihan, a guideline coauthor. “After all the details were settled, the ACC bailed. They said that they had changed their organizational structure and that they wouldn’t publish the guideline even though they had agreed to.” Not having the guideline appear simultaneously in the cardiology literature “hinders getting the message to the cardiology community,” he said, a sentiment echoed by other cardio-oncologists.

“I served as the ACC representative on the guideline, and the lack of ACC endorsement was the unfortunate consequence of approval and publication timing that coincided with restructuring of the ACC committees,” said Dr. Barac. “It absolutely does not reflect a lack of interest from the ACC.” As an example of the College’s commitment example, she cited an ACC 1.5-day educational course on cardiovascular care of oncology patients held for the first time in February 2017 and scheduled for a second edition next February.

Publication of the guideline in a cardiology journal “would indeed help dissemination among U.S. cardiologists,” agreed Pamela S. Douglas, MD, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and another of the several cardiologists who served on the ASCO guideline’s panel.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – Older patients with carpal tunnel syndrome that requires release surgery appear to have a relatively high prevalence of amyloidosis that, in some, involves their heart, suggesting that routine screening for amyloidosis is warranted in elderly patients undergoing the surgery.

Routine Congo red staining of a tenosynovial biopsy taken at the time of carpal tunnel release surgery in a single-center experience with 96 patients showed that 10 (10%) were positive for amyloidosis, Mazen Hanna, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – Older patients with carpal tunnel syndrome that requires release surgery appear to have a relatively high prevalence of amyloidosis that, in some, involves their heart, suggesting that routine screening for amyloidosis is warranted in elderly patients undergoing the surgery.

Routine Congo red staining of a tenosynovial biopsy taken at the time of carpal tunnel release surgery in a single-center experience with 96 patients showed that 10 (10%) were positive for amyloidosis, Mazen Hanna, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – Older patients with carpal tunnel syndrome that requires release surgery appear to have a relatively high prevalence of amyloidosis that, in some, involves their heart, suggesting that routine screening for amyloidosis is warranted in elderly patients undergoing the surgery.

Routine Congo red staining of a tenosynovial biopsy taken at the time of carpal tunnel release surgery in a single-center experience with 96 patients showed that 10 (10%) were positive for amyloidosis, Mazen Hanna, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – The percentage of left ventricular assist devices placed in U.S. heart failure patients at least 75 years of age jumped sharply during 2003-2014, and concurrently the short-term survival of these patients improved dramatically, according to data collected by the National Inpatient Sample.

During the 12-year period examined, the percentage of left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs) placed in U.S. heart failure patients aged 75 years and older rose from 3% of all LVADs in 2003 to 11% in 2014, Aniket S. Rali, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – The percentage of left ventricular assist devices placed in U.S. heart failure patients at least 75 years of age jumped sharply during 2003-2014, and concurrently the short-term survival of these patients improved dramatically, according to data collected by the National Inpatient Sample.

During the 12-year period examined, the percentage of left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs) placed in U.S. heart failure patients aged 75 years and older rose from 3% of all LVADs in 2003 to 11% in 2014, Aniket S. Rali, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – The percentage of left ventricular assist devices placed in U.S. heart failure patients at least 75 years of age jumped sharply during 2003-2014, and concurrently the short-term survival of these patients improved dramatically, according to data collected by the National Inpatient Sample.

During the 12-year period examined, the percentage of left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs) placed in U.S. heart failure patients aged 75 years and older rose from 3% of all LVADs in 2003 to 11% in 2014, Aniket S. Rali, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LISBON – The mortality reductions that can be achieved with the sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin versus placebo in people with type 2 diabetes remained after investigators controlled for traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors over time, analyses from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial showed.

The 38% reduction in CV deaths and 32% reduction in all-cause mortality that were observed in the main trial (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-28) were “largely unchanged when adjusted for control of blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) during the study,” David Fitchett, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

*This article was updated Sept. 28, 2017.

LISBON – The mortality reductions that can be achieved with the sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin versus placebo in people with type 2 diabetes remained after investigators controlled for traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors over time, analyses from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial showed.

The 38% reduction in CV deaths and 32% reduction in all-cause mortality that were observed in the main trial (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-28) were “largely unchanged when adjusted for control of blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) during the study,” David Fitchett, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

*This article was updated Sept. 28, 2017.

LISBON – The mortality reductions that can be achieved with the sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin versus placebo in people with type 2 diabetes remained after investigators controlled for traditional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors over time, analyses from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial showed.

The 38% reduction in CV deaths and 32% reduction in all-cause mortality that were observed in the main trial (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-28) were “largely unchanged when adjusted for control of blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) during the study,” David Fitchett, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

*This article was updated Sept. 28, 2017.

DALLAS – U.S. hospitals have recently shown a consistent and disturbing disconnect between reductions in their heart failure hospital readmission rates and heart failure mortality. Readmissions have dropped while mortality has risen.

“Despite reductions in 30-day heart failure readmissions in 89% of U.S. hospitals” during 2009-2016, “30-day heart failure mortality rates increased at 73%* of these ‘successful’ hospitals” during the same period,” Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

*This article was updated October 5, 2017

DALLAS – U.S. hospitals have recently shown a consistent and disturbing disconnect between reductions in their heart failure hospital readmission rates and heart failure mortality. Readmissions have dropped while mortality has risen.

“Despite reductions in 30-day heart failure readmissions in 89% of U.S. hospitals” during 2009-2016, “30-day heart failure mortality rates increased at 73%* of these ‘successful’ hospitals” during the same period,” Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

*This article was updated October 5, 2017

DALLAS – U.S. hospitals have recently shown a consistent and disturbing disconnect between reductions in their heart failure hospital readmission rates and heart failure mortality. Readmissions have dropped while mortality has risen.

“Despite reductions in 30-day heart failure readmissions in 89% of U.S. hospitals” during 2009-2016, “30-day heart failure mortality rates increased at 73%* of these ‘successful’ hospitals” during the same period,” Ahmad A. Abdul-Aziz, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

*This article was updated October 5, 2017

Switching to riociguat may be an effective strategy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients who respond inadequately to phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, results from a small open-label study demonstrated.

“This study represents an important step towards determining if this new treatment strategy is an effective approach to the management of patients with PAH, although additional data from larger, randomised, controlled studies are needed to further establish the safety and efficacy of this approach,” researchers led by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, wrote in a study published online Sept. 9, 2017, in the European Respiratory Journal.

Current clinical data indicate that many patients with PAH who receive phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors do not reach treatment goals. “For example, in the AMBITION study, 73% of patients with PAH receiving tadalafil monotherapy and 61% of those receiving tadalafil in combination with ambrisentan did not achieve a satisfactory clinical response at week 24 of the study (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:834-44),” Dr. Hoeper of the Clinic for Respiratory Medicine at Hannover Medical School Germany and his associates wrote. “Furthermore, in the SERAPHIN study, event-free survival of patients receiving [phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors] monotherapy was approximately 50% at 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:809-18).”

For the current trial, known as RESPITE, investigators from nine countries in Europe and North America enrolled 61 PAH patients in a 24-week, open-label uncontrolled analysis to investigate the safety, feasibility, and benefit of switching them from phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors to riociguat. The patients underwent 1-3 days free of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors before receiving riociguat in a maximum dose of up to 2.5 mg t.i.d. Most patients (74%) were female, and 92% were Caucasian. In all, 51 patients (84%) completed all 24 weeks of treatment, while the remaining 10 discontinued treatment, 4 of whom due to adverse events.

Among those who completed all 24 weeks of the trial, their mean 6-minute walking distance had increased by a mean of 31 meters and their N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide level decreased by a mean of 347 pg/mL^. Additionally, 54% of the patients studied experienced an improvement in their the World Health Organization Functional Class. However, 32 patients (52%) experienced study drug–related adverse events and 10 (16%) experienced serious adverse events, two of which were related to the drug being studied. Six patients (10%) experienced clinical worsening, including death in two, though the deaths were deemed to be unrelated to the drug being studied.

“Although not mechanistically studied, the findings of RESPITE support the hypothesis that a defective [nitric oxide–soluble guanylate cyclase–cyclic guanosine monophosphate] pathway might explain why some patients have no sufficient or sustained response to [phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors] therapy,” the researchers noted. “In such patients, direct stimulation of [soluble guanylate cyclase] may be more effective than inhibition of [phosphodiesterase-5], but this hypothesis is still unproven.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its prospective design and the relatively homogenous patient population. “Other limitations include the lack of a long-term continuation phase, and the absence of mechanistic data allowing identification of patients likely to respond or not respond to switching,” they wrote. “Two deaths were observed in this study, which might raise concerns, although neither of the deaths (one due to pneumonia and one due to subdural haematoma) was considered by the investigators to be study drug-related or due to worsening PAH. Given the lack of a control group and the rate of study withdrawals and clinical worsening events, further evaluation to clarify the safety of switching is required.”

The study was funded by Bayer AG, Berlin. Dr. Hoeper and his coauthors disclosed having financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer, which makes riociguat.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

PRIMARY SOURCE: Eur Respir J. 2017 Sep 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02425-2016.

Switching to riociguat may be an effective strategy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients who respond inadequately to phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, results from a small open-label study demonstrated.

“This study represents an important step towards determining if this new treatment strategy is an effective approach to the management of patients with PAH, although additional data from larger, randomised, controlled studies are needed to further establish the safety and efficacy of this approach,” researchers led by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, wrote in a study published online Sept. 9, 2017, in the European Respiratory Journal.

Current clinical data indicate that many patients with PAH who receive phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors do not reach treatment goals. “For example, in the AMBITION study, 73% of patients with PAH receiving tadalafil monotherapy and 61% of those receiving tadalafil in combination with ambrisentan did not achieve a satisfactory clinical response at week 24 of the study (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:834-44),” Dr. Hoeper of the Clinic for Respiratory Medicine at Hannover Medical School Germany and his associates wrote. “Furthermore, in the SERAPHIN study, event-free survival of patients receiving [phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors] monotherapy was approximately 50% at 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:809-18).”

For the current trial, known as RESPITE, investigators from nine countries in Europe and North America enrolled 61 PAH patients in a 24-week, open-label uncontrolled analysis to investigate the safety, feasibility, and benefit of switching them from phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors to riociguat. The patients underwent 1-3 days free of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors before receiving riociguat in a maximum dose of up to 2.5 mg t.i.d. Most patients (74%) were female, and 92% were Caucasian. In all, 51 patients (84%) completed all 24 weeks of treatment, while the remaining 10 discontinued treatment, 4 of whom due to adverse events.

Among those who completed all 24 weeks of the trial, their mean 6-minute walking distance had increased by a mean of 31 meters and their N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide level decreased by a mean of 347 pg/mL^. Additionally, 54% of the patients studied experienced an improvement in their the World Health Organization Functional Class. However, 32 patients (52%) experienced study drug–related adverse events and 10 (16%) experienced serious adverse events, two of which were related to the drug being studied. Six patients (10%) experienced clinical worsening, including death in two, though the deaths were deemed to be unrelated to the drug being studied.

“Although not mechanistically studied, the findings of RESPITE support the hypothesis that a defective [nitric oxide–soluble guanylate cyclase–cyclic guanosine monophosphate] pathway might explain why some patients have no sufficient or sustained response to [phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors] therapy,” the researchers noted. “In such patients, direct stimulation of [soluble guanylate cyclase] may be more effective than inhibition of [phosphodiesterase-5], but this hypothesis is still unproven.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its prospective design and the relatively homogenous patient population. “Other limitations include the lack of a long-term continuation phase, and the absence of mechanistic data allowing identification of patients likely to respond or not respond to switching,” they wrote. “Two deaths were observed in this study, which might raise concerns, although neither of the deaths (one due to pneumonia and one due to subdural haematoma) was considered by the investigators to be study drug-related or due to worsening PAH. Given the lack of a control group and the rate of study withdrawals and clinical worsening events, further evaluation to clarify the safety of switching is required.”

The study was funded by Bayer AG, Berlin. Dr. Hoeper and his coauthors disclosed having financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer, which makes riociguat.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

PRIMARY SOURCE: Eur Respir J. 2017 Sep 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02425-2016.

Switching to riociguat may be an effective strategy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients who respond inadequately to phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, results from a small open-label study demonstrated.

“This study represents an important step towards determining if this new treatment strategy is an effective approach to the management of patients with PAH, although additional data from larger, randomised, controlled studies are needed to further establish the safety and efficacy of this approach,” researchers led by Marius M. Hoeper, MD, wrote in a study published online Sept. 9, 2017, in the European Respiratory Journal.

Current clinical data indicate that many patients with PAH who receive phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors do not reach treatment goals. “For example, in the AMBITION study, 73% of patients with PAH receiving tadalafil monotherapy and 61% of those receiving tadalafil in combination with ambrisentan did not achieve a satisfactory clinical response at week 24 of the study (N Engl J Med. 2015;373:834-44),” Dr. Hoeper of the Clinic for Respiratory Medicine at Hannover Medical School Germany and his associates wrote. “Furthermore, in the SERAPHIN study, event-free survival of patients receiving [phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors] monotherapy was approximately 50% at 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:809-18).”

For the current trial, known as RESPITE, investigators from nine countries in Europe and North America enrolled 61 PAH patients in a 24-week, open-label uncontrolled analysis to investigate the safety, feasibility, and benefit of switching them from phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors to riociguat. The patients underwent 1-3 days free of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors before receiving riociguat in a maximum dose of up to 2.5 mg t.i.d. Most patients (74%) were female, and 92% were Caucasian. In all, 51 patients (84%) completed all 24 weeks of treatment, while the remaining 10 discontinued treatment, 4 of whom due to adverse events.

Among those who completed all 24 weeks of the trial, their mean 6-minute walking distance had increased by a mean of 31 meters and their N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide level decreased by a mean of 347 pg/mL^. Additionally, 54% of the patients studied experienced an improvement in their the World Health Organization Functional Class. However, 32 patients (52%) experienced study drug–related adverse events and 10 (16%) experienced serious adverse events, two of which were related to the drug being studied. Six patients (10%) experienced clinical worsening, including death in two, though the deaths were deemed to be unrelated to the drug being studied.

“Although not mechanistically studied, the findings of RESPITE support the hypothesis that a defective [nitric oxide–soluble guanylate cyclase–cyclic guanosine monophosphate] pathway might explain why some patients have no sufficient or sustained response to [phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors] therapy,” the researchers noted. “In such patients, direct stimulation of [soluble guanylate cyclase] may be more effective than inhibition of [phosphodiesterase-5], but this hypothesis is still unproven.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its prospective design and the relatively homogenous patient population. “Other limitations include the lack of a long-term continuation phase, and the absence of mechanistic data allowing identification of patients likely to respond or not respond to switching,” they wrote. “Two deaths were observed in this study, which might raise concerns, although neither of the deaths (one due to pneumonia and one due to subdural haematoma) was considered by the investigators to be study drug-related or due to worsening PAH. Given the lack of a control group and the rate of study withdrawals and clinical worsening events, further evaluation to clarify the safety of switching is required.”

The study was funded by Bayer AG, Berlin. Dr. Hoeper and his coauthors disclosed having financial ties to numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Bayer, which makes riociguat.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

PRIMARY SOURCE: Eur Respir J. 2017 Sep 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02425-2016.

DALLAS – The heart transplant team at Vanderbilt University has successfully placed hearts from deceased, hepatitis C virus–positive patients into recipients, and then eradicated the subsequent infection that appeared in most recipients using a standard regimen.

So far, five of nine heart transplant recipients who developed a posttransplant hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection had the infection eradicated using one of the highly effective HCV drug regimens, and an additional three patients from the series are nearing their 12th week without detectable virus following treatment that marks a sustained response, Kelly H. Schlendorf, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. The ninth patient died after developing a pulmonary embolism during the 7th week on antiviral therapy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – The heart transplant team at Vanderbilt University has successfully placed hearts from deceased, hepatitis C virus–positive patients into recipients, and then eradicated the subsequent infection that appeared in most recipients using a standard regimen.

So far, five of nine heart transplant recipients who developed a posttransplant hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection had the infection eradicated using one of the highly effective HCV drug regimens, and an additional three patients from the series are nearing their 12th week without detectable virus following treatment that marks a sustained response, Kelly H. Schlendorf, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. The ninth patient died after developing a pulmonary embolism during the 7th week on antiviral therapy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

DALLAS – The heart transplant team at Vanderbilt University has successfully placed hearts from deceased, hepatitis C virus–positive patients into recipients, and then eradicated the subsequent infection that appeared in most recipients using a standard regimen.

So far, five of nine heart transplant recipients who developed a posttransplant hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection had the infection eradicated using one of the highly effective HCV drug regimens, and an additional three patients from the series are nearing their 12th week without detectable virus following treatment that marks a sustained response, Kelly H. Schlendorf, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. The ninth patient died after developing a pulmonary embolism during the 7th week on antiviral therapy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler