User login
It’s been a good year for heart failure research ... mostly
WASHINGTON – It’s been a “relatively positive” year for heart failure research and advances in patient care, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“Having been in this field for 30 years looking at clinical trials, generally for every 10 important trials done in a year, 1 has been positive and 9 have been negative; if we look at the past year, it’s more like 5 and 6. So, not a bad year for cardiomyopathy,” declared Dr. O’Connor, CEO and executive director of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and president-elect of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The good news
• Empagliflozin (Jardiance) earns FDA approval for reduction in risk of cardiovascular death in type 2 diabetes patients. “This is one of the most amazing stories in heart failure,” said Dr. O’Connor, who is also professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The pivotal EMPA-REG OUTCOME study showed a highly significant 35% reduction in the secondary endpoint of risk of hospitalization for heart failure, as well the decrease in cardiovascular mortality which was the primary endpoint and proved persuasive to the FDA (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
“It was a remarkable development. Because of this trial, there are now a number of ongoing phase III clinical trials looking at this class of drugs in heart failure patients with and without diabetes, which makes this a very important research movement. We are now looking deeper at phenotypes and trying to get more specific with these drug therapies,” he said.
• A new and improved LVAD. This fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump type of left ventricular assist device for advanced heart failure showed superior event-free survival, compared with a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump LVAD in the randomized MOMENTUM-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 2;376[5]:440-50).
The novel pump was designed to overcome a significant problem with axial continuous-flow LVADs: a proclivity for pump thrombosis. The magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump proved a smashing success in this regard, with zero cases of pump thrombosis occurring during the 6-month study.
“This may be the first time in the history of heart failure research that the engineers have beaten the biologists in important clinical outcomes,” the cardiologist quipped.
• Omecamtiv mecarbil successfully addresses impaired contractility in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This drug, a selective cardiac myosin activator, resulted in increased duration of systole and improved stroke volume accompanied by reductions in heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, and NT-proBNP in the 87-site, 13-country, phase II COSMIC-HF study (Lancet. 2016 Dec 10;388[10062]:2895-903).
“This is probably the most novel new drug mechanism out there in clinical trials,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
On the basis of the highly encouraging results for the surrogate endpoints assessed in COSMIC-HF, a large phase III clinical trial known as GALACTIC is underway.
• Palliative care gets a welcome boost. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in PAL-HF, a single-center study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“This is a very important trial of palliative care in advanced heart failure. We probably don’t have as much evidence in this space as we should,” he observed. “This was a multidisciplinary intervention in which we gave the patients a medical tool kit to alleviate pain, dyspnea, and discomfort. The tool kit included benzodiazepines, sleep medications, sublingual nitroglycerin, and morphinelike products, all very carefully monitored by staff coordinators.”
The primary outcome was change in two validated heart failure quality of life measures. Both instruments documented significant improvement compared with usual care.
“There was no decrease in mortality, which wasn’t a goal in this advanced heart failure population, and no reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but there were significant reductions in depression and anxiety,” Dr. O’Connor said.
• Vericiguat. This oral soluble cyclic guanylate cyclase stimulator missed its primary endpoint in the phase II dose-escalation SOCRATES-REDUCED trial in patients with HFrEF (JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314[21]:2251-62), but showed an impressive improvement in quality of life. It is now the subject of the ongoing, randomized, phase III VICTORIA trial involving a planned 4,000 patients with HFrEF with the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
The phase II SOCRATES-PRESERVED trial also missed its primary endpoint but showed a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (Eur Heart J. 2017 Mar 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw593). Discussions are ongoing as to whether the next step should be a confirmatory phase II study or a move straight to phase III.
The bad news
• NSAIDs linked to increased risk of heart failure. European investigators analyzed five population-based databases totaling more than 8.3 million individuals and determined that current use of any of more than two dozen NSAIDs was associated with significantly increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure. The risk appeared to be dose dependent and varied between individual agents, ranging from a 16% increased risk with naproxen to an 83% increase with ketorolac (Toradol) (BMJ. 2016 Sep 28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4857).
• Therapeutic natriuretic peptides hit bottom. The negative results for the investigational agent ularitide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure in the large phase III TRUE-AHF trial presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Heart Association, following upon an earlier negative study of the related drug nesiritide (Natrecor) in more than 7,100 acute heart failure patients (N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 7; 365:32-43), probably spells the end of the line for this strategy of boosting outcomes in acute heart failure, according to Dr. O’Connor.
Moreover, Novartis has announced that the phase III RELAX-AHF-2 trial of serelaxin in 6,600 patients with acute heart failure failed to meet its primary endpoints of reduced cardiovascular deaths or reduced worsening of heart failure. The trial will be formally presented later this year.
“Ularitide seemed to show an early improvement in heart failure events that was not sustained in-hospital, and there was absolutely no difference in mortality. The drug probably acts like a pharmacologic tourniquet, in my view. So I think this field of therapeutic natriuretic peptides is probably closed,” he said.
• ICDs don’t reduce mortality in patients with nonischemic heart failure. This was the conclusion reached in the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).
“This study really shook up the field, raising the question, ‘Are we using defibrillators too frequently in this population?’ It has stimulated a lot of discussion, including within the guidelines committee,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
• Tolvaptan nixed for acute decompensated heart failure. The TACTICS-HF trial studied the use of tolvaptan (Samsca), an oral vasopressin-2 receptor antagonist, to reduce dyspnea in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in the study, which showed that tolvaptan was no better than placebo at 8 and 24 hours (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 21;69[11]:1399-406).
“For now, the routine use of vasopressin antagonists in acute heart failure is not to be encouraged, although there may still be subsets where it’s worth trying – certainly in severe hyponatremia,” the cardiologist said.
• GUIDE-IT gets lost. This was a roughly 1,000-patient randomized trial of a treatment strategy aimed at improving clinical outcomes by aggressively titrating evidence-based heart failure therapies in order to suppress natriuretic peptide biomarkers. GUIDE-IT was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board due to a lack of discernible difference in outcomes, compared with usual care. Dr. O’Connor, a coinvestigator, termed the soon-to-be-published study “a disappointment.”
Sleep apnea studies show silver lining
Sleep apnea is common in patients with heart failure and is associated with worse clinical heart failure outcomes. But in the large, randomized SERVE-HF trial, investigators showed that treatment of central sleep apnea with adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF unexpectedly increased mortality, compared with optimal medical therapy (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 17;373:1095-105). In a more recent secondary analysis, however, the SERVE-HF investigators found that the increased risk for cardiovascular death associated with adaptive servo-ventilation was actually restricted to patients with a very poor left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and there was a signal of possible benefit in patients in the top tier of LVEF, at 36%-45% (Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Nov; 4[11]:873-81).
This observation dovetails nicely with the findings of the CAT-HF trial presented by Dr. O’Connor at the 2016 World Congress on Heart Failure. In this phase II study, 215 patients with acute decompensated heart failure and either obstructive or central sleep apnea were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone or in combination with adaptive servo-ventilation. There was no overall difference in outcome between the two groups; however, in the subgroup of patients with HFpEF, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was reduced by 62% with adaptive servo-ventilation.
As a result of these intriguing findings from SERVE-HF and CAT-HF, a registry and/or randomized clinical trial of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFpEF is now being considered under NIH sponsorship, according to Dr. O’Connor.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
WASHINGTON – It’s been a “relatively positive” year for heart failure research and advances in patient care, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“Having been in this field for 30 years looking at clinical trials, generally for every 10 important trials done in a year, 1 has been positive and 9 have been negative; if we look at the past year, it’s more like 5 and 6. So, not a bad year for cardiomyopathy,” declared Dr. O’Connor, CEO and executive director of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and president-elect of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The good news
• Empagliflozin (Jardiance) earns FDA approval for reduction in risk of cardiovascular death in type 2 diabetes patients. “This is one of the most amazing stories in heart failure,” said Dr. O’Connor, who is also professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The pivotal EMPA-REG OUTCOME study showed a highly significant 35% reduction in the secondary endpoint of risk of hospitalization for heart failure, as well the decrease in cardiovascular mortality which was the primary endpoint and proved persuasive to the FDA (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
“It was a remarkable development. Because of this trial, there are now a number of ongoing phase III clinical trials looking at this class of drugs in heart failure patients with and without diabetes, which makes this a very important research movement. We are now looking deeper at phenotypes and trying to get more specific with these drug therapies,” he said.
• A new and improved LVAD. This fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump type of left ventricular assist device for advanced heart failure showed superior event-free survival, compared with a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump LVAD in the randomized MOMENTUM-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 2;376[5]:440-50).
The novel pump was designed to overcome a significant problem with axial continuous-flow LVADs: a proclivity for pump thrombosis. The magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump proved a smashing success in this regard, with zero cases of pump thrombosis occurring during the 6-month study.
“This may be the first time in the history of heart failure research that the engineers have beaten the biologists in important clinical outcomes,” the cardiologist quipped.
• Omecamtiv mecarbil successfully addresses impaired contractility in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This drug, a selective cardiac myosin activator, resulted in increased duration of systole and improved stroke volume accompanied by reductions in heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, and NT-proBNP in the 87-site, 13-country, phase II COSMIC-HF study (Lancet. 2016 Dec 10;388[10062]:2895-903).
“This is probably the most novel new drug mechanism out there in clinical trials,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
On the basis of the highly encouraging results for the surrogate endpoints assessed in COSMIC-HF, a large phase III clinical trial known as GALACTIC is underway.
• Palliative care gets a welcome boost. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in PAL-HF, a single-center study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“This is a very important trial of palliative care in advanced heart failure. We probably don’t have as much evidence in this space as we should,” he observed. “This was a multidisciplinary intervention in which we gave the patients a medical tool kit to alleviate pain, dyspnea, and discomfort. The tool kit included benzodiazepines, sleep medications, sublingual nitroglycerin, and morphinelike products, all very carefully monitored by staff coordinators.”
The primary outcome was change in two validated heart failure quality of life measures. Both instruments documented significant improvement compared with usual care.
“There was no decrease in mortality, which wasn’t a goal in this advanced heart failure population, and no reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but there were significant reductions in depression and anxiety,” Dr. O’Connor said.
• Vericiguat. This oral soluble cyclic guanylate cyclase stimulator missed its primary endpoint in the phase II dose-escalation SOCRATES-REDUCED trial in patients with HFrEF (JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314[21]:2251-62), but showed an impressive improvement in quality of life. It is now the subject of the ongoing, randomized, phase III VICTORIA trial involving a planned 4,000 patients with HFrEF with the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
The phase II SOCRATES-PRESERVED trial also missed its primary endpoint but showed a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (Eur Heart J. 2017 Mar 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw593). Discussions are ongoing as to whether the next step should be a confirmatory phase II study or a move straight to phase III.
The bad news
• NSAIDs linked to increased risk of heart failure. European investigators analyzed five population-based databases totaling more than 8.3 million individuals and determined that current use of any of more than two dozen NSAIDs was associated with significantly increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure. The risk appeared to be dose dependent and varied between individual agents, ranging from a 16% increased risk with naproxen to an 83% increase with ketorolac (Toradol) (BMJ. 2016 Sep 28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4857).
• Therapeutic natriuretic peptides hit bottom. The negative results for the investigational agent ularitide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure in the large phase III TRUE-AHF trial presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Heart Association, following upon an earlier negative study of the related drug nesiritide (Natrecor) in more than 7,100 acute heart failure patients (N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 7; 365:32-43), probably spells the end of the line for this strategy of boosting outcomes in acute heart failure, according to Dr. O’Connor.
Moreover, Novartis has announced that the phase III RELAX-AHF-2 trial of serelaxin in 6,600 patients with acute heart failure failed to meet its primary endpoints of reduced cardiovascular deaths or reduced worsening of heart failure. The trial will be formally presented later this year.
“Ularitide seemed to show an early improvement in heart failure events that was not sustained in-hospital, and there was absolutely no difference in mortality. The drug probably acts like a pharmacologic tourniquet, in my view. So I think this field of therapeutic natriuretic peptides is probably closed,” he said.
• ICDs don’t reduce mortality in patients with nonischemic heart failure. This was the conclusion reached in the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).
“This study really shook up the field, raising the question, ‘Are we using defibrillators too frequently in this population?’ It has stimulated a lot of discussion, including within the guidelines committee,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
• Tolvaptan nixed for acute decompensated heart failure. The TACTICS-HF trial studied the use of tolvaptan (Samsca), an oral vasopressin-2 receptor antagonist, to reduce dyspnea in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in the study, which showed that tolvaptan was no better than placebo at 8 and 24 hours (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 21;69[11]:1399-406).
“For now, the routine use of vasopressin antagonists in acute heart failure is not to be encouraged, although there may still be subsets where it’s worth trying – certainly in severe hyponatremia,” the cardiologist said.
• GUIDE-IT gets lost. This was a roughly 1,000-patient randomized trial of a treatment strategy aimed at improving clinical outcomes by aggressively titrating evidence-based heart failure therapies in order to suppress natriuretic peptide biomarkers. GUIDE-IT was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board due to a lack of discernible difference in outcomes, compared with usual care. Dr. O’Connor, a coinvestigator, termed the soon-to-be-published study “a disappointment.”
Sleep apnea studies show silver lining
Sleep apnea is common in patients with heart failure and is associated with worse clinical heart failure outcomes. But in the large, randomized SERVE-HF trial, investigators showed that treatment of central sleep apnea with adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF unexpectedly increased mortality, compared with optimal medical therapy (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 17;373:1095-105). In a more recent secondary analysis, however, the SERVE-HF investigators found that the increased risk for cardiovascular death associated with adaptive servo-ventilation was actually restricted to patients with a very poor left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and there was a signal of possible benefit in patients in the top tier of LVEF, at 36%-45% (Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Nov; 4[11]:873-81).
This observation dovetails nicely with the findings of the CAT-HF trial presented by Dr. O’Connor at the 2016 World Congress on Heart Failure. In this phase II study, 215 patients with acute decompensated heart failure and either obstructive or central sleep apnea were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone or in combination with adaptive servo-ventilation. There was no overall difference in outcome between the two groups; however, in the subgroup of patients with HFpEF, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was reduced by 62% with adaptive servo-ventilation.
As a result of these intriguing findings from SERVE-HF and CAT-HF, a registry and/or randomized clinical trial of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFpEF is now being considered under NIH sponsorship, according to Dr. O’Connor.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
WASHINGTON – It’s been a “relatively positive” year for heart failure research and advances in patient care, Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“Having been in this field for 30 years looking at clinical trials, generally for every 10 important trials done in a year, 1 has been positive and 9 have been negative; if we look at the past year, it’s more like 5 and 6. So, not a bad year for cardiomyopathy,” declared Dr. O’Connor, CEO and executive director of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va., and president-elect of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The good news
• Empagliflozin (Jardiance) earns FDA approval for reduction in risk of cardiovascular death in type 2 diabetes patients. “This is one of the most amazing stories in heart failure,” said Dr. O’Connor, who is also professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The pivotal EMPA-REG OUTCOME study showed a highly significant 35% reduction in the secondary endpoint of risk of hospitalization for heart failure, as well the decrease in cardiovascular mortality which was the primary endpoint and proved persuasive to the FDA (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
“It was a remarkable development. Because of this trial, there are now a number of ongoing phase III clinical trials looking at this class of drugs in heart failure patients with and without diabetes, which makes this a very important research movement. We are now looking deeper at phenotypes and trying to get more specific with these drug therapies,” he said.
• A new and improved LVAD. This fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump type of left ventricular assist device for advanced heart failure showed superior event-free survival, compared with a commercially available axial continuous-flow pump LVAD in the randomized MOMENTUM-3 trial (N Engl J Med. 2017 Feb 2;376[5]:440-50).
The novel pump was designed to overcome a significant problem with axial continuous-flow LVADs: a proclivity for pump thrombosis. The magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump proved a smashing success in this regard, with zero cases of pump thrombosis occurring during the 6-month study.
“This may be the first time in the history of heart failure research that the engineers have beaten the biologists in important clinical outcomes,” the cardiologist quipped.
• Omecamtiv mecarbil successfully addresses impaired contractility in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This drug, a selective cardiac myosin activator, resulted in increased duration of systole and improved stroke volume accompanied by reductions in heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, and NT-proBNP in the 87-site, 13-country, phase II COSMIC-HF study (Lancet. 2016 Dec 10;388[10062]:2895-903).
“This is probably the most novel new drug mechanism out there in clinical trials,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
On the basis of the highly encouraging results for the surrogate endpoints assessed in COSMIC-HF, a large phase III clinical trial known as GALACTIC is underway.
• Palliative care gets a welcome boost. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in PAL-HF, a single-center study presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
“This is a very important trial of palliative care in advanced heart failure. We probably don’t have as much evidence in this space as we should,” he observed. “This was a multidisciplinary intervention in which we gave the patients a medical tool kit to alleviate pain, dyspnea, and discomfort. The tool kit included benzodiazepines, sleep medications, sublingual nitroglycerin, and morphinelike products, all very carefully monitored by staff coordinators.”
The primary outcome was change in two validated heart failure quality of life measures. Both instruments documented significant improvement compared with usual care.
“There was no decrease in mortality, which wasn’t a goal in this advanced heart failure population, and no reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but there were significant reductions in depression and anxiety,” Dr. O’Connor said.
• Vericiguat. This oral soluble cyclic guanylate cyclase stimulator missed its primary endpoint in the phase II dose-escalation SOCRATES-REDUCED trial in patients with HFrEF (JAMA. 2015 Dec 1;314[21]:2251-62), but showed an impressive improvement in quality of life. It is now the subject of the ongoing, randomized, phase III VICTORIA trial involving a planned 4,000 patients with HFrEF with the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.
The phase II SOCRATES-PRESERVED trial also missed its primary endpoint but showed a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (Eur Heart J. 2017 Mar 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw593). Discussions are ongoing as to whether the next step should be a confirmatory phase II study or a move straight to phase III.
The bad news
• NSAIDs linked to increased risk of heart failure. European investigators analyzed five population-based databases totaling more than 8.3 million individuals and determined that current use of any of more than two dozen NSAIDs was associated with significantly increased risk of hospital admission for heart failure. The risk appeared to be dose dependent and varied between individual agents, ranging from a 16% increased risk with naproxen to an 83% increase with ketorolac (Toradol) (BMJ. 2016 Sep 28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4857).
• Therapeutic natriuretic peptides hit bottom. The negative results for the investigational agent ularitide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure in the large phase III TRUE-AHF trial presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Heart Association, following upon an earlier negative study of the related drug nesiritide (Natrecor) in more than 7,100 acute heart failure patients (N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 7; 365:32-43), probably spells the end of the line for this strategy of boosting outcomes in acute heart failure, according to Dr. O’Connor.
Moreover, Novartis has announced that the phase III RELAX-AHF-2 trial of serelaxin in 6,600 patients with acute heart failure failed to meet its primary endpoints of reduced cardiovascular deaths or reduced worsening of heart failure. The trial will be formally presented later this year.
“Ularitide seemed to show an early improvement in heart failure events that was not sustained in-hospital, and there was absolutely no difference in mortality. The drug probably acts like a pharmacologic tourniquet, in my view. So I think this field of therapeutic natriuretic peptides is probably closed,” he said.
• ICDs don’t reduce mortality in patients with nonischemic heart failure. This was the conclusion reached in the DANISH trial, in which more than 1,100 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure were randomized to an ICD or usual care (N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375[13]:1221-30).
“This study really shook up the field, raising the question, ‘Are we using defibrillators too frequently in this population?’ It has stimulated a lot of discussion, including within the guidelines committee,” according to Dr. O’Connor.
• Tolvaptan nixed for acute decompensated heart failure. The TACTICS-HF trial studied the use of tolvaptan (Samsca), an oral vasopressin-2 receptor antagonist, to reduce dyspnea in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. Dr. O’Connor was a coinvestigator in the study, which showed that tolvaptan was no better than placebo at 8 and 24 hours (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 21;69[11]:1399-406).
“For now, the routine use of vasopressin antagonists in acute heart failure is not to be encouraged, although there may still be subsets where it’s worth trying – certainly in severe hyponatremia,” the cardiologist said.
• GUIDE-IT gets lost. This was a roughly 1,000-patient randomized trial of a treatment strategy aimed at improving clinical outcomes by aggressively titrating evidence-based heart failure therapies in order to suppress natriuretic peptide biomarkers. GUIDE-IT was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board due to a lack of discernible difference in outcomes, compared with usual care. Dr. O’Connor, a coinvestigator, termed the soon-to-be-published study “a disappointment.”
Sleep apnea studies show silver lining
Sleep apnea is common in patients with heart failure and is associated with worse clinical heart failure outcomes. But in the large, randomized SERVE-HF trial, investigators showed that treatment of central sleep apnea with adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF unexpectedly increased mortality, compared with optimal medical therapy (N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 17;373:1095-105). In a more recent secondary analysis, however, the SERVE-HF investigators found that the increased risk for cardiovascular death associated with adaptive servo-ventilation was actually restricted to patients with a very poor left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and there was a signal of possible benefit in patients in the top tier of LVEF, at 36%-45% (Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Nov; 4[11]:873-81).
This observation dovetails nicely with the findings of the CAT-HF trial presented by Dr. O’Connor at the 2016 World Congress on Heart Failure. In this phase II study, 215 patients with acute decompensated heart failure and either obstructive or central sleep apnea were randomized to optimal medical therapy alone or in combination with adaptive servo-ventilation. There was no overall difference in outcome between the two groups; however, in the subgroup of patients with HFpEF, the risk of the primary composite endpoint was reduced by 62% with adaptive servo-ventilation.
As a result of these intriguing findings from SERVE-HF and CAT-HF, a registry and/or randomized clinical trial of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFpEF is now being considered under NIH sponsorship, according to Dr. O’Connor.
He reported having no financial conflicts.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC 17
Coverage denials plague U.S. PCSK9-inhibitor prescriptions
WASHINGTON – During the first year that the lipid-lowering PCSK9 inhibitors were on the U.S. market, 2015-2016, fewer than half the patients prescribed the drug had it covered through their health insurance, based on an analysis of prescriptions written for more than 45,000 patients.
On top of that, about a third of patients with health insurance that eventually agreed to cover the notoriously expensive PCSK (proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type) 9 inhibitors failed to actually collect their medication, possibly because of a sizable copay, which meant that, in total, fewer than a third of U.S. patients prescribed these drugs actually began using them, Ann Marie Navar, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The recent PCSK9-inhibitor experience highlighting the frequent preauthorization roadblocks and denied coverage that providers and patients must navigate is “one of the dirty little secrets of American medicine,” commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a discussant for the study and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Dr. Navar countered that these problems may be a secret for many Americans “but it’s not a secret for providers. We know the problems patients have getting drugs covered through the prior authorization process.”
Symphony Health’s records included 45,029 U.S. patients who received a first-time PCSK9-inhibitor prescription during the 12 months studied. Just over half were prescriptions exclusively covered by government-funded insurance (with 90% of these covered through Medicaid), 40% exclusively by a commercial insurer, and the balance subject to dual coverage. Nearly half the prescriptions were written by cardiologists, 37% by primary care physicians, and most of the remaining 15% came from endocrinologists.
Among these prescriptions, 79% received an initial rejection. Following appeals, 53% were rejected and 47% covered. Among the more than 21,000 prescriptions approved for coverage, 13,892 (31% of the 45,029) were actually received by patients, Dr. Navar reported.
During the first several months following availability of the PCSK9 inhibitors, the number of new prescriptions steadily rose until a plateau occurred by about April 2016 of about 6,000 new prescriptions written per month. During each of the 12 months examined, the proportion of prescriptions denied coverage remained roughly constant, suggesting that clinicians developed no insights over time into how to better the prospect for ultimate insurance coverage.
In a multivariate analysis certain aspects of the prescribing and coverage process linked with significantly better rates of patients actually receiving the PCSK9 inhibitor. Prescriptions filled at mail-order pharmacies were over fourfold more likely to be received by patients than those filled at retail pharmacies. Prescriptions written by cardiologists were 80% more likely to be received than those written by primary care physicians; those written by endocrinologists were 30% more likely to be filled. Patients who relied exclusively on a government insurance plan had a threefold greater filling rate than those who exclusively had commercial insurance, and patients with both government and commercial insurance had a fourfold greater rate of receiving their prescription, compared with commercial-only patients. Patients who used a manufacturer’s coupon to help reduce the cost of their prescription had a 17-fold higher rate of receiving the drug, compared with patients who did not use a coupon.
A final set of findings underscored the great variability in the approval process that patients encountered. Among the 13,892 prescriptions that were actually dispensed, 45% were dispensed within 1 day of when the prescription was written, but the median time for dispensing wasn’t reached until the tenth day, and for a quarter of the dispenses the lag from writing the prescription to getting it into patients’ hands was greater than 1 month. Rates of coverage denials also varied widely depending on the specific commercial insurers involved and the specific pharmacy benefit manager. Among the top 10 commercial insurers included in the data set, the rate of coverage denial ranged from 33% to 78%.
This variability suggested that many denials were not simply because of clinical factors. Some commercial insurers “introduce vigorous and sometimes burdensome prior authorization procedures,” Dr. Navar said.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – During the first year that the lipid-lowering PCSK9 inhibitors were on the U.S. market, 2015-2016, fewer than half the patients prescribed the drug had it covered through their health insurance, based on an analysis of prescriptions written for more than 45,000 patients.
On top of that, about a third of patients with health insurance that eventually agreed to cover the notoriously expensive PCSK (proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type) 9 inhibitors failed to actually collect their medication, possibly because of a sizable copay, which meant that, in total, fewer than a third of U.S. patients prescribed these drugs actually began using them, Ann Marie Navar, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The recent PCSK9-inhibitor experience highlighting the frequent preauthorization roadblocks and denied coverage that providers and patients must navigate is “one of the dirty little secrets of American medicine,” commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a discussant for the study and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Dr. Navar countered that these problems may be a secret for many Americans “but it’s not a secret for providers. We know the problems patients have getting drugs covered through the prior authorization process.”
Symphony Health’s records included 45,029 U.S. patients who received a first-time PCSK9-inhibitor prescription during the 12 months studied. Just over half were prescriptions exclusively covered by government-funded insurance (with 90% of these covered through Medicaid), 40% exclusively by a commercial insurer, and the balance subject to dual coverage. Nearly half the prescriptions were written by cardiologists, 37% by primary care physicians, and most of the remaining 15% came from endocrinologists.
Among these prescriptions, 79% received an initial rejection. Following appeals, 53% were rejected and 47% covered. Among the more than 21,000 prescriptions approved for coverage, 13,892 (31% of the 45,029) were actually received by patients, Dr. Navar reported.
During the first several months following availability of the PCSK9 inhibitors, the number of new prescriptions steadily rose until a plateau occurred by about April 2016 of about 6,000 new prescriptions written per month. During each of the 12 months examined, the proportion of prescriptions denied coverage remained roughly constant, suggesting that clinicians developed no insights over time into how to better the prospect for ultimate insurance coverage.
In a multivariate analysis certain aspects of the prescribing and coverage process linked with significantly better rates of patients actually receiving the PCSK9 inhibitor. Prescriptions filled at mail-order pharmacies were over fourfold more likely to be received by patients than those filled at retail pharmacies. Prescriptions written by cardiologists were 80% more likely to be received than those written by primary care physicians; those written by endocrinologists were 30% more likely to be filled. Patients who relied exclusively on a government insurance plan had a threefold greater filling rate than those who exclusively had commercial insurance, and patients with both government and commercial insurance had a fourfold greater rate of receiving their prescription, compared with commercial-only patients. Patients who used a manufacturer’s coupon to help reduce the cost of their prescription had a 17-fold higher rate of receiving the drug, compared with patients who did not use a coupon.
A final set of findings underscored the great variability in the approval process that patients encountered. Among the 13,892 prescriptions that were actually dispensed, 45% were dispensed within 1 day of when the prescription was written, but the median time for dispensing wasn’t reached until the tenth day, and for a quarter of the dispenses the lag from writing the prescription to getting it into patients’ hands was greater than 1 month. Rates of coverage denials also varied widely depending on the specific commercial insurers involved and the specific pharmacy benefit manager. Among the top 10 commercial insurers included in the data set, the rate of coverage denial ranged from 33% to 78%.
This variability suggested that many denials were not simply because of clinical factors. Some commercial insurers “introduce vigorous and sometimes burdensome prior authorization procedures,” Dr. Navar said.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – During the first year that the lipid-lowering PCSK9 inhibitors were on the U.S. market, 2015-2016, fewer than half the patients prescribed the drug had it covered through their health insurance, based on an analysis of prescriptions written for more than 45,000 patients.
On top of that, about a third of patients with health insurance that eventually agreed to cover the notoriously expensive PCSK (proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type) 9 inhibitors failed to actually collect their medication, possibly because of a sizable copay, which meant that, in total, fewer than a third of U.S. patients prescribed these drugs actually began using them, Ann Marie Navar, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The recent PCSK9-inhibitor experience highlighting the frequent preauthorization roadblocks and denied coverage that providers and patients must navigate is “one of the dirty little secrets of American medicine,” commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a discussant for the study and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
Dr. Navar countered that these problems may be a secret for many Americans “but it’s not a secret for providers. We know the problems patients have getting drugs covered through the prior authorization process.”
Symphony Health’s records included 45,029 U.S. patients who received a first-time PCSK9-inhibitor prescription during the 12 months studied. Just over half were prescriptions exclusively covered by government-funded insurance (with 90% of these covered through Medicaid), 40% exclusively by a commercial insurer, and the balance subject to dual coverage. Nearly half the prescriptions were written by cardiologists, 37% by primary care physicians, and most of the remaining 15% came from endocrinologists.
Among these prescriptions, 79% received an initial rejection. Following appeals, 53% were rejected and 47% covered. Among the more than 21,000 prescriptions approved for coverage, 13,892 (31% of the 45,029) were actually received by patients, Dr. Navar reported.
During the first several months following availability of the PCSK9 inhibitors, the number of new prescriptions steadily rose until a plateau occurred by about April 2016 of about 6,000 new prescriptions written per month. During each of the 12 months examined, the proportion of prescriptions denied coverage remained roughly constant, suggesting that clinicians developed no insights over time into how to better the prospect for ultimate insurance coverage.
In a multivariate analysis certain aspects of the prescribing and coverage process linked with significantly better rates of patients actually receiving the PCSK9 inhibitor. Prescriptions filled at mail-order pharmacies were over fourfold more likely to be received by patients than those filled at retail pharmacies. Prescriptions written by cardiologists were 80% more likely to be received than those written by primary care physicians; those written by endocrinologists were 30% more likely to be filled. Patients who relied exclusively on a government insurance plan had a threefold greater filling rate than those who exclusively had commercial insurance, and patients with both government and commercial insurance had a fourfold greater rate of receiving their prescription, compared with commercial-only patients. Patients who used a manufacturer’s coupon to help reduce the cost of their prescription had a 17-fold higher rate of receiving the drug, compared with patients who did not use a coupon.
A final set of findings underscored the great variability in the approval process that patients encountered. Among the 13,892 prescriptions that were actually dispensed, 45% were dispensed within 1 day of when the prescription was written, but the median time for dispensing wasn’t reached until the tenth day, and for a quarter of the dispenses the lag from writing the prescription to getting it into patients’ hands was greater than 1 month. Rates of coverage denials also varied widely depending on the specific commercial insurers involved and the specific pharmacy benefit manager. Among the top 10 commercial insurers included in the data set, the rate of coverage denial ranged from 33% to 78%.
This variability suggested that many denials were not simply because of clinical factors. Some commercial insurers “introduce vigorous and sometimes burdensome prior authorization procedures,” Dr. Navar said.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Coverage denials occurred for 53% of U.S. patients who received a new prescription for a PCSK9 inhibitor during 2015-2016.
Data source: Review of 45,029 U.S. patients who received a new prescription for a PCSK9 inhibitor in a Symphony Health database.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha). Dr. Navar has received research support from Amgen, Sanofi, and Regeneron and has been a consultant to Sanofi.
Death watch intensifies for HDL-based interventions
WASHINGTON – Is it finally time to give up on HDL cholesterol–based interventions to treat atherosclerotic disease?
The approach “is on life support,” admitted Stephen J. Nicholls, MD, a long-time leader in the field who has reported results from a series of studies during the past 10 or so years that tested various approaches to juicing HDL cholesterol activity in patients, only to see each and every candidate intervention result in an inability to budge clinical outcomes.
The latest disappointment he reported was for CER-001, an engineered HDL mimetic agent. In a placebo-controlled international study, CARAT (CER-001 Atherosclerosis Regression ACS Trial), with 301 randomized patients and 272 completers, 10 weekly infusions of CER-001 over the course of 9 weeks failed to produce discernible incremental regression of atherosclerotic plaque volume, compared with standard care measured by serial examination using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), Dr. Nicholls reported. The absence of any detectable benefit “suggests that this is not a promising strategy,” he said during his report at the meeting.
Enthusiasm for HDL cholesterol–based interventions dates to 2003, when an IVUS study of a first-generation HDL mimetic agent, ETC-216, showed an apparent ability to produce regression of coronary atheroma after five infusions over a 2-week period, compared with placebo-treated patients (JAMA. 2003 Nov 5;290[17]:2292-300). But the successor compound to this agent, MDCO-216, flamed out in an IVUS study with 113 completing patients that Dr. Nicholls reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016.
Also lying dead on the trial trail during past years are several cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitors – torcetrapib, dalcetrapib and evacetrapib – as well as other agents that Dr. Nicholls described in a recent review (Arch Med Sci. 2016 Oct 24;12[6]:1302-7).
“HDL wouldn’t be the first risk factor we’ve seen that is not a modifiable target. Homocysteine is a really good example” of another atherosclerotic disease risk that’s proven immune to intervention, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview at the meeting. “Ultimately we’ll come to a point when the enthusiasm [for potential HDL interventions] will wane, but we’re not quite there yet.”
“There are other players in the HDL field” that remain viable, said Dr. Nicholls, most notably CSL112, plasma-derived apoA1 – the primary functional part of HDL cholesterol – that’s infused into patients to boost HDL activity. Results from a phase II study reported in November 2016 showed it increased cholesterol efflux (Circulation 2016 Nov; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025687), and is now the subject of additional phase II testing. “But with every negative trial, it will get harder and harder [to fund new HDL research], and we’ll look for other targets,” he said.
One promising alternative target is triglycerides. “HDL has received more attention than triglycerides over the past decade, but I think that will start to change as HDL can’t deliver,” predicted Dr. Nicholls, professor of cardiology at the South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute in Adelaide.
Understandably “financial support is the biggest issue. Do companies and investors still believe in the [HDL] dream?” Dr. Nicholls said that, objectively, looking at the HDL research record should definitely give investors pause before they sink money into new compounds for HDL intervention.
“If I was sitting at the drawing board now, would HDL be the risk factor I’d target? Probably not,” he concluded.
Dr. Nicholls received research support from Cerenis, the company that is developing CER-001, and he has received honoraria and research support from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has received research support from several drug companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – Is it finally time to give up on HDL cholesterol–based interventions to treat atherosclerotic disease?
The approach “is on life support,” admitted Stephen J. Nicholls, MD, a long-time leader in the field who has reported results from a series of studies during the past 10 or so years that tested various approaches to juicing HDL cholesterol activity in patients, only to see each and every candidate intervention result in an inability to budge clinical outcomes.
The latest disappointment he reported was for CER-001, an engineered HDL mimetic agent. In a placebo-controlled international study, CARAT (CER-001 Atherosclerosis Regression ACS Trial), with 301 randomized patients and 272 completers, 10 weekly infusions of CER-001 over the course of 9 weeks failed to produce discernible incremental regression of atherosclerotic plaque volume, compared with standard care measured by serial examination using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), Dr. Nicholls reported. The absence of any detectable benefit “suggests that this is not a promising strategy,” he said during his report at the meeting.
Enthusiasm for HDL cholesterol–based interventions dates to 2003, when an IVUS study of a first-generation HDL mimetic agent, ETC-216, showed an apparent ability to produce regression of coronary atheroma after five infusions over a 2-week period, compared with placebo-treated patients (JAMA. 2003 Nov 5;290[17]:2292-300). But the successor compound to this agent, MDCO-216, flamed out in an IVUS study with 113 completing patients that Dr. Nicholls reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016.
Also lying dead on the trial trail during past years are several cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitors – torcetrapib, dalcetrapib and evacetrapib – as well as other agents that Dr. Nicholls described in a recent review (Arch Med Sci. 2016 Oct 24;12[6]:1302-7).
“HDL wouldn’t be the first risk factor we’ve seen that is not a modifiable target. Homocysteine is a really good example” of another atherosclerotic disease risk that’s proven immune to intervention, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview at the meeting. “Ultimately we’ll come to a point when the enthusiasm [for potential HDL interventions] will wane, but we’re not quite there yet.”
“There are other players in the HDL field” that remain viable, said Dr. Nicholls, most notably CSL112, plasma-derived apoA1 – the primary functional part of HDL cholesterol – that’s infused into patients to boost HDL activity. Results from a phase II study reported in November 2016 showed it increased cholesterol efflux (Circulation 2016 Nov; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025687), and is now the subject of additional phase II testing. “But with every negative trial, it will get harder and harder [to fund new HDL research], and we’ll look for other targets,” he said.
One promising alternative target is triglycerides. “HDL has received more attention than triglycerides over the past decade, but I think that will start to change as HDL can’t deliver,” predicted Dr. Nicholls, professor of cardiology at the South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute in Adelaide.
Understandably “financial support is the biggest issue. Do companies and investors still believe in the [HDL] dream?” Dr. Nicholls said that, objectively, looking at the HDL research record should definitely give investors pause before they sink money into new compounds for HDL intervention.
“If I was sitting at the drawing board now, would HDL be the risk factor I’d target? Probably not,” he concluded.
Dr. Nicholls received research support from Cerenis, the company that is developing CER-001, and he has received honoraria and research support from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has received research support from several drug companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – Is it finally time to give up on HDL cholesterol–based interventions to treat atherosclerotic disease?
The approach “is on life support,” admitted Stephen J. Nicholls, MD, a long-time leader in the field who has reported results from a series of studies during the past 10 or so years that tested various approaches to juicing HDL cholesterol activity in patients, only to see each and every candidate intervention result in an inability to budge clinical outcomes.
The latest disappointment he reported was for CER-001, an engineered HDL mimetic agent. In a placebo-controlled international study, CARAT (CER-001 Atherosclerosis Regression ACS Trial), with 301 randomized patients and 272 completers, 10 weekly infusions of CER-001 over the course of 9 weeks failed to produce discernible incremental regression of atherosclerotic plaque volume, compared with standard care measured by serial examination using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), Dr. Nicholls reported. The absence of any detectable benefit “suggests that this is not a promising strategy,” he said during his report at the meeting.
Enthusiasm for HDL cholesterol–based interventions dates to 2003, when an IVUS study of a first-generation HDL mimetic agent, ETC-216, showed an apparent ability to produce regression of coronary atheroma after five infusions over a 2-week period, compared with placebo-treated patients (JAMA. 2003 Nov 5;290[17]:2292-300). But the successor compound to this agent, MDCO-216, flamed out in an IVUS study with 113 completing patients that Dr. Nicholls reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016.
Also lying dead on the trial trail during past years are several cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitors – torcetrapib, dalcetrapib and evacetrapib – as well as other agents that Dr. Nicholls described in a recent review (Arch Med Sci. 2016 Oct 24;12[6]:1302-7).
“HDL wouldn’t be the first risk factor we’ve seen that is not a modifiable target. Homocysteine is a really good example” of another atherosclerotic disease risk that’s proven immune to intervention, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview at the meeting. “Ultimately we’ll come to a point when the enthusiasm [for potential HDL interventions] will wane, but we’re not quite there yet.”
“There are other players in the HDL field” that remain viable, said Dr. Nicholls, most notably CSL112, plasma-derived apoA1 – the primary functional part of HDL cholesterol – that’s infused into patients to boost HDL activity. Results from a phase II study reported in November 2016 showed it increased cholesterol efflux (Circulation 2016 Nov; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025687), and is now the subject of additional phase II testing. “But with every negative trial, it will get harder and harder [to fund new HDL research], and we’ll look for other targets,” he said.
One promising alternative target is triglycerides. “HDL has received more attention than triglycerides over the past decade, but I think that will start to change as HDL can’t deliver,” predicted Dr. Nicholls, professor of cardiology at the South Australian Health & Medical Research Institute in Adelaide.
Understandably “financial support is the biggest issue. Do companies and investors still believe in the [HDL] dream?” Dr. Nicholls said that, objectively, looking at the HDL research record should definitely give investors pause before they sink money into new compounds for HDL intervention.
“If I was sitting at the drawing board now, would HDL be the risk factor I’d target? Probably not,” he concluded.
Dr. Nicholls received research support from Cerenis, the company that is developing CER-001, and he has received honoraria and research support from several other companies. Dr. Bhatt has received research support from several drug companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC 17
PAP sensor may cut real-world heart failure hospitalization
Implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure sensor to guide care in chronic heart failure was associated with a significant 45% reduction in HF hospitalization and its attendant substantial costs in a real-world patient population, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The PAP sensor is used to monitor pulmonary artery filling pressure, which rises in many HF patients during the weeks preceding an HF exacerbation. This early detection of progressing congestion allows clinicians to intervene earlier and head off hospitalization for the exacerbation.
Their intention was to determine whether the positive results of the CHAMPION clinical trial, which prompted FDA approval of the device as a means to reduce HF-associated hospitalizations, could be replicated in a real-world population, said Dr. Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The results of their study were presented March 19 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2017 Mar 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.009).
The mean age of the study cohort was 71 years, and 40% of the participants were at least 75 years of age. Women composed 40% of the cohort. There was a high burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This represents a broader sample than was enrolled in the CHAMPION trial, he noted.
There were 1,020 HF hospitalizations before implantation and 381 afterward. A total of 59% of patients had at least one HF hospitalization before the PAP implantation, compared with 22% afterward. The median number of HF hospitalizations was 0.92 per patient before implantation and 0.37 per patient afterward.
Further analysis showed that the cumulative rate of HF hospitalization was 45% lower during the 6 months after implantation than during the 6 months preceding it (hazard ratio, 0.55). This finding remained robust across several subgroups of patients and in several sensitivity analyses.
These reductions were associated with a corresponding decline in costs related to HF care, which dropped by $7,433 per patient.
In addition to HF-related hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations also declined by roughly 30% after implantation of a PAP sensor (HR, 0.69).
These findings suggest that the reduction in hospitalizations, along with attendant reductions in the costs of care, may be achievable in real-world practice. The 45% drop in HF hospitalizations in this study “compares favorably with the 28% reduction seen with PAP-guided therapy over the same time period in the randomized CHAMPION study that supported the initial FDA approval,” Dr. Desai said.
Moreover, a subgroup of 480 patients had data for 12 months preceding and 12 months following implantation. Analysis of those data showed that the benefits of PAP monitoring to guide HF care “were consistent over longer-term follow-up, with a 34% reduction in HF hospitalizations sustained at 12 months,” he added.
The study had several limitations. It excluded Medicare Part D data, so medication changes related to implantation could not be examined and may have exerted substantial influence on study outcomes.
It also didn’t include the actual PAP-sensor data, “which makes it challenging to confirm that physicians intervened to treat elevated PAPs” and that that intervention is the reason for the study outcomes.
“We were unable to definitively ascertain whether reduced HF hospitalizations are related to undertreatment in the preimplant period or improved treatment in the postimplant period,” Dr. Desai said.
The study was sponsored by Abbott, maker of the CardioMEMS PAP sensor. Dr. Desai and his associates reported ties to Abbott and St. Jude Medical.
Real-world evidence about the PAP sensor is particularly important, because the FDA approved the device amid considerable controversy over the CHAMPION trial and its sponsor. Employees of the sponsor were considered to have contaminated the initial data, and the FDA initially rejected the device. Substantial uncertainty still persists concerning the sensor’s effectiveness in reducing HF hospitalizations.
In addition, the percentage of HF patients who have received the device is extremely small, given that the study and the highly selected patient sample make both causal inferences and generalizability of the findings difficult.
The net effect of these important limitations is that the study by Desai et al. lacks the strength to change prior assumptions about the PAP sensor’s benefits in any direction. Unfortunately, this study doesn’t have the evidentiary robustness to inform clinical decisions.
Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, and Sanket S. Dhruva, MD, are both in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program and at the Yale School of Medicine and Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Krumholz reported ties to Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic; Dr. Dhruva reported having no relevant financial disclosures. They made these remarks in an editorial accompanying the study (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 19. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.019).
Real-world evidence about the PAP sensor is particularly important, because the FDA approved the device amid considerable controversy over the CHAMPION trial and its sponsor. Employees of the sponsor were considered to have contaminated the initial data, and the FDA initially rejected the device. Substantial uncertainty still persists concerning the sensor’s effectiveness in reducing HF hospitalizations.
In addition, the percentage of HF patients who have received the device is extremely small, given that the study and the highly selected patient sample make both causal inferences and generalizability of the findings difficult.
The net effect of these important limitations is that the study by Desai et al. lacks the strength to change prior assumptions about the PAP sensor’s benefits in any direction. Unfortunately, this study doesn’t have the evidentiary robustness to inform clinical decisions.
Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, and Sanket S. Dhruva, MD, are both in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program and at the Yale School of Medicine and Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Krumholz reported ties to Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic; Dr. Dhruva reported having no relevant financial disclosures. They made these remarks in an editorial accompanying the study (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 19. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.019).
Real-world evidence about the PAP sensor is particularly important, because the FDA approved the device amid considerable controversy over the CHAMPION trial and its sponsor. Employees of the sponsor were considered to have contaminated the initial data, and the FDA initially rejected the device. Substantial uncertainty still persists concerning the sensor’s effectiveness in reducing HF hospitalizations.
In addition, the percentage of HF patients who have received the device is extremely small, given that the study and the highly selected patient sample make both causal inferences and generalizability of the findings difficult.
The net effect of these important limitations is that the study by Desai et al. lacks the strength to change prior assumptions about the PAP sensor’s benefits in any direction. Unfortunately, this study doesn’t have the evidentiary robustness to inform clinical decisions.
Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, and Sanket S. Dhruva, MD, are both in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program and at the Yale School of Medicine and Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Krumholz reported ties to Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic; Dr. Dhruva reported having no relevant financial disclosures. They made these remarks in an editorial accompanying the study (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Mar 19. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.019).
Implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure sensor to guide care in chronic heart failure was associated with a significant 45% reduction in HF hospitalization and its attendant substantial costs in a real-world patient population, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The PAP sensor is used to monitor pulmonary artery filling pressure, which rises in many HF patients during the weeks preceding an HF exacerbation. This early detection of progressing congestion allows clinicians to intervene earlier and head off hospitalization for the exacerbation.
Their intention was to determine whether the positive results of the CHAMPION clinical trial, which prompted FDA approval of the device as a means to reduce HF-associated hospitalizations, could be replicated in a real-world population, said Dr. Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The results of their study were presented March 19 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2017 Mar 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.009).
The mean age of the study cohort was 71 years, and 40% of the participants were at least 75 years of age. Women composed 40% of the cohort. There was a high burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This represents a broader sample than was enrolled in the CHAMPION trial, he noted.
There were 1,020 HF hospitalizations before implantation and 381 afterward. A total of 59% of patients had at least one HF hospitalization before the PAP implantation, compared with 22% afterward. The median number of HF hospitalizations was 0.92 per patient before implantation and 0.37 per patient afterward.
Further analysis showed that the cumulative rate of HF hospitalization was 45% lower during the 6 months after implantation than during the 6 months preceding it (hazard ratio, 0.55). This finding remained robust across several subgroups of patients and in several sensitivity analyses.
These reductions were associated with a corresponding decline in costs related to HF care, which dropped by $7,433 per patient.
In addition to HF-related hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations also declined by roughly 30% after implantation of a PAP sensor (HR, 0.69).
These findings suggest that the reduction in hospitalizations, along with attendant reductions in the costs of care, may be achievable in real-world practice. The 45% drop in HF hospitalizations in this study “compares favorably with the 28% reduction seen with PAP-guided therapy over the same time period in the randomized CHAMPION study that supported the initial FDA approval,” Dr. Desai said.
Moreover, a subgroup of 480 patients had data for 12 months preceding and 12 months following implantation. Analysis of those data showed that the benefits of PAP monitoring to guide HF care “were consistent over longer-term follow-up, with a 34% reduction in HF hospitalizations sustained at 12 months,” he added.
The study had several limitations. It excluded Medicare Part D data, so medication changes related to implantation could not be examined and may have exerted substantial influence on study outcomes.
It also didn’t include the actual PAP-sensor data, “which makes it challenging to confirm that physicians intervened to treat elevated PAPs” and that that intervention is the reason for the study outcomes.
“We were unable to definitively ascertain whether reduced HF hospitalizations are related to undertreatment in the preimplant period or improved treatment in the postimplant period,” Dr. Desai said.
The study was sponsored by Abbott, maker of the CardioMEMS PAP sensor. Dr. Desai and his associates reported ties to Abbott and St. Jude Medical.
Implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure sensor to guide care in chronic heart failure was associated with a significant 45% reduction in HF hospitalization and its attendant substantial costs in a real-world patient population, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The PAP sensor is used to monitor pulmonary artery filling pressure, which rises in many HF patients during the weeks preceding an HF exacerbation. This early detection of progressing congestion allows clinicians to intervene earlier and head off hospitalization for the exacerbation.
Their intention was to determine whether the positive results of the CHAMPION clinical trial, which prompted FDA approval of the device as a means to reduce HF-associated hospitalizations, could be replicated in a real-world population, said Dr. Desai of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
The results of their study were presented March 19 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2017 Mar 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.009).
The mean age of the study cohort was 71 years, and 40% of the participants were at least 75 years of age. Women composed 40% of the cohort. There was a high burden of comorbid illness, including diabetes, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This represents a broader sample than was enrolled in the CHAMPION trial, he noted.
There were 1,020 HF hospitalizations before implantation and 381 afterward. A total of 59% of patients had at least one HF hospitalization before the PAP implantation, compared with 22% afterward. The median number of HF hospitalizations was 0.92 per patient before implantation and 0.37 per patient afterward.
Further analysis showed that the cumulative rate of HF hospitalization was 45% lower during the 6 months after implantation than during the 6 months preceding it (hazard ratio, 0.55). This finding remained robust across several subgroups of patients and in several sensitivity analyses.
These reductions were associated with a corresponding decline in costs related to HF care, which dropped by $7,433 per patient.
In addition to HF-related hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations also declined by roughly 30% after implantation of a PAP sensor (HR, 0.69).
These findings suggest that the reduction in hospitalizations, along with attendant reductions in the costs of care, may be achievable in real-world practice. The 45% drop in HF hospitalizations in this study “compares favorably with the 28% reduction seen with PAP-guided therapy over the same time period in the randomized CHAMPION study that supported the initial FDA approval,” Dr. Desai said.
Moreover, a subgroup of 480 patients had data for 12 months preceding and 12 months following implantation. Analysis of those data showed that the benefits of PAP monitoring to guide HF care “were consistent over longer-term follow-up, with a 34% reduction in HF hospitalizations sustained at 12 months,” he added.
The study had several limitations. It excluded Medicare Part D data, so medication changes related to implantation could not be examined and may have exerted substantial influence on study outcomes.
It also didn’t include the actual PAP-sensor data, “which makes it challenging to confirm that physicians intervened to treat elevated PAPs” and that that intervention is the reason for the study outcomes.
“We were unable to definitively ascertain whether reduced HF hospitalizations are related to undertreatment in the preimplant period or improved treatment in the postimplant period,” Dr. Desai said.
The study was sponsored by Abbott, maker of the CardioMEMS PAP sensor. Dr. Desai and his associates reported ties to Abbott and St. Jude Medical.
FROM ACC 17
Key clinical point: Implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure sensor to guide care in chronic heart failure was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalizations and associated substantial costs.
Major finding: The cumulative rate of HF hospitalization was 45% lower during the 6 months after implantation than during the 6 months preceding it (hazard ratio, 0.55).
Data source: A retrospective observational cohort study comparing HF hospitalizations during the 6 months before and the 6 months after PAP sensor implantation in 1,114 Medicare patients.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Abbott, maker of the CardioMEMS PAP sensor. Dr. Desai and his associates reported ties to Abbott and St. Jude Medical.
Routine U.S. mitral clip use found reassuring
WASHINGTON – U.S. heart teams have used the mitral valve transcatheter clip repair device for fixing leaky mitral valves exactly the way it was designed to be used once the device hit the U.S. market in 2013.
In the first review of periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of U.S. patients treated with the MitraClip repair device and entered in the national device registry, the results showed “acute effectiveness and safety of transcatheter mitral valve repair,” Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“We need to be keenly aware of the impact of comorbidities on the prognosis of these patients. The data show that untreated comorbidities really impact prognosis,” said Dr. Sorajja, an interventional cardiologist and director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease of the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
“The clip is for the no-option patient, meaning patients at high risk who have no surgical option. The data show that these are the patients who are being treated” in routine U.S. practice. “The data show that, even for these patients, you can still get pretty good results,” Dr. Sorajja said in an interview. “These are the first data on clip use in routine U.S. practice, and they are really reassuring. The data show that the clip is being used in the correct way, without risk creep, on patients with prohibitive surgical risk based on their STS [Society of Thoracic Surgeons] predicted mortality and frailty scores.”
The data he and his associates reviewed came from the 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent a transcatheter mitral valve clip repair following the devices premarketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration in November 2013, and through September 2015 at any of 250 U.S. sites offering the procedure.
The data on patient demographics and clinical status came from the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry, and data on 1-year outcomes came from Medicare records for 1,867 (63%) of the patients.
The mitral valve repair patients averaged 82 years old, 85% had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV, 93% had a mitral valve regurgitation grade of 3 or 4, half were judged frail, and their STS predicted mortality risk from mitral valve repair was about 6% and from valve replacement about 9%.
Immediately after their procedure, 93% of patients had a valve regurgitation grade of 2 or less, the periprocedural mortality rate was just under 3%, and 86% of patients were discharged home following a median length of stay of 2 days. Acute procedural success occurred in 92% of patients, Dr. Sorajja reported.
At 1 year, the mortality rate among the patients followed through their Medicare records showed that 26% of patients had died, 20% had been hospitalized at least once for heart failure, and 38% had at least one of these two outcomes. In addition, 6% underwent a repeat procedure of transcatheter mitral repair, and 2% had mitral valve replacement surgery.
Although patients who had a successful repair with a residual regurgitation grade of 0 or 1 still had a substantial mortality rate of 22% during 1-year follow-up, survival was worse in patients with higher grades of residual mitral regurgitation. One-year mortality among those with residual grade 2 regurgitation was 29%, and for those with residual grade 3 or 4 regurgitation, 1-year mortality was 49%.
Many patients also had at least one comorbidity, and when these were present, 1-year survival was significantly worse. In a multivariate model, patients on dialysis had twofold greater mortality than did those not on dialysis, patients with severe tricuspid valve regurgitation had twice the mortality of those with lesser or no tricuspid regurgitation, and patients with moderate or severe lung disease had a 50% higher mortality, compared with those with milder or no lung disease.
The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – U.S. heart teams have used the mitral valve transcatheter clip repair device for fixing leaky mitral valves exactly the way it was designed to be used once the device hit the U.S. market in 2013.
In the first review of periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of U.S. patients treated with the MitraClip repair device and entered in the national device registry, the results showed “acute effectiveness and safety of transcatheter mitral valve repair,” Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“We need to be keenly aware of the impact of comorbidities on the prognosis of these patients. The data show that untreated comorbidities really impact prognosis,” said Dr. Sorajja, an interventional cardiologist and director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease of the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
“The clip is for the no-option patient, meaning patients at high risk who have no surgical option. The data show that these are the patients who are being treated” in routine U.S. practice. “The data show that, even for these patients, you can still get pretty good results,” Dr. Sorajja said in an interview. “These are the first data on clip use in routine U.S. practice, and they are really reassuring. The data show that the clip is being used in the correct way, without risk creep, on patients with prohibitive surgical risk based on their STS [Society of Thoracic Surgeons] predicted mortality and frailty scores.”
The data he and his associates reviewed came from the 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent a transcatheter mitral valve clip repair following the devices premarketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration in November 2013, and through September 2015 at any of 250 U.S. sites offering the procedure.
The data on patient demographics and clinical status came from the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry, and data on 1-year outcomes came from Medicare records for 1,867 (63%) of the patients.
The mitral valve repair patients averaged 82 years old, 85% had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV, 93% had a mitral valve regurgitation grade of 3 or 4, half were judged frail, and their STS predicted mortality risk from mitral valve repair was about 6% and from valve replacement about 9%.
Immediately after their procedure, 93% of patients had a valve regurgitation grade of 2 or less, the periprocedural mortality rate was just under 3%, and 86% of patients were discharged home following a median length of stay of 2 days. Acute procedural success occurred in 92% of patients, Dr. Sorajja reported.
At 1 year, the mortality rate among the patients followed through their Medicare records showed that 26% of patients had died, 20% had been hospitalized at least once for heart failure, and 38% had at least one of these two outcomes. In addition, 6% underwent a repeat procedure of transcatheter mitral repair, and 2% had mitral valve replacement surgery.
Although patients who had a successful repair with a residual regurgitation grade of 0 or 1 still had a substantial mortality rate of 22% during 1-year follow-up, survival was worse in patients with higher grades of residual mitral regurgitation. One-year mortality among those with residual grade 2 regurgitation was 29%, and for those with residual grade 3 or 4 regurgitation, 1-year mortality was 49%.
Many patients also had at least one comorbidity, and when these were present, 1-year survival was significantly worse. In a multivariate model, patients on dialysis had twofold greater mortality than did those not on dialysis, patients with severe tricuspid valve regurgitation had twice the mortality of those with lesser or no tricuspid regurgitation, and patients with moderate or severe lung disease had a 50% higher mortality, compared with those with milder or no lung disease.
The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – U.S. heart teams have used the mitral valve transcatheter clip repair device for fixing leaky mitral valves exactly the way it was designed to be used once the device hit the U.S. market in 2013.
In the first review of periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of U.S. patients treated with the MitraClip repair device and entered in the national device registry, the results showed “acute effectiveness and safety of transcatheter mitral valve repair,” Paul Sorajja, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
“We need to be keenly aware of the impact of comorbidities on the prognosis of these patients. The data show that untreated comorbidities really impact prognosis,” said Dr. Sorajja, an interventional cardiologist and director of the Center of Valve and Structural Heart Disease of the Minneapolis Heart Institute.
“The clip is for the no-option patient, meaning patients at high risk who have no surgical option. The data show that these are the patients who are being treated” in routine U.S. practice. “The data show that, even for these patients, you can still get pretty good results,” Dr. Sorajja said in an interview. “These are the first data on clip use in routine U.S. practice, and they are really reassuring. The data show that the clip is being used in the correct way, without risk creep, on patients with prohibitive surgical risk based on their STS [Society of Thoracic Surgeons] predicted mortality and frailty scores.”
The data he and his associates reviewed came from the 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent a transcatheter mitral valve clip repair following the devices premarketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration in November 2013, and through September 2015 at any of 250 U.S. sites offering the procedure.
The data on patient demographics and clinical status came from the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry, and data on 1-year outcomes came from Medicare records for 1,867 (63%) of the patients.
The mitral valve repair patients averaged 82 years old, 85% had a New York Heart Association functional class of III or IV, 93% had a mitral valve regurgitation grade of 3 or 4, half were judged frail, and their STS predicted mortality risk from mitral valve repair was about 6% and from valve replacement about 9%.
Immediately after their procedure, 93% of patients had a valve regurgitation grade of 2 or less, the periprocedural mortality rate was just under 3%, and 86% of patients were discharged home following a median length of stay of 2 days. Acute procedural success occurred in 92% of patients, Dr. Sorajja reported.
At 1 year, the mortality rate among the patients followed through their Medicare records showed that 26% of patients had died, 20% had been hospitalized at least once for heart failure, and 38% had at least one of these two outcomes. In addition, 6% underwent a repeat procedure of transcatheter mitral repair, and 2% had mitral valve replacement surgery.
Although patients who had a successful repair with a residual regurgitation grade of 0 or 1 still had a substantial mortality rate of 22% during 1-year follow-up, survival was worse in patients with higher grades of residual mitral regurgitation. One-year mortality among those with residual grade 2 regurgitation was 29%, and for those with residual grade 3 or 4 regurgitation, 1-year mortality was 49%.
Many patients also had at least one comorbidity, and when these were present, 1-year survival was significantly worse. In a multivariate model, patients on dialysis had twofold greater mortality than did those not on dialysis, patients with severe tricuspid valve regurgitation had twice the mortality of those with lesser or no tricuspid regurgitation, and patients with moderate or severe lung disease had a 50% higher mortality, compared with those with milder or no lung disease.
The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: U.S. mitral clip patients averaged 82 years of age, their acute success rate was 92%, and 1-year mortality was 26%.
Data source: A review of 2,952 U.S. patients who underwent transcatheter mitral clip repair and entered into the STS/ACC/TVT registry through September 2015.
Disclosures: The study was supported in part by Abbott Vascular, the company that markets the MitraClip. Dr. Sorajja has been a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Abbott Vascular. He has also been a consultant to Integer, Lake Region Medical, and Medtronic, and a speaker on behalf of Boston Scientific.
Decision tool helps patients compare SAVR, TAVR
WASHINGTON – A decision-assistance tool will soon be available that is designed to help intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and their physicians better compare each patient’s expected outcome from surgical or transcatheter valve replacement based on each patient’s individual clinical and demographic features.
The decision tool will be available as both a web-based calculator and a downloadable app. It is derived from the outcomes of 4,732 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during 2011-2013 and who were included in the registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), as well as an equal number of closely matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during 2014-2015 and entered in the Transcatheter Valve (TVT) registry run by STS and the American College of Cardiology. Tool development also used longer-term outcomes data collected through Medicare.
After receiving patient-specific data, the decision tool estimates the patient’s short-term and 1-year predicted risks for death and stroke and likelihood of being discharged home, as well as the predicted number of days the patient would remain alive and out of the hospital during the first postprocedural year, J. Matthew Brennan, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons “are desperately looking for something like this” because, currently, the only option is to estimate a patient’s risk after SAVR or TAVR using tools developed only from patients who underwent one of these procedures. The new tool gives clinicians and patients a way to compare the two options for an individual patient in a way that “minimizes the biases,” said Dr. Brennan, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and principal investigator for development of the website and the tool.
Dr. Brennan and his associates developed the decision assistance tool with funding from the Patient-Center Outcomes Research Institute, and it will be available online at no cost at valveadvice.org. The website was already up and running when Dr. Brennan announced the tool during the meeting, and it currently has patient-centered information about aortic valve disease and the options available for treating it. He expects the decision tool to be posted on the site by April or May.
The data he and his associates used to create the decision tool came from a total of more than 197,000 SAVR patients entered into the STS SAVR database during 2011-2013 and more than 25,000 TAVR patients enrolled in the TVT registry during 2014-2015. They used propensity score matching to identify 4,732 matched patients from each group. The patients averaged 81-82 years old, nearly half were women, and their average STS risk score was 5.5-5.8, which meant that patients fell in an intermediate-risk range by this criterion. Just over three-quarters of the TAVR patients had their procedure done via a transfemoral route.
The analysis showed that, overall, 1-year mortality and stroke rates following each type of procedure were not significantly different, and several subgroup analyses failed to identify any type of patient who fell outside this overall pattern. The TAVR patients had a stroke rate that continued to rise during 12-month follow-up, compared with a much flatter pattern among the SAVR patients. While this did not result in an excess stroke rate, the pattern over time suggested that TAVR patients may not have received optimal anticoagulant treatment during the year following their procedure, Dr. Brennan said. The number of months that patients were alive and not hospitalized was also very similar in the SAVR and TAVR groups.
While the 1-year outcomes were very similar, the periprocedural outcomes showed several statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the SAVR patients at 5%, compared with 3% in the TAVR patients. The SAVR patients also were significantly more likely to develop a need for dialysis and a need for red cells and to have a doubled duration in their ICU stay and in their postprocedural length of hospitalization, compared with TAVR patients. On the other hand, TAVR patients were significantly more likely to need a new pacemaker while hospitalized and had a 10 times higher rate of major vascular complications. The stroke rates were very similar in both arms, Dr. Brennan reported.
According to Dr. Brennan, the most striking difference in hospital outcomes was the discharge destination for patients: 70% of TAVR patients went home after their procedural hospitalization, compared with 41% of the SAVR patients. Discharges home following periprocedural hospitalization were “substantially higher” with TAVR, he said.
Another notable feature of these data was how they contrasted with the 1-year outcomes reported from the German Aortic Valve Registry at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016. In the German registry, 1-year mortality after propensity-score adjustment was about 11% among SAVR patients and about 14% among TAVR patients treated with a transfemoral approach, a statistically significant difference, reported Nicolas Werner, MD, of the Ludwigshafen (Germany) Clinic.
“I think the reason we see a difference in the German data is they weren’t able to remove from their analysis the really high-risk patients” who preferentially underwent TAVR, suggested Dr. Brennan. “We had the ability to match patients who had equipoise for undergoing SAVR or TAVR. That’s why our results are more consistent with the findings from the TAVR clinical trials.”
“One of the most important findings from [Dr. Brennan’s] study is [that] it makes the German Registry results look like the outliers rather than the results from the TAVR clinical trials,” commented Howard C. Hermann, MD, professor of cardiovascular disease and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – A decision-assistance tool will soon be available that is designed to help intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and their physicians better compare each patient’s expected outcome from surgical or transcatheter valve replacement based on each patient’s individual clinical and demographic features.
The decision tool will be available as both a web-based calculator and a downloadable app. It is derived from the outcomes of 4,732 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during 2011-2013 and who were included in the registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), as well as an equal number of closely matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during 2014-2015 and entered in the Transcatheter Valve (TVT) registry run by STS and the American College of Cardiology. Tool development also used longer-term outcomes data collected through Medicare.
After receiving patient-specific data, the decision tool estimates the patient’s short-term and 1-year predicted risks for death and stroke and likelihood of being discharged home, as well as the predicted number of days the patient would remain alive and out of the hospital during the first postprocedural year, J. Matthew Brennan, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons “are desperately looking for something like this” because, currently, the only option is to estimate a patient’s risk after SAVR or TAVR using tools developed only from patients who underwent one of these procedures. The new tool gives clinicians and patients a way to compare the two options for an individual patient in a way that “minimizes the biases,” said Dr. Brennan, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and principal investigator for development of the website and the tool.
Dr. Brennan and his associates developed the decision assistance tool with funding from the Patient-Center Outcomes Research Institute, and it will be available online at no cost at valveadvice.org. The website was already up and running when Dr. Brennan announced the tool during the meeting, and it currently has patient-centered information about aortic valve disease and the options available for treating it. He expects the decision tool to be posted on the site by April or May.
The data he and his associates used to create the decision tool came from a total of more than 197,000 SAVR patients entered into the STS SAVR database during 2011-2013 and more than 25,000 TAVR patients enrolled in the TVT registry during 2014-2015. They used propensity score matching to identify 4,732 matched patients from each group. The patients averaged 81-82 years old, nearly half were women, and their average STS risk score was 5.5-5.8, which meant that patients fell in an intermediate-risk range by this criterion. Just over three-quarters of the TAVR patients had their procedure done via a transfemoral route.
The analysis showed that, overall, 1-year mortality and stroke rates following each type of procedure were not significantly different, and several subgroup analyses failed to identify any type of patient who fell outside this overall pattern. The TAVR patients had a stroke rate that continued to rise during 12-month follow-up, compared with a much flatter pattern among the SAVR patients. While this did not result in an excess stroke rate, the pattern over time suggested that TAVR patients may not have received optimal anticoagulant treatment during the year following their procedure, Dr. Brennan said. The number of months that patients were alive and not hospitalized was also very similar in the SAVR and TAVR groups.
While the 1-year outcomes were very similar, the periprocedural outcomes showed several statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the SAVR patients at 5%, compared with 3% in the TAVR patients. The SAVR patients also were significantly more likely to develop a need for dialysis and a need for red cells and to have a doubled duration in their ICU stay and in their postprocedural length of hospitalization, compared with TAVR patients. On the other hand, TAVR patients were significantly more likely to need a new pacemaker while hospitalized and had a 10 times higher rate of major vascular complications. The stroke rates were very similar in both arms, Dr. Brennan reported.
According to Dr. Brennan, the most striking difference in hospital outcomes was the discharge destination for patients: 70% of TAVR patients went home after their procedural hospitalization, compared with 41% of the SAVR patients. Discharges home following periprocedural hospitalization were “substantially higher” with TAVR, he said.
Another notable feature of these data was how they contrasted with the 1-year outcomes reported from the German Aortic Valve Registry at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016. In the German registry, 1-year mortality after propensity-score adjustment was about 11% among SAVR patients and about 14% among TAVR patients treated with a transfemoral approach, a statistically significant difference, reported Nicolas Werner, MD, of the Ludwigshafen (Germany) Clinic.
“I think the reason we see a difference in the German data is they weren’t able to remove from their analysis the really high-risk patients” who preferentially underwent TAVR, suggested Dr. Brennan. “We had the ability to match patients who had equipoise for undergoing SAVR or TAVR. That’s why our results are more consistent with the findings from the TAVR clinical trials.”
“One of the most important findings from [Dr. Brennan’s] study is [that] it makes the German Registry results look like the outliers rather than the results from the TAVR clinical trials,” commented Howard C. Hermann, MD, professor of cardiovascular disease and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – A decision-assistance tool will soon be available that is designed to help intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and their physicians better compare each patient’s expected outcome from surgical or transcatheter valve replacement based on each patient’s individual clinical and demographic features.
The decision tool will be available as both a web-based calculator and a downloadable app. It is derived from the outcomes of 4,732 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during 2011-2013 and who were included in the registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), as well as an equal number of closely matched patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) during 2014-2015 and entered in the Transcatheter Valve (TVT) registry run by STS and the American College of Cardiology. Tool development also used longer-term outcomes data collected through Medicare.
After receiving patient-specific data, the decision tool estimates the patient’s short-term and 1-year predicted risks for death and stroke and likelihood of being discharged home, as well as the predicted number of days the patient would remain alive and out of the hospital during the first postprocedural year, J. Matthew Brennan, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons “are desperately looking for something like this” because, currently, the only option is to estimate a patient’s risk after SAVR or TAVR using tools developed only from patients who underwent one of these procedures. The new tool gives clinicians and patients a way to compare the two options for an individual patient in a way that “minimizes the biases,” said Dr. Brennan, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and principal investigator for development of the website and the tool.
Dr. Brennan and his associates developed the decision assistance tool with funding from the Patient-Center Outcomes Research Institute, and it will be available online at no cost at valveadvice.org. The website was already up and running when Dr. Brennan announced the tool during the meeting, and it currently has patient-centered information about aortic valve disease and the options available for treating it. He expects the decision tool to be posted on the site by April or May.
The data he and his associates used to create the decision tool came from a total of more than 197,000 SAVR patients entered into the STS SAVR database during 2011-2013 and more than 25,000 TAVR patients enrolled in the TVT registry during 2014-2015. They used propensity score matching to identify 4,732 matched patients from each group. The patients averaged 81-82 years old, nearly half were women, and their average STS risk score was 5.5-5.8, which meant that patients fell in an intermediate-risk range by this criterion. Just over three-quarters of the TAVR patients had their procedure done via a transfemoral route.
The analysis showed that, overall, 1-year mortality and stroke rates following each type of procedure were not significantly different, and several subgroup analyses failed to identify any type of patient who fell outside this overall pattern. The TAVR patients had a stroke rate that continued to rise during 12-month follow-up, compared with a much flatter pattern among the SAVR patients. While this did not result in an excess stroke rate, the pattern over time suggested that TAVR patients may not have received optimal anticoagulant treatment during the year following their procedure, Dr. Brennan said. The number of months that patients were alive and not hospitalized was also very similar in the SAVR and TAVR groups.
While the 1-year outcomes were very similar, the periprocedural outcomes showed several statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the SAVR patients at 5%, compared with 3% in the TAVR patients. The SAVR patients also were significantly more likely to develop a need for dialysis and a need for red cells and to have a doubled duration in their ICU stay and in their postprocedural length of hospitalization, compared with TAVR patients. On the other hand, TAVR patients were significantly more likely to need a new pacemaker while hospitalized and had a 10 times higher rate of major vascular complications. The stroke rates were very similar in both arms, Dr. Brennan reported.
According to Dr. Brennan, the most striking difference in hospital outcomes was the discharge destination for patients: 70% of TAVR patients went home after their procedural hospitalization, compared with 41% of the SAVR patients. Discharges home following periprocedural hospitalization were “substantially higher” with TAVR, he said.
Another notable feature of these data was how they contrasted with the 1-year outcomes reported from the German Aortic Valve Registry at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in November 2016. In the German registry, 1-year mortality after propensity-score adjustment was about 11% among SAVR patients and about 14% among TAVR patients treated with a transfemoral approach, a statistically significant difference, reported Nicolas Werner, MD, of the Ludwigshafen (Germany) Clinic.
“I think the reason we see a difference in the German data is they weren’t able to remove from their analysis the really high-risk patients” who preferentially underwent TAVR, suggested Dr. Brennan. “We had the ability to match patients who had equipoise for undergoing SAVR or TAVR. That’s why our results are more consistent with the findings from the TAVR clinical trials.”
“One of the most important findings from [Dr. Brennan’s] study is [that] it makes the German Registry results look like the outliers rather than the results from the TAVR clinical trials,” commented Howard C. Hermann, MD, professor of cardiovascular disease and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: In matched U.S. patients, TAVR led to 29% more patients being discharged home following their procedures, compared with SAVR.
Data source: Records for 9,464 U.S. patients who underwent TAVR or SAVR during 2011-2015.
Disclosures: Data analysis and development of the valveadvice.org website and decision tool received no commercial support. Dr. Brennan had no disclosures. Dr. Hermann has received honoraria and research support from Edwards Pharmaceuticals, research support from Medtronic, and honoraria and research support from several other companies.
Alpha-blockers deemed safe in heart failure
WASHINGTON – Prescribing alpha-adrenergic blocking agents for treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy in men with heart failure proved to be not only safe, but also was associated with significantly reduced rates of both heart failure readmission and all-cause mortality in a large retrospective cohort study.
“These findings are associative, not necessarily causative. But the novel association between alpha-blocker treatment and improved outcomes may warrant further study,” Alberta L. Warner, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. 
Many men with heart failure also have benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), for which they receive treatment with an alpha-blocker. Yet little is known about the impact of this drug class on safety and outcomes in the setting of heart failure. Of note, the use of alpha-blockers for treatment of hypertension was associated with increased risk of new-onset heart failure in the ALLHAT study.
To shed light on the safety of alpha-blockers in patients with prevalent heart failure, Dr. Warner and her coinvestigators analyzed data on nearly 170,000 men with a primary diagnosis of heart failure discharged from Veterans Affairs hospitals in 2002-2015. They determined that fully 28% of them left the hospital on an alpha-blocker. From this pool of nearly 48,000 heart failure patients, they were able to propensity-score match 38,991 on the basis of 54 baseline clinical characteristics to an equal number of VA heart failure patients who weren’t on an alpha-blocker. The study outcomes were time to first readmission for heart failure or all-cause mortality during 2 years of follow-up.
Patients on an alpha-blocker had a 38% heart failure readmission rate at 2 years, compared with 40% in nonusers, for a modest, albeit statistically significant, 6% reduction in relative risk. The all-cause mortality rate also was significantly lower in patients on an alpha-blocker: 40% versus 44%, for a 9% relative risk reduction.
In a subanalysis restricted to the heart failure patients on an alpha-blocker, higher-dose therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality than was a lower-dose alpha-blocker during 2 years of follow-up, with a 9% relative risk reduction. A high-dose alpha-blocker, however, wasn’t significantly more effective than lower-dose therapy in terms of reducing heart failure readmissions, said Dr. Warner, a cardiologist at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.
Similarly, patients treated with a nonspecific, peripherally vasoactive alpha-blocker had a significantly lower mortality rate than those on an alpha-1a-adrenergic–specific agent, with a highly significant 15% reduction in relative risk. The type of alpha-blocker, however, didn’t make a significant difference in terms of heart failure readmissions, where both types of agents were similarly better than not being on an alpha-blocker at all, she said.
Eighty-five percent of study participants were on a beta-blocker. Heart failure readmissions and all-cause mortality were significantly lower with alpha-blocker therapy, regardless of whether patients were on background beta-blocker therapy.
One audience member, however, noting that the beta-blocker carvedilol possesses some alpha-blocking effects, asked if outcomes differed depending on whether a patient was on carvedilol or metoprolol.
Dr. Warner replied that those numbers are still being crunched, and that the final answer isn’t in yet, but her preliminary impression is that the benefits of alpha-blocker therapy in terms of both heart failure readmissions and all-cause mortality were attenuated in the patients on carvedilol, possibly due to that beta-blocker’s alpha-blocking properties.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
WASHINGTON – Prescribing alpha-adrenergic blocking agents for treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy in men with heart failure proved to be not only safe, but also was associated with significantly reduced rates of both heart failure readmission and all-cause mortality in a large retrospective cohort study.
“These findings are associative, not necessarily causative. But the novel association between alpha-blocker treatment and improved outcomes may warrant further study,” Alberta L. Warner, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Many men with heart failure also have benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), for which they receive treatment with an alpha-blocker. Yet little is known about the impact of this drug class on safety and outcomes in the setting of heart failure. Of note, the use of alpha-blockers for treatment of hypertension was associated with increased risk of new-onset heart failure in the ALLHAT study.
To shed light on the safety of alpha-blockers in patients with prevalent heart failure, Dr. Warner and her coinvestigators analyzed data on nearly 170,000 men with a primary diagnosis of heart failure discharged from Veterans Affairs hospitals in 2002-2015. They determined that fully 28% of them left the hospital on an alpha-blocker. From this pool of nearly 48,000 heart failure patients, they were able to propensity-score match 38,991 on the basis of 54 baseline clinical characteristics to an equal number of VA heart failure patients who weren’t on an alpha-blocker. The study outcomes were time to first readmission for heart failure or all-cause mortality during 2 years of follow-up.
Patients on an alpha-blocker had a 38% heart failure readmission rate at 2 years, compared with 40% in nonusers, for a modest, albeit statistically significant, 6% reduction in relative risk. The all-cause mortality rate also was significantly lower in patients on an alpha-blocker: 40% versus 44%, for a 9% relative risk reduction.
In a subanalysis restricted to the heart failure patients on an alpha-blocker, higher-dose therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality than was a lower-dose alpha-blocker during 2 years of follow-up, with a 9% relative risk reduction. A high-dose alpha-blocker, however, wasn’t significantly more effective than lower-dose therapy in terms of reducing heart failure readmissions, said Dr. Warner, a cardiologist at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.
Similarly, patients treated with a nonspecific, peripherally vasoactive alpha-blocker had a significantly lower mortality rate than those on an alpha-1a-adrenergic–specific agent, with a highly significant 15% reduction in relative risk. The type of alpha-blocker, however, didn’t make a significant difference in terms of heart failure readmissions, where both types of agents were similarly better than not being on an alpha-blocker at all, she said.
Eighty-five percent of study participants were on a beta-blocker. Heart failure readmissions and all-cause mortality were significantly lower with alpha-blocker therapy, regardless of whether patients were on background beta-blocker therapy.
One audience member, however, noting that the beta-blocker carvedilol possesses some alpha-blocking effects, asked if outcomes differed depending on whether a patient was on carvedilol or metoprolol.
Dr. Warner replied that those numbers are still being crunched, and that the final answer isn’t in yet, but her preliminary impression is that the benefits of alpha-blocker therapy in terms of both heart failure readmissions and all-cause mortality were attenuated in the patients on carvedilol, possibly due to that beta-blocker’s alpha-blocking properties.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
WASHINGTON – Prescribing alpha-adrenergic blocking agents for treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy in men with heart failure proved to be not only safe, but also was associated with significantly reduced rates of both heart failure readmission and all-cause mortality in a large retrospective cohort study.
“These findings are associative, not necessarily causative. But the novel association between alpha-blocker treatment and improved outcomes may warrant further study,” Alberta L. Warner, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
Many men with heart failure also have benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), for which they receive treatment with an alpha-blocker. Yet little is known about the impact of this drug class on safety and outcomes in the setting of heart failure. Of note, the use of alpha-blockers for treatment of hypertension was associated with increased risk of new-onset heart failure in the ALLHAT study.
To shed light on the safety of alpha-blockers in patients with prevalent heart failure, Dr. Warner and her coinvestigators analyzed data on nearly 170,000 men with a primary diagnosis of heart failure discharged from Veterans Affairs hospitals in 2002-2015. They determined that fully 28% of them left the hospital on an alpha-blocker. From this pool of nearly 48,000 heart failure patients, they were able to propensity-score match 38,991 on the basis of 54 baseline clinical characteristics to an equal number of VA heart failure patients who weren’t on an alpha-blocker. The study outcomes were time to first readmission for heart failure or all-cause mortality during 2 years of follow-up.
Patients on an alpha-blocker had a 38% heart failure readmission rate at 2 years, compared with 40% in nonusers, for a modest, albeit statistically significant, 6% reduction in relative risk. The all-cause mortality rate also was significantly lower in patients on an alpha-blocker: 40% versus 44%, for a 9% relative risk reduction.
In a subanalysis restricted to the heart failure patients on an alpha-blocker, higher-dose therapy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality than was a lower-dose alpha-blocker during 2 years of follow-up, with a 9% relative risk reduction. A high-dose alpha-blocker, however, wasn’t significantly more effective than lower-dose therapy in terms of reducing heart failure readmissions, said Dr. Warner, a cardiologist at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.
Similarly, patients treated with a nonspecific, peripherally vasoactive alpha-blocker had a significantly lower mortality rate than those on an alpha-1a-adrenergic–specific agent, with a highly significant 15% reduction in relative risk. The type of alpha-blocker, however, didn’t make a significant difference in terms of heart failure readmissions, where both types of agents were similarly better than not being on an alpha-blocker at all, she said.
Eighty-five percent of study participants were on a beta-blocker. Heart failure readmissions and all-cause mortality were significantly lower with alpha-blocker therapy, regardless of whether patients were on background beta-blocker therapy.
One audience member, however, noting that the beta-blocker carvedilol possesses some alpha-blocking effects, asked if outcomes differed depending on whether a patient was on carvedilol or metoprolol.
Dr. Warner replied that those numbers are still being crunched, and that the final answer isn’t in yet, but her preliminary impression is that the benefits of alpha-blocker therapy in terms of both heart failure readmissions and all-cause mortality were attenuated in the patients on carvedilol, possibly due to that beta-blocker’s alpha-blocking properties.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The risk of all-cause mortality in heart failure patients on an alpha-blocker was 9% lower than in extensively matched controls during 2 years of follow-up.
Data source: This retrospective cohort study included 38,991 heart failure patients taking an alpha-blocker for benign prostatic hypertrophy who were propensity matched on 54 clinical characteristics to an equal number of heart failure controls not on the medication.
Disclosures: The study presenter reported having no financial conflicts.
New-onset AF boosts bad HFrEF outcomes
WASHINGTON – New onset atrial fibrillation more than doubled the rate of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in a review of more than 15,000 such patients.
In 9,934 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and no history of atrial fibrillation (AF), development of new-onset AF was linked with a greater than twofold increased risk of cardiovascular disease death or hospitalization for heart failure during follow-up, compared with HFrEF patients who did not initially have or later develop heart failure, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical variables, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This difference for the primary endpoint of his analysis was statistically significant.
The 1,645 patients with paroxysmal AF at the start of their follow-up also had a significantly increased rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, but their increased risk when compared with HFrEF patients who didn’t develop AF was a much more modest 20% in his fully adjusted analysis. The patients who began follow-up with paroxysmal AF also had a relatively increased relative stroke rate of 33% when compared with HFrEF patients without AF at baseline who remained AF free, but the all-cause mortality rate among those with paroxysmal AF wasn’t significantly elevated, compared with the comparator group.
The 3,770 patients with persistent or permanent AF at baseline showed no statistically significant spike in their adverse event rates, compared with patients without AF, for any of the examined endpoints. The study group also included 66 patients with an undefined form of AF who weren’t included in these analyses.
“It’s the first episodes and paroxysmal episodes that cause trouble, and the trouble they cause is stroke,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. Their stroke risk gets exacerbated in clinical practice, because these patients often don’t receive the stroke prevention they need in the form of anticoagulation treatment.
“We find over and over that patients with paroxysmal AF are not anticoagulated as frequently as they should be,” Dr. McMurray said. And HFrEF patients with a first AF episode need anticoagulation, too, as soon as AF is diagnosed, he advised.
He went a step further and speculated that the reason why HFrEF patients with new onset AF did so poorly in his analysis was because they already had several prior, brief AF episodes that had gone undetected. “Many of these patients probably had undiagnosed, clinically unapparent AF episodes” that then resulted in strokes, he suggested.
The upshot is that patients with HFrEF may need more aggressive monitoring for new-onset AF, possibly in the form of small, implanted arrhythmia-detection devices. Dr. McMurray said that he and other researchers are currently testing whether this hypothesis is correct. “We and others are now looking at this because these new data are convincing that new-onset AF is bad news [for HFrEF patients].”
In the analysis, “we looked only at clinically recognized and adjudicated new-onset AF. Goodness knows how many HFrEF patients are having unrecognized paroxysmal AF. Almost certainly there is a lot that is unrecognized” that potentially could be detected using a small implanted arrhythmia monitor, which could then lead to earlier anticoagulant treatment as well as possible treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs or with catheter ablation, Dr. McMurray said. Looking for undetected AF in HFrEF patients “is where the science is moving.”
The findings that Dr. McMurray reported are “something we should act on,” commented Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The comorbidity of AF in HFrEF patients requires “aggressive anticoagulation, and also a review of their heart failure medical treatment to be sure that is optimized, because AF could be a sign of worsening heart failure,” Dr. Hernandez said in an interview. “We may need to more aggressively get HFrEF patients with AF into normal sinus rhythm.”
When Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, treats HFrEF patients with a high risk for AF, such as patients with lower ejection fractions, a dilated left ventricle, or a dilated atrium, “I frequently do 30-day loop recordings in these patients because of their risk for incident AF,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. “We don’t yet have convincing evidence for this, but it makes sense.”
Another finding from his analysis was that the HFrEF patients enrolled in these two trials did not get treatment with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist – spironolactone or eplerenone – “as often as they should,” with treatment rates of 44%-48%, compared with use of a beta-blocker in 92%-95% of patients. Treatment with eplerenone (Inspra) “has been shown to reduce the risk for new onset AF, so adding eplerenone or spironolactone is an important step that could be taken to try to prevent AF as well as treat the HFrEF and reduce mortality,” Dr. McMurray said.
PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE were funded by Novartis. Dr. McMurray has been a consultant to and has received travel and research support from Novartis, and he has received research and travel support from Amgen. Dr. Hernandez has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, and Portola. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several drug companies, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Sanofi-Aventis.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – New onset atrial fibrillation more than doubled the rate of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in a review of more than 15,000 such patients.
In 9,934 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and no history of atrial fibrillation (AF), development of new-onset AF was linked with a greater than twofold increased risk of cardiovascular disease death or hospitalization for heart failure during follow-up, compared with HFrEF patients who did not initially have or later develop heart failure, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical variables, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This difference for the primary endpoint of his analysis was statistically significant.
The 1,645 patients with paroxysmal AF at the start of their follow-up also had a significantly increased rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, but their increased risk when compared with HFrEF patients who didn’t develop AF was a much more modest 20% in his fully adjusted analysis. The patients who began follow-up with paroxysmal AF also had a relatively increased relative stroke rate of 33% when compared with HFrEF patients without AF at baseline who remained AF free, but the all-cause mortality rate among those with paroxysmal AF wasn’t significantly elevated, compared with the comparator group.
The 3,770 patients with persistent or permanent AF at baseline showed no statistically significant spike in their adverse event rates, compared with patients without AF, for any of the examined endpoints. The study group also included 66 patients with an undefined form of AF who weren’t included in these analyses.
“It’s the first episodes and paroxysmal episodes that cause trouble, and the trouble they cause is stroke,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. Their stroke risk gets exacerbated in clinical practice, because these patients often don’t receive the stroke prevention they need in the form of anticoagulation treatment.
“We find over and over that patients with paroxysmal AF are not anticoagulated as frequently as they should be,” Dr. McMurray said. And HFrEF patients with a first AF episode need anticoagulation, too, as soon as AF is diagnosed, he advised.
He went a step further and speculated that the reason why HFrEF patients with new onset AF did so poorly in his analysis was because they already had several prior, brief AF episodes that had gone undetected. “Many of these patients probably had undiagnosed, clinically unapparent AF episodes” that then resulted in strokes, he suggested.
The upshot is that patients with HFrEF may need more aggressive monitoring for new-onset AF, possibly in the form of small, implanted arrhythmia-detection devices. Dr. McMurray said that he and other researchers are currently testing whether this hypothesis is correct. “We and others are now looking at this because these new data are convincing that new-onset AF is bad news [for HFrEF patients].”
In the analysis, “we looked only at clinically recognized and adjudicated new-onset AF. Goodness knows how many HFrEF patients are having unrecognized paroxysmal AF. Almost certainly there is a lot that is unrecognized” that potentially could be detected using a small implanted arrhythmia monitor, which could then lead to earlier anticoagulant treatment as well as possible treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs or with catheter ablation, Dr. McMurray said. Looking for undetected AF in HFrEF patients “is where the science is moving.”
The findings that Dr. McMurray reported are “something we should act on,” commented Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The comorbidity of AF in HFrEF patients requires “aggressive anticoagulation, and also a review of their heart failure medical treatment to be sure that is optimized, because AF could be a sign of worsening heart failure,” Dr. Hernandez said in an interview. “We may need to more aggressively get HFrEF patients with AF into normal sinus rhythm.”
When Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, treats HFrEF patients with a high risk for AF, such as patients with lower ejection fractions, a dilated left ventricle, or a dilated atrium, “I frequently do 30-day loop recordings in these patients because of their risk for incident AF,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. “We don’t yet have convincing evidence for this, but it makes sense.”
Another finding from his analysis was that the HFrEF patients enrolled in these two trials did not get treatment with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist – spironolactone or eplerenone – “as often as they should,” with treatment rates of 44%-48%, compared with use of a beta-blocker in 92%-95% of patients. Treatment with eplerenone (Inspra) “has been shown to reduce the risk for new onset AF, so adding eplerenone or spironolactone is an important step that could be taken to try to prevent AF as well as treat the HFrEF and reduce mortality,” Dr. McMurray said.
PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE were funded by Novartis. Dr. McMurray has been a consultant to and has received travel and research support from Novartis, and he has received research and travel support from Amgen. Dr. Hernandez has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, and Portola. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several drug companies, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Sanofi-Aventis.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – New onset atrial fibrillation more than doubled the rate of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in a review of more than 15,000 such patients.
In 9,934 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and no history of atrial fibrillation (AF), development of new-onset AF was linked with a greater than twofold increased risk of cardiovascular disease death or hospitalization for heart failure during follow-up, compared with HFrEF patients who did not initially have or later develop heart failure, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical variables, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. This difference for the primary endpoint of his analysis was statistically significant.
The 1,645 patients with paroxysmal AF at the start of their follow-up also had a significantly increased rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, but their increased risk when compared with HFrEF patients who didn’t develop AF was a much more modest 20% in his fully adjusted analysis. The patients who began follow-up with paroxysmal AF also had a relatively increased relative stroke rate of 33% when compared with HFrEF patients without AF at baseline who remained AF free, but the all-cause mortality rate among those with paroxysmal AF wasn’t significantly elevated, compared with the comparator group.
The 3,770 patients with persistent or permanent AF at baseline showed no statistically significant spike in their adverse event rates, compared with patients without AF, for any of the examined endpoints. The study group also included 66 patients with an undefined form of AF who weren’t included in these analyses.
“It’s the first episodes and paroxysmal episodes that cause trouble, and the trouble they cause is stroke,” Dr. McMurray said in an interview. Their stroke risk gets exacerbated in clinical practice, because these patients often don’t receive the stroke prevention they need in the form of anticoagulation treatment.
“We find over and over that patients with paroxysmal AF are not anticoagulated as frequently as they should be,” Dr. McMurray said. And HFrEF patients with a first AF episode need anticoagulation, too, as soon as AF is diagnosed, he advised.
He went a step further and speculated that the reason why HFrEF patients with new onset AF did so poorly in his analysis was because they already had several prior, brief AF episodes that had gone undetected. “Many of these patients probably had undiagnosed, clinically unapparent AF episodes” that then resulted in strokes, he suggested.
The upshot is that patients with HFrEF may need more aggressive monitoring for new-onset AF, possibly in the form of small, implanted arrhythmia-detection devices. Dr. McMurray said that he and other researchers are currently testing whether this hypothesis is correct. “We and others are now looking at this because these new data are convincing that new-onset AF is bad news [for HFrEF patients].”
In the analysis, “we looked only at clinically recognized and adjudicated new-onset AF. Goodness knows how many HFrEF patients are having unrecognized paroxysmal AF. Almost certainly there is a lot that is unrecognized” that potentially could be detected using a small implanted arrhythmia monitor, which could then lead to earlier anticoagulant treatment as well as possible treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs or with catheter ablation, Dr. McMurray said. Looking for undetected AF in HFrEF patients “is where the science is moving.”
The findings that Dr. McMurray reported are “something we should act on,” commented Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The comorbidity of AF in HFrEF patients requires “aggressive anticoagulation, and also a review of their heart failure medical treatment to be sure that is optimized, because AF could be a sign of worsening heart failure,” Dr. Hernandez said in an interview. “We may need to more aggressively get HFrEF patients with AF into normal sinus rhythm.”
When Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, treats HFrEF patients with a high risk for AF, such as patients with lower ejection fractions, a dilated left ventricle, or a dilated atrium, “I frequently do 30-day loop recordings in these patients because of their risk for incident AF,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview. “We don’t yet have convincing evidence for this, but it makes sense.”
Another finding from his analysis was that the HFrEF patients enrolled in these two trials did not get treatment with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist – spironolactone or eplerenone – “as often as they should,” with treatment rates of 44%-48%, compared with use of a beta-blocker in 92%-95% of patients. Treatment with eplerenone (Inspra) “has been shown to reduce the risk for new onset AF, so adding eplerenone or spironolactone is an important step that could be taken to try to prevent AF as well as treat the HFrEF and reduce mortality,” Dr. McMurray said.
PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE were funded by Novartis. Dr. McMurray has been a consultant to and has received travel and research support from Novartis, and he has received research and travel support from Amgen. Dr. Hernandez has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, and Portola. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to several drug companies, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Sanofi-Aventis.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Adverse outcomes were more than twice as frequent in HFrEF patients with incident atrial fibrillation, compared with those without AF.
Data source: Post hoc analysis of 15,415 heart failure patients enrolled in the PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE trials.
Disclosures: PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE were funded by Novartis. Dr. McMurray has been a consultant to and has received travel and research support from Novartis, and he has received research and travel support from Amgen.
Gliflozins’ heart failure protection in type 2 diabetes confirmed
WASHINGTON – The remarkable and unexpected findings first reported from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial in late 2015 – that treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with the SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to significantly reduced rates of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause death – received its first major confirmation in an analysis of observational data collected from more than 300,000 patients with type 2 diabetes treated in six countries including the United States.
The new findings also, for the first time, extended the EMPA-REG OUTCOME results (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28) beyond empagliflozin with evidence that the heart failure and mortality benefit also occurred with other drugs from the sodium glucose cotransporter–2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The analysis showed that type 2 diabetes patients who were newly started on treatment with one of these SGLT-2 inhibitors had during follow-up a 39% reduced rate of heart failure hospitalizations, a 51% reduced mortality rate, and a 46% reduced rate of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or death, compared with patients treated with any other type of oral glucose-lowering drug, reported Dr. Kosiborod. The risk reductions were “remarkably similar to those seen in EMPA-REG OUTCOME,” he noted.
The findings address three “key questions” raised by the EMPA-REG OUTCOME results, Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview:
• Is this a class effect? The data “seem to suggest that the benefits seen in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study are likely a class effect.” The study population of 154,523 patients in the heart failure hospitalization analysis who began treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor included 53% who received canagliflozin (Invokana), 42% who received dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and 6% who received empagliflozin (Jardiance) (percentages total 101% because of rounding). Dr. Kosiborod also highlighted that within several of the six countries that contributed data to this analysis – the United States, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – the percentages of patients on each of these three drugs varied substantially, but despite that the relative reduced risks for heart failure hospitalization and mortality were roughly the same within each country, giving further credence to the notion that a class effect exists.
• Do lower-risk patients benefit? “The benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment appeared to extend to lower risk patients” than those enrolled in EMPA-REG OUTCOME. In the randomized trial, which enrolled 7,028 patients, more than 99% had established cardiovascular disease. In the new analysis patients had a 13% prevalence of any cardiovascular disease at baseline, and the prevalence of heart failure was 3%.
• Is this relevant to clinical practice? Unlike the highly selected patients entered in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, the patients started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the observational study were unselected and came from routine practice situations, “suggesting that the benefits seen in EMPA-REG OUTCOME translate into real-world clinical practice,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “With these data we see for the first time in a large number of patients from multiple countries important evidence suggesting that the SGLT-2 inhibitors may provide in the real world a similar benefit to what was observed in EMPA-REG OUTCOME.”
“The lesson from Dr. Kosiborod’s study is that among patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor seems to result in lowered rates of heart failure hospitalizations and mortality, and it’s a safe class of drugs. In the past, we worried about worsening heart failure in patients at risk for developing heart failure” such as patients with type 2 diabetes, said Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The new data make it seem like using an SGLT-2 inhibitor to treat patients with type 2 diabetes “is an appropriate strategy.” But Dr. Hernandez added that in his opinion metformin remains the top drug for type 2 diabetes, while SGLT-2 inhibitors are now “the next drug class to add,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Kosiborod had a somewhat different take. “If a patient with type 2 diabetes did not want to enter a trial or couldn’t get into a trial and fit the profile of a patient who could benefit, I would absolutely treat that patient with an SGLT-2 inhibitor. I’m using these medications clinically as a cardiologist,” he said. “Treatments that have significant benefits for important outcomes should be prioritized over treatments that may reduce hemoglobin A1c but do not have similar benefits.”
The CVD-REAL (Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors) study used data from adult, previously untreated patients with type 2 diabetes in national registries from the five included European countries. U.S. data were from the Truven Health MarketScan database and from Medicare. This produced a total pool of 160,010 patients who began treatment on an SGLT-2 inhibitor and 1,139,905 patients who began treatment with another oral antidiabetes drug.
Dr. Kosiborod and his associates then performed propensity-score matching to identify 154,523 patients started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor who each closely matched a patient from the other subgroup for baseline demographic and clinical features, producing an analysis dataset of just over 309,000 matched patients. The average age of the included patients was 57 years; 45% were women. During follow-up, 961 patients had a heart failure hospitalization and 1,334 patients died.
Dr. Kosiborod noted that while a potential limitation to his findings is residual confounding not eliminated by the propensity score matching, he was confident about the results because the incidence of other outcomes not expected to be influenced by treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors were similar in the two study subgroups, suggesting that the linkages between the kind of drug used and differences in heart failure hospitalization rates and in mortality weren’t spurious.
“If there was residual confounding, you’d expect to see similar associations for other endpoints, which we didn’t see,” he said. In addition, the heart failure hospitalization rate differences seen between the SGLT-2 inhibitor recipients and the other patients were consistent in a trio of sensitivity analyses, further buttressing the findings’ plausibility.
CVD-REAL was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and/or received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis and Gilead. Dr. Hernandez has received honoraria and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Portola. Several of the coauthors on the CVD-REAL study were AstraZeneca employees.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – The remarkable and unexpected findings first reported from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial in late 2015 – that treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with the SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to significantly reduced rates of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause death – received its first major confirmation in an analysis of observational data collected from more than 300,000 patients with type 2 diabetes treated in six countries including the United States.
The new findings also, for the first time, extended the EMPA-REG OUTCOME results (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28) beyond empagliflozin with evidence that the heart failure and mortality benefit also occurred with other drugs from the sodium glucose cotransporter–2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The analysis showed that type 2 diabetes patients who were newly started on treatment with one of these SGLT-2 inhibitors had during follow-up a 39% reduced rate of heart failure hospitalizations, a 51% reduced mortality rate, and a 46% reduced rate of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or death, compared with patients treated with any other type of oral glucose-lowering drug, reported Dr. Kosiborod. The risk reductions were “remarkably similar to those seen in EMPA-REG OUTCOME,” he noted.
The findings address three “key questions” raised by the EMPA-REG OUTCOME results, Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview:
• Is this a class effect? The data “seem to suggest that the benefits seen in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study are likely a class effect.” The study population of 154,523 patients in the heart failure hospitalization analysis who began treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor included 53% who received canagliflozin (Invokana), 42% who received dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and 6% who received empagliflozin (Jardiance) (percentages total 101% because of rounding). Dr. Kosiborod also highlighted that within several of the six countries that contributed data to this analysis – the United States, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – the percentages of patients on each of these three drugs varied substantially, but despite that the relative reduced risks for heart failure hospitalization and mortality were roughly the same within each country, giving further credence to the notion that a class effect exists.
• Do lower-risk patients benefit? “The benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment appeared to extend to lower risk patients” than those enrolled in EMPA-REG OUTCOME. In the randomized trial, which enrolled 7,028 patients, more than 99% had established cardiovascular disease. In the new analysis patients had a 13% prevalence of any cardiovascular disease at baseline, and the prevalence of heart failure was 3%.
• Is this relevant to clinical practice? Unlike the highly selected patients entered in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, the patients started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the observational study were unselected and came from routine practice situations, “suggesting that the benefits seen in EMPA-REG OUTCOME translate into real-world clinical practice,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “With these data we see for the first time in a large number of patients from multiple countries important evidence suggesting that the SGLT-2 inhibitors may provide in the real world a similar benefit to what was observed in EMPA-REG OUTCOME.”
“The lesson from Dr. Kosiborod’s study is that among patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor seems to result in lowered rates of heart failure hospitalizations and mortality, and it’s a safe class of drugs. In the past, we worried about worsening heart failure in patients at risk for developing heart failure” such as patients with type 2 diabetes, said Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The new data make it seem like using an SGLT-2 inhibitor to treat patients with type 2 diabetes “is an appropriate strategy.” But Dr. Hernandez added that in his opinion metformin remains the top drug for type 2 diabetes, while SGLT-2 inhibitors are now “the next drug class to add,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Kosiborod had a somewhat different take. “If a patient with type 2 diabetes did not want to enter a trial or couldn’t get into a trial and fit the profile of a patient who could benefit, I would absolutely treat that patient with an SGLT-2 inhibitor. I’m using these medications clinically as a cardiologist,” he said. “Treatments that have significant benefits for important outcomes should be prioritized over treatments that may reduce hemoglobin A1c but do not have similar benefits.”
The CVD-REAL (Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors) study used data from adult, previously untreated patients with type 2 diabetes in national registries from the five included European countries. U.S. data were from the Truven Health MarketScan database and from Medicare. This produced a total pool of 160,010 patients who began treatment on an SGLT-2 inhibitor and 1,139,905 patients who began treatment with another oral antidiabetes drug.
Dr. Kosiborod and his associates then performed propensity-score matching to identify 154,523 patients started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor who each closely matched a patient from the other subgroup for baseline demographic and clinical features, producing an analysis dataset of just over 309,000 matched patients. The average age of the included patients was 57 years; 45% were women. During follow-up, 961 patients had a heart failure hospitalization and 1,334 patients died.
Dr. Kosiborod noted that while a potential limitation to his findings is residual confounding not eliminated by the propensity score matching, he was confident about the results because the incidence of other outcomes not expected to be influenced by treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors were similar in the two study subgroups, suggesting that the linkages between the kind of drug used and differences in heart failure hospitalization rates and in mortality weren’t spurious.
“If there was residual confounding, you’d expect to see similar associations for other endpoints, which we didn’t see,” he said. In addition, the heart failure hospitalization rate differences seen between the SGLT-2 inhibitor recipients and the other patients were consistent in a trio of sensitivity analyses, further buttressing the findings’ plausibility.
CVD-REAL was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and/or received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis and Gilead. Dr. Hernandez has received honoraria and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Portola. Several of the coauthors on the CVD-REAL study were AstraZeneca employees.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON – The remarkable and unexpected findings first reported from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial in late 2015 – that treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with the SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to significantly reduced rates of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause death – received its first major confirmation in an analysis of observational data collected from more than 300,000 patients with type 2 diabetes treated in six countries including the United States.
The new findings also, for the first time, extended the EMPA-REG OUTCOME results (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28) beyond empagliflozin with evidence that the heart failure and mortality benefit also occurred with other drugs from the sodium glucose cotransporter–2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor class, specifically canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.
The analysis showed that type 2 diabetes patients who were newly started on treatment with one of these SGLT-2 inhibitors had during follow-up a 39% reduced rate of heart failure hospitalizations, a 51% reduced mortality rate, and a 46% reduced rate of the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or death, compared with patients treated with any other type of oral glucose-lowering drug, reported Dr. Kosiborod. The risk reductions were “remarkably similar to those seen in EMPA-REG OUTCOME,” he noted.
The findings address three “key questions” raised by the EMPA-REG OUTCOME results, Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview:
• Is this a class effect? The data “seem to suggest that the benefits seen in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study are likely a class effect.” The study population of 154,523 patients in the heart failure hospitalization analysis who began treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor included 53% who received canagliflozin (Invokana), 42% who received dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and 6% who received empagliflozin (Jardiance) (percentages total 101% because of rounding). Dr. Kosiborod also highlighted that within several of the six countries that contributed data to this analysis – the United States, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – the percentages of patients on each of these three drugs varied substantially, but despite that the relative reduced risks for heart failure hospitalization and mortality were roughly the same within each country, giving further credence to the notion that a class effect exists.
• Do lower-risk patients benefit? “The benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment appeared to extend to lower risk patients” than those enrolled in EMPA-REG OUTCOME. In the randomized trial, which enrolled 7,028 patients, more than 99% had established cardiovascular disease. In the new analysis patients had a 13% prevalence of any cardiovascular disease at baseline, and the prevalence of heart failure was 3%.
• Is this relevant to clinical practice? Unlike the highly selected patients entered in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, the patients started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the observational study were unselected and came from routine practice situations, “suggesting that the benefits seen in EMPA-REG OUTCOME translate into real-world clinical practice,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “With these data we see for the first time in a large number of patients from multiple countries important evidence suggesting that the SGLT-2 inhibitors may provide in the real world a similar benefit to what was observed in EMPA-REG OUTCOME.”
“The lesson from Dr. Kosiborod’s study is that among patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor seems to result in lowered rates of heart failure hospitalizations and mortality, and it’s a safe class of drugs. In the past, we worried about worsening heart failure in patients at risk for developing heart failure” such as patients with type 2 diabetes, said Adrian F. Hernandez, MD, professor of medicine and a cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The new data make it seem like using an SGLT-2 inhibitor to treat patients with type 2 diabetes “is an appropriate strategy.” But Dr. Hernandez added that in his opinion metformin remains the top drug for type 2 diabetes, while SGLT-2 inhibitors are now “the next drug class to add,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Kosiborod had a somewhat different take. “If a patient with type 2 diabetes did not want to enter a trial or couldn’t get into a trial and fit the profile of a patient who could benefit, I would absolutely treat that patient with an SGLT-2 inhibitor. I’m using these medications clinically as a cardiologist,” he said. “Treatments that have significant benefits for important outcomes should be prioritized over treatments that may reduce hemoglobin A1c but do not have similar benefits.”
The CVD-REAL (Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of SGLT-2 Inhibitors) study used data from adult, previously untreated patients with type 2 diabetes in national registries from the five included European countries. U.S. data were from the Truven Health MarketScan database and from Medicare. This produced a total pool of 160,010 patients who began treatment on an SGLT-2 inhibitor and 1,139,905 patients who began treatment with another oral antidiabetes drug.
Dr. Kosiborod and his associates then performed propensity-score matching to identify 154,523 patients started on an SGLT-2 inhibitor who each closely matched a patient from the other subgroup for baseline demographic and clinical features, producing an analysis dataset of just over 309,000 matched patients. The average age of the included patients was 57 years; 45% were women. During follow-up, 961 patients had a heart failure hospitalization and 1,334 patients died.
Dr. Kosiborod noted that while a potential limitation to his findings is residual confounding not eliminated by the propensity score matching, he was confident about the results because the incidence of other outcomes not expected to be influenced by treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors were similar in the two study subgroups, suggesting that the linkages between the kind of drug used and differences in heart failure hospitalization rates and in mortality weren’t spurious.
“If there was residual confounding, you’d expect to see similar associations for other endpoints, which we didn’t see,” he said. In addition, the heart failure hospitalization rate differences seen between the SGLT-2 inhibitor recipients and the other patients were consistent in a trio of sensitivity analyses, further buttressing the findings’ plausibility.
CVD-REAL was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to and/or received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis and Gilead. Dr. Hernandez has received honoraria and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Portola. Several of the coauthors on the CVD-REAL study were AstraZeneca employees.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT ACC 17
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Treatment with an SGLT-2 inhibitor was associated with a significant 39% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations compared with other antidiabetes drugs.
Data source: CVD-REAL, which used observational data collected from 309,046 patients with type 2 diabetes in six countries.
Disclosures: CVD-REAL was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to AstraZeneca and to several other drug companies, and he has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis and Gilead. Dr. Hernandez has received honoraria and research support from AstraZeneca and has also received honoraria from Amgen, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis, and has also received research support from Amgen, Bayer, Merck, and Portola. Several of the coauthors on the CVD-REAL study were AstraZeneca employees.
Hard road disproving that statins make you dumb
The impact of lipid-lowering drugs on patients’ mental states was on the minds of many attendees at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in March.
The highest-profile report came from EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects), a substudy of the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) trial, the meeting’s blockbuster. For the first time, it proved that profoundly lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol with the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor evolocumab led to a significant reduction in adverse clinical events. EBBINGHAUS focused on about 2,000 of the 27,000 FOURIER patients and subjected equal numbers of placebo and evolocumab patients to a battery of cognitive and memory tests over a median of 20 months. The results showed no hint of a decrement in brain function in the patients taking evolocumab, compared with either their baseline state or the controls who received placebo.
That perception wasn’t helped when, in 2012, the Food and Drug Administration required the labels of all statins to include a reference to postmarketing reports of cognitive side effects such as memory impairment and confusion. The current label for one statin says: “There have been rare postmarketing reports of cognitive impairment (e.g., memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, confusion) associated with statin use. These cognitive issues have been reported for all statins.”
Following the FDA’s action, a series of analyses appeared that reviewed the evidence and found nothing to substantiate the concern. For example, a 2012 review done in direct response to the FDA labeling change looked at case reports, observational studies, and randomized trials and found “no convincing evidence for change in cognitive function” with statin use (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Sept 4;60[10]:875-81). A 2015 meta-analysis that reviewed 14 studies with cognitive testing on more than 27,000 people randomized to either a statin or placebo also found no evidence for a statin effect on mental function (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 March;30[3]:348-58). “Given these results, it is questionable whether the FDA class warning about potential cognitive adverse effects of statins is still warranted,” the meta-analysis authors concluded.
Despite this, concerns about the impact of statins on cognition and memory linger for many patients, witness the anecdotal experiences of clinicians at the meeting. This led a team of researchers at the University of Connecticut and Hartford Hospital to try to directly address the controversy. They also reported their findings at the ACC meeting.
They ran their study as part of a larger trial, STOMP (Effect of Statins on Skeletal Muscle Function and Performance), which randomized 420 healthy and statin-naive individuals to 6 months of treatment with 80 mg atorvastatin or placebo (Circulation. 2013 Jan 2;127[1]:96-103). Their memory substudy included 66 people from the atorvastatin group and 84 placebo-treated controls who averaged 49 years old. Participants underwent a battery of eight memory, cognitive, attention, and executive function tests after 6 months on treatment and again 2 months after statin treatment stopped.
She and her associates took testing a step further and used an assessment never before applied to people taking statins. They ran functional MRIs on a subgroup of the participants while they took two additional memory tests at the end of 6 months on atorvastatin and again 2 months after atorvastatin stopped. They ran MRI scans during a figural memory task test on 42 placebo participants and 35 atorvastatin patients and during a Sternberg Task to test short-term memory on 68 people from the placebo group and 52 who received atorvastatin.
The functional MRI results showed some small but statistically significant changes during both tests in patterns of regional neural activation among those in the statin groups while on and off statins and also when compared with those who received placebo, but Dr. Taylor stressed that her group saw MRI differences between the statin and placebo subjects not only when people were on atorvastatin but also when they had been off the drug for 2 months. She also cautioned that “the clinical implications of the findings are unclear.”
Overall, the entire study’s results showed “no convincing evidence of measurable verbal or nonverbal memory dysfunction” linked with statin use, but Dr. Taylor also noted that the study was relatively small.
Proving the absence of a problem is always difficult. Adding Dr. Taylor’s new evidence to the case that statins really are safe when it comes to cognition and memory will undoubtedly fail to convince committed skeptics.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
The impact of lipid-lowering drugs on patients’ mental states was on the minds of many attendees at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in March.
The highest-profile report came from EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects), a substudy of the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) trial, the meeting’s blockbuster. For the first time, it proved that profoundly lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol with the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor evolocumab led to a significant reduction in adverse clinical events. EBBINGHAUS focused on about 2,000 of the 27,000 FOURIER patients and subjected equal numbers of placebo and evolocumab patients to a battery of cognitive and memory tests over a median of 20 months. The results showed no hint of a decrement in brain function in the patients taking evolocumab, compared with either their baseline state or the controls who received placebo.
That perception wasn’t helped when, in 2012, the Food and Drug Administration required the labels of all statins to include a reference to postmarketing reports of cognitive side effects such as memory impairment and confusion. The current label for one statin says: “There have been rare postmarketing reports of cognitive impairment (e.g., memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, confusion) associated with statin use. These cognitive issues have been reported for all statins.”
Following the FDA’s action, a series of analyses appeared that reviewed the evidence and found nothing to substantiate the concern. For example, a 2012 review done in direct response to the FDA labeling change looked at case reports, observational studies, and randomized trials and found “no convincing evidence for change in cognitive function” with statin use (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Sept 4;60[10]:875-81). A 2015 meta-analysis that reviewed 14 studies with cognitive testing on more than 27,000 people randomized to either a statin or placebo also found no evidence for a statin effect on mental function (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 March;30[3]:348-58). “Given these results, it is questionable whether the FDA class warning about potential cognitive adverse effects of statins is still warranted,” the meta-analysis authors concluded.
Despite this, concerns about the impact of statins on cognition and memory linger for many patients, witness the anecdotal experiences of clinicians at the meeting. This led a team of researchers at the University of Connecticut and Hartford Hospital to try to directly address the controversy. They also reported their findings at the ACC meeting.
They ran their study as part of a larger trial, STOMP (Effect of Statins on Skeletal Muscle Function and Performance), which randomized 420 healthy and statin-naive individuals to 6 months of treatment with 80 mg atorvastatin or placebo (Circulation. 2013 Jan 2;127[1]:96-103). Their memory substudy included 66 people from the atorvastatin group and 84 placebo-treated controls who averaged 49 years old. Participants underwent a battery of eight memory, cognitive, attention, and executive function tests after 6 months on treatment and again 2 months after statin treatment stopped.
She and her associates took testing a step further and used an assessment never before applied to people taking statins. They ran functional MRIs on a subgroup of the participants while they took two additional memory tests at the end of 6 months on atorvastatin and again 2 months after atorvastatin stopped. They ran MRI scans during a figural memory task test on 42 placebo participants and 35 atorvastatin patients and during a Sternberg Task to test short-term memory on 68 people from the placebo group and 52 who received atorvastatin.
The functional MRI results showed some small but statistically significant changes during both tests in patterns of regional neural activation among those in the statin groups while on and off statins and also when compared with those who received placebo, but Dr. Taylor stressed that her group saw MRI differences between the statin and placebo subjects not only when people were on atorvastatin but also when they had been off the drug for 2 months. She also cautioned that “the clinical implications of the findings are unclear.”
Overall, the entire study’s results showed “no convincing evidence of measurable verbal or nonverbal memory dysfunction” linked with statin use, but Dr. Taylor also noted that the study was relatively small.
Proving the absence of a problem is always difficult. Adding Dr. Taylor’s new evidence to the case that statins really are safe when it comes to cognition and memory will undoubtedly fail to convince committed skeptics.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
The impact of lipid-lowering drugs on patients’ mental states was on the minds of many attendees at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in March.
The highest-profile report came from EBBINGHAUS (Evaluating PCSK9 Binding Antibody Influence on Cognitive Health in High Cardiovascular Risk Subjects), a substudy of the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) trial, the meeting’s blockbuster. For the first time, it proved that profoundly lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol with the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor evolocumab led to a significant reduction in adverse clinical events. EBBINGHAUS focused on about 2,000 of the 27,000 FOURIER patients and subjected equal numbers of placebo and evolocumab patients to a battery of cognitive and memory tests over a median of 20 months. The results showed no hint of a decrement in brain function in the patients taking evolocumab, compared with either their baseline state or the controls who received placebo.
That perception wasn’t helped when, in 2012, the Food and Drug Administration required the labels of all statins to include a reference to postmarketing reports of cognitive side effects such as memory impairment and confusion. The current label for one statin says: “There have been rare postmarketing reports of cognitive impairment (e.g., memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, confusion) associated with statin use. These cognitive issues have been reported for all statins.”
Following the FDA’s action, a series of analyses appeared that reviewed the evidence and found nothing to substantiate the concern. For example, a 2012 review done in direct response to the FDA labeling change looked at case reports, observational studies, and randomized trials and found “no convincing evidence for change in cognitive function” with statin use (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Sept 4;60[10]:875-81). A 2015 meta-analysis that reviewed 14 studies with cognitive testing on more than 27,000 people randomized to either a statin or placebo also found no evidence for a statin effect on mental function (J Gen Intern Med. 2015 March;30[3]:348-58). “Given these results, it is questionable whether the FDA class warning about potential cognitive adverse effects of statins is still warranted,” the meta-analysis authors concluded.
Despite this, concerns about the impact of statins on cognition and memory linger for many patients, witness the anecdotal experiences of clinicians at the meeting. This led a team of researchers at the University of Connecticut and Hartford Hospital to try to directly address the controversy. They also reported their findings at the ACC meeting.
They ran their study as part of a larger trial, STOMP (Effect of Statins on Skeletal Muscle Function and Performance), which randomized 420 healthy and statin-naive individuals to 6 months of treatment with 80 mg atorvastatin or placebo (Circulation. 2013 Jan 2;127[1]:96-103). Their memory substudy included 66 people from the atorvastatin group and 84 placebo-treated controls who averaged 49 years old. Participants underwent a battery of eight memory, cognitive, attention, and executive function tests after 6 months on treatment and again 2 months after statin treatment stopped.
She and her associates took testing a step further and used an assessment never before applied to people taking statins. They ran functional MRIs on a subgroup of the participants while they took two additional memory tests at the end of 6 months on atorvastatin and again 2 months after atorvastatin stopped. They ran MRI scans during a figural memory task test on 42 placebo participants and 35 atorvastatin patients and during a Sternberg Task to test short-term memory on 68 people from the placebo group and 52 who received atorvastatin.
The functional MRI results showed some small but statistically significant changes during both tests in patterns of regional neural activation among those in the statin groups while on and off statins and also when compared with those who received placebo, but Dr. Taylor stressed that her group saw MRI differences between the statin and placebo subjects not only when people were on atorvastatin but also when they had been off the drug for 2 months. She also cautioned that “the clinical implications of the findings are unclear.”
Overall, the entire study’s results showed “no convincing evidence of measurable verbal or nonverbal memory dysfunction” linked with statin use, but Dr. Taylor also noted that the study was relatively small.
Proving the absence of a problem is always difficult. Adding Dr. Taylor’s new evidence to the case that statins really are safe when it comes to cognition and memory will undoubtedly fail to convince committed skeptics.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler