Heart Failure

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis has shown that SGLT2 inhibitors do not lead to lower 28-day all-cause mortality, compared with usual care or placebo, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

However, no major safety issues were identified with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in these acutely ill patients, the researchers report.

“While these findings do not support the use of SGLT2-inhibitors as standard of care for patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I think the most important take home message here is that the use of these medications appears to be safe even in really acutely ill hospitalized patients,” lead investigator of the meta-analysis, Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., concluded.

He said this was important because the list of indications for SGLT2 inhibitors is rapidly growing.

“These medications are being used in more and more patients. And we know that when we discontinue medications in the hospital they frequently don’t get restarted, which can lead to real risks if SGLT2 inhibitors are stopped in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes. So, the bottom line is that there is no compelling reason to stop these medications in the hospital,” he added.

The new meta-analysis was presented at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

Discussant of the presentation at the ESC Hotline session, Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with Dr. Kosiborod’s interpretation.

“Until today we have had very limited information on the safety of SGLT2-inhibitors in acute illness, as the pivotal trials which established the use of these drugs in diabetes and chronic kidney disease largely excluded patients who were hospitalized,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“While the overall results of this meta-analysis are neutral and SGLT2 inhibitors will not be added as drugs to be used in the primary care of patients with COVID-19, it certainly sends a strong message of safety in acutely ill patients,” he added.

Dr. Vaduganathan explained that from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was great interest in repurposing established therapies for alternative indications for their use in the management of COVID-19.

“Conditions that strongly predispose to adverse COVID outcomes strongly overlap with established indications for SGLT2-inhibitors. So many wondered whether these drugs may be an ideal treatment candidate for the management of COVID-19. However, there have been many safety concerns about the use of SGLT2-inhibitors in this acute setting, with worries that they may induce hemodynamic changes such an excessive lowering of blood pressure, or metabolic changes such as ketoacidosis in acutely ill patients,” he noted.

The initial DARE-19 study investigating SGLT2-inhibitors in COVID-19, with 1,250 participants, found a 20% reduction in the primary outcome of organ dysfunction or death, but this did not reach statistical significance, and no safety issues were seen. This “intriguing” result led to two further larger trials – the ACTIV-4a and RECOVERY trials, Dr. Vaduganathan reported.

“Those early signals of benefit seen in DARE-19 were largely not substantiated in the ACTIV-4A and RECOVERY trials, or in this new meta-analysis, and now we have this much larger body of evidence and more stable estimates about the efficacy of these drugs in acutely ill COVID-19 patients,” he said.

“But the story that we will all take forward is one of safety. This set of trials was arguably conducted in some of the sickest patients we’ve seen who have been exposed to SGLT2-inhibitors, and they strongly affirm that these agents can be safely continued in the setting of acute illness, with very low rates of ketoacidosis and kidney injury, and there was no prolongation of hospital stay,” he commented.

In his presentation, Dr. Kosiborod explained that treatments targeting COVID-19 pathobiology such as dysregulated immune responses, endothelial damage, microvascular thrombosis, and inflammation have been shown to improve the key outcomes in this patient group.

SGLT2 inhibitors, which modulate similar pathobiology, provide cardiovascular protection and prevent the progression of kidney disease in patients at risk for these events, including those with type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and kidney disease, and may also lead to organ protection in a setting of acute illness such as COVID-19, he noted. However, the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains uncertain.

To address the need for more definitive efficacy data, the World Health Organization Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group conducted a prospective meta-analysis using data from the three randomized controlled trials, DARE-19, RECOVERY, and ACTIV-4a, evaluating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Overall, these trials randomized 6,096 participants: 3,025 to SGLT2 inhibitors and 3,071 to usual care or placebo. The average age of participants ranged between 62 and 73 years across the trials, 39% were women, and 25% had type 2 diabetes.

By 28 days after randomization, all-cause mortality, the primary endpoint, had occurred in 11.6% of the SGLT2-inhibitor patients, compared with 12.4% of those randomized to usual care or placebo, giving an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.08; P = .33) for SGLT2 inhibitors, with consistency across trials.

Data on in-hospital and 90-day all-cause mortality were only available for two out of three trials (DARE-19 and ACTIV-4a), but the results were similar to the primary endpoint showing nonsignificant trends toward a possible benefit in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.

The results were also similar for the secondary outcomes of progression to acute kidney injury or requirement for dialysis or death, and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or death, both assessed at 28 days.

The primary safety outcome of ketoacidosis by 28 days was observed in seven and two patients allocated to SGLT2 inhibitors and usual care or placebo, respectively, and overall, the incidence of reported serious adverse events was balanced between treatment groups.

The RECOVERY trial was supported by grants to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Wellcome. The ACTIV-4a platform was sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. DARE-19 was an investigator-initiated collaborative trial supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

Two years is a long time in the world of heart failure (HF) management, enough to see publication of more than a dozen studies with insights that would supplant and expand key sections of a far-reaching European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guideline on HF unveiled in 2021.

“Back in 2021, we had three and a half decades of data to consider,” but recent years have seen “an amazing amount of progress” that has necessitated some adjustments and key additions, including several Class I recommendations, observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, United Kingdom.

Much of that recent progress, driven by trials like EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, STRONG-HF, and IRONMAN, has been crystalized into the “2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines” on HF management, which Dr. Gardner helped unveil over several days at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

The new document was also published in the European Heart Journal during the ESC sessions. Dr. Gardner is a co-author on both the 2021 and 2023 documents.

The task force that was charged with the focused update’s development “considered a large number of trials across the spectrum of acute chronic heart failure and the comorbidities associated with it,” Ultimately, it considered only those with “results that would lead to new or changed Class I or Class IIa recommendations,” noted Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, during the ESC sessions.

Dr. McDonagh, of King’s College Hospital, London, chaired the task force and led the document’s list of authors along with Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy).
 

Chronic HF management

The 2021 document’s “beautiful algorithm” on managing HF with reduced ejection fraction, that is HF with an LVEF less than 40%, had helped enshrine the expeditious uptitration of the “four pillars” of drug therapy as a top management goal. That remains unchanged in the focused update, Dr. Gardner noted.

But the new document gives a boost to recommendations for HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), characterized by an LVEF greater than 40% to less than 50%. For that, the 2021 document recommended three of the four pillars of HF medical therapy: beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

The focused update, however, adds the fourth pillar – SGLT2 inhibitors – to core therapy for both HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the latter defined by an LVEF greater than 50%. Publication of trials supporting those new recommendations had narrowly missed availability for the 2021 document.

EMPEROR-Preserved, for example, was published during the same ESC 2021 sessions that introduced the 2021 guidelines. Its patients with HFpEF (which at the time included patients meeting the current definition of HFmrEF) assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) showed a 21% reduction in risk for a composite primary endpoint that was driven by the HF-hospitalization component.

“This wasn’t a fluke finding,” Dr. Gardner said, as the following year saw publication of the DELIVER trial, which resembled EMPEROR-Preserved in design and outcomes using the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

The two trials, backed up by meta-analyses that also included DAPA-HF and other studies, suggested as well that the two SGLT2 inhibitors “work across the spectrum of ejection fraction,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2023 focused update indicates an SGLT2 inhibitor, either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, for patients with either HFmrEF or HFpEF to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Both recommendations are of Class I, level of evidence A.

The new indications make SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics (as needed for fluid retention) the only drugs for HFmrEF or HFpEF with a Class I recommendation. Previously established “rather weaker” Class IIb recommendation for RAS inhibitors, MRAs, and beta blockers that had been “based on subgroup analyses of neutral trials” remained unchanged in the focused update, Dr. McDonagh noted.
 

Patients hospitalized with HF

The 2021 guidelines had recommended that patients hospitalized with acute HF be started on evidence-based meds before discharge and that they return for evaluation 1 to 2 weeks after discharge. But the recommendation was unsupported by randomized trials.

That changed with the 2022 publication of STRONG-HF, in which a strategy of early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds, initiated predischarge regardless of LVEF, led to a one-third reduced 6-month risk for death or HF readmission.

Based primarily on STRONG-HF, the focused update recommends “an intensive strategy of initiation and rapid up-titration of evidence-based treatment before discharge and during frequent and careful follow-up visits in the first 6 weeks after hospitalization” to reduce readmission and mortality: Class I, level of evidence B.

“There was a large consensus around this recommendation,” said STRONG-HF principal investigator Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, a co-author of both the 2021 and 2023 documents. Conducted before the advent of the four pillars of drug therapy, sometimes called quartet therapy, the trial’s requirement for evidence-based meds didn’t include SGLT2 inhibitors.

The new focused update considers the new status of those agents, especially with regard to their benefits independent of LVEF. So, it completed the quartet by adding empagliflozin or dapagliflozin to the agents that should be initiated predischarge, observed Dr. Mebazaa, University Hospitals Saint Louis‐Lariboisière, Paris, at the focused-update’s ESC 2023 sessions.

The new document also follows STRONG-HF with its emphasis on “frequent and careful follow-up” by recommending certain clinical and laboratory evaluations known to be prognostic in HF. They include congestion status, blood pressure, heart rate, natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and potassium levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Dr. Mebazaa stressed the importance of monitoring NT-proBNP after discharge. “What we saw in STRONG-HF is that sometimes the clinical signs do not necessarily tell you that the patient is still congested.”

After discharge, he said, NT-proBNP levels “should only go down.” So, knowing whether NT-proBNP levels “are stable or increasing” during the med optimization process can help guide diuretic dosing.
 

HF with comorbidities

The new document includes two new Class I recommendations for patients with HF and both type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease based on several recent randomized trials and meta-analyses.

The focused update recommends SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the selective, non-steroidal MRA finerenone (Kerendia) in HF patients with CKD and type-2 diabetes. Both Class I recommendations are supported by a level of evidence A.

The SGLT2 indication is based on DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY plus meta-analyses that included those trials along with others. The recommendation for finerenone derives from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and a pooled analysis of the two studies.

The 2023 focused update also accounts for new clinical-trial insights for patients with HF and iron deficiency. The 2021 document featured recommendations for the diagnosis and iron-repletion therapy in such cases, but only as Class IIa or at lower low levels of evidence. The focused update considers more recent studies, especially IRONMAN and some meta-analyses.

The 2023 document indicates intravenous iron supplementation for symptomatic patients with iron deficiency and either HFrEF or HFmrEF to improve symptoms and quality of life (Class I, level of evidence A), and says it should be considered (Class IIa, level of evidence A) to reduce risk for HF hospitalization.

When the task force assembled to plan the 2023 focused update, Dr. Gardner observed, “the first thing we thought about was the nomenclature around the phenotyping of heart failure.”

Although the 2021 guidelines relied fundamentally on the distinctions between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, it had become apparent to some in the field that some meds, especially the SGLT2 inhibitors, were obscuring their LVEF-based boundaries, at least with respect to drug therapy.

The 2023 document’s developers, Dr. Gardner said, seriously considered changing the three categories to two, that is HFrEF and – to account for all other heart failure – HF with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF).

That didn’t happen, although the proposal was popular within the task force. Any changes to the 2021 document would require a 75% consensus on the matter, Dr. Gardner explained. When the task force took a vote on whether to change the nomenclature, he said, 71% favored the proposal.

Disclosures for members of the task force can be found in a supplement to the published 2023 Focused Update.

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

Two years is a long time in the world of heart failure (HF) management, enough to see publication of more than a dozen studies with insights that would supplant and expand key sections of a far-reaching European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guideline on HF unveiled in 2021.

“Back in 2021, we had three and a half decades of data to consider,” but recent years have seen “an amazing amount of progress” that has necessitated some adjustments and key additions, including several Class I recommendations, observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, United Kingdom.

Much of that recent progress, driven by trials like EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, STRONG-HF, and IRONMAN, has been crystalized into the “2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines” on HF management, which Dr. Gardner helped unveil over several days at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

The new document was also published in the European Heart Journal during the ESC sessions. Dr. Gardner is a co-author on both the 2021 and 2023 documents.

The task force that was charged with the focused update’s development “considered a large number of trials across the spectrum of acute chronic heart failure and the comorbidities associated with it,” Ultimately, it considered only those with “results that would lead to new or changed Class I or Class IIa recommendations,” noted Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, during the ESC sessions.

Dr. McDonagh, of King’s College Hospital, London, chaired the task force and led the document’s list of authors along with Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy).
 

Chronic HF management

The 2021 document’s “beautiful algorithm” on managing HF with reduced ejection fraction, that is HF with an LVEF less than 40%, had helped enshrine the expeditious uptitration of the “four pillars” of drug therapy as a top management goal. That remains unchanged in the focused update, Dr. Gardner noted.

But the new document gives a boost to recommendations for HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), characterized by an LVEF greater than 40% to less than 50%. For that, the 2021 document recommended three of the four pillars of HF medical therapy: beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

The focused update, however, adds the fourth pillar – SGLT2 inhibitors – to core therapy for both HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the latter defined by an LVEF greater than 50%. Publication of trials supporting those new recommendations had narrowly missed availability for the 2021 document.

EMPEROR-Preserved, for example, was published during the same ESC 2021 sessions that introduced the 2021 guidelines. Its patients with HFpEF (which at the time included patients meeting the current definition of HFmrEF) assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) showed a 21% reduction in risk for a composite primary endpoint that was driven by the HF-hospitalization component.

“This wasn’t a fluke finding,” Dr. Gardner said, as the following year saw publication of the DELIVER trial, which resembled EMPEROR-Preserved in design and outcomes using the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

The two trials, backed up by meta-analyses that also included DAPA-HF and other studies, suggested as well that the two SGLT2 inhibitors “work across the spectrum of ejection fraction,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2023 focused update indicates an SGLT2 inhibitor, either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, for patients with either HFmrEF or HFpEF to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Both recommendations are of Class I, level of evidence A.

The new indications make SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics (as needed for fluid retention) the only drugs for HFmrEF or HFpEF with a Class I recommendation. Previously established “rather weaker” Class IIb recommendation for RAS inhibitors, MRAs, and beta blockers that had been “based on subgroup analyses of neutral trials” remained unchanged in the focused update, Dr. McDonagh noted.
 

Patients hospitalized with HF

The 2021 guidelines had recommended that patients hospitalized with acute HF be started on evidence-based meds before discharge and that they return for evaluation 1 to 2 weeks after discharge. But the recommendation was unsupported by randomized trials.

That changed with the 2022 publication of STRONG-HF, in which a strategy of early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds, initiated predischarge regardless of LVEF, led to a one-third reduced 6-month risk for death or HF readmission.

Based primarily on STRONG-HF, the focused update recommends “an intensive strategy of initiation and rapid up-titration of evidence-based treatment before discharge and during frequent and careful follow-up visits in the first 6 weeks after hospitalization” to reduce readmission and mortality: Class I, level of evidence B.

“There was a large consensus around this recommendation,” said STRONG-HF principal investigator Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, a co-author of both the 2021 and 2023 documents. Conducted before the advent of the four pillars of drug therapy, sometimes called quartet therapy, the trial’s requirement for evidence-based meds didn’t include SGLT2 inhibitors.

The new focused update considers the new status of those agents, especially with regard to their benefits independent of LVEF. So, it completed the quartet by adding empagliflozin or dapagliflozin to the agents that should be initiated predischarge, observed Dr. Mebazaa, University Hospitals Saint Louis‐Lariboisière, Paris, at the focused-update’s ESC 2023 sessions.

The new document also follows STRONG-HF with its emphasis on “frequent and careful follow-up” by recommending certain clinical and laboratory evaluations known to be prognostic in HF. They include congestion status, blood pressure, heart rate, natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and potassium levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Dr. Mebazaa stressed the importance of monitoring NT-proBNP after discharge. “What we saw in STRONG-HF is that sometimes the clinical signs do not necessarily tell you that the patient is still congested.”

After discharge, he said, NT-proBNP levels “should only go down.” So, knowing whether NT-proBNP levels “are stable or increasing” during the med optimization process can help guide diuretic dosing.
 

HF with comorbidities

The new document includes two new Class I recommendations for patients with HF and both type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease based on several recent randomized trials and meta-analyses.

The focused update recommends SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the selective, non-steroidal MRA finerenone (Kerendia) in HF patients with CKD and type-2 diabetes. Both Class I recommendations are supported by a level of evidence A.

The SGLT2 indication is based on DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY plus meta-analyses that included those trials along with others. The recommendation for finerenone derives from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and a pooled analysis of the two studies.

The 2023 focused update also accounts for new clinical-trial insights for patients with HF and iron deficiency. The 2021 document featured recommendations for the diagnosis and iron-repletion therapy in such cases, but only as Class IIa or at lower low levels of evidence. The focused update considers more recent studies, especially IRONMAN and some meta-analyses.

The 2023 document indicates intravenous iron supplementation for symptomatic patients with iron deficiency and either HFrEF or HFmrEF to improve symptoms and quality of life (Class I, level of evidence A), and says it should be considered (Class IIa, level of evidence A) to reduce risk for HF hospitalization.

When the task force assembled to plan the 2023 focused update, Dr. Gardner observed, “the first thing we thought about was the nomenclature around the phenotyping of heart failure.”

Although the 2021 guidelines relied fundamentally on the distinctions between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, it had become apparent to some in the field that some meds, especially the SGLT2 inhibitors, were obscuring their LVEF-based boundaries, at least with respect to drug therapy.

The 2023 document’s developers, Dr. Gardner said, seriously considered changing the three categories to two, that is HFrEF and – to account for all other heart failure – HF with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF).

That didn’t happen, although the proposal was popular within the task force. Any changes to the 2021 document would require a 75% consensus on the matter, Dr. Gardner explained. When the task force took a vote on whether to change the nomenclature, he said, 71% favored the proposal.

Disclosures for members of the task force can be found in a supplement to the published 2023 Focused Update.

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

Two years is a long time in the world of heart failure (HF) management, enough to see publication of more than a dozen studies with insights that would supplant and expand key sections of a far-reaching European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical practice guideline on HF unveiled in 2021.

“Back in 2021, we had three and a half decades of data to consider,” but recent years have seen “an amazing amount of progress” that has necessitated some adjustments and key additions, including several Class I recommendations, observed Roy S. Gardner, MBChB, MD, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Clydebank, United Kingdom.

Much of that recent progress, driven by trials like EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, STRONG-HF, and IRONMAN, has been crystalized into the “2023 Focused Update of the 2021 ESC Guidelines” on HF management, which Dr. Gardner helped unveil over several days at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, held in Amsterdam.

The new document was also published in the European Heart Journal during the ESC sessions. Dr. Gardner is a co-author on both the 2021 and 2023 documents.

The task force that was charged with the focused update’s development “considered a large number of trials across the spectrum of acute chronic heart failure and the comorbidities associated with it,” Ultimately, it considered only those with “results that would lead to new or changed Class I or Class IIa recommendations,” noted Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, during the ESC sessions.

Dr. McDonagh, of King’s College Hospital, London, chaired the task force and led the document’s list of authors along with Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia (Italy).
 

Chronic HF management

The 2021 document’s “beautiful algorithm” on managing HF with reduced ejection fraction, that is HF with an LVEF less than 40%, had helped enshrine the expeditious uptitration of the “four pillars” of drug therapy as a top management goal. That remains unchanged in the focused update, Dr. Gardner noted.

But the new document gives a boost to recommendations for HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), characterized by an LVEF greater than 40% to less than 50%. For that, the 2021 document recommended three of the four pillars of HF medical therapy: beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

The focused update, however, adds the fourth pillar – SGLT2 inhibitors – to core therapy for both HFmrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the latter defined by an LVEF greater than 50%. Publication of trials supporting those new recommendations had narrowly missed availability for the 2021 document.

EMPEROR-Preserved, for example, was published during the same ESC 2021 sessions that introduced the 2021 guidelines. Its patients with HFpEF (which at the time included patients meeting the current definition of HFmrEF) assigned to the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) showed a 21% reduction in risk for a composite primary endpoint that was driven by the HF-hospitalization component.

“This wasn’t a fluke finding,” Dr. Gardner said, as the following year saw publication of the DELIVER trial, which resembled EMPEROR-Preserved in design and outcomes using the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga).

The two trials, backed up by meta-analyses that also included DAPA-HF and other studies, suggested as well that the two SGLT2 inhibitors “work across the spectrum of ejection fraction,” Dr. Gardner said.

The 2023 focused update indicates an SGLT2 inhibitor, either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin, for patients with either HFmrEF or HFpEF to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Both recommendations are of Class I, level of evidence A.

The new indications make SGLT2 inhibitors and diuretics (as needed for fluid retention) the only drugs for HFmrEF or HFpEF with a Class I recommendation. Previously established “rather weaker” Class IIb recommendation for RAS inhibitors, MRAs, and beta blockers that had been “based on subgroup analyses of neutral trials” remained unchanged in the focused update, Dr. McDonagh noted.
 

Patients hospitalized with HF

The 2021 guidelines had recommended that patients hospitalized with acute HF be started on evidence-based meds before discharge and that they return for evaluation 1 to 2 weeks after discharge. But the recommendation was unsupported by randomized trials.

That changed with the 2022 publication of STRONG-HF, in which a strategy of early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds, initiated predischarge regardless of LVEF, led to a one-third reduced 6-month risk for death or HF readmission.

Based primarily on STRONG-HF, the focused update recommends “an intensive strategy of initiation and rapid up-titration of evidence-based treatment before discharge and during frequent and careful follow-up visits in the first 6 weeks after hospitalization” to reduce readmission and mortality: Class I, level of evidence B.

“There was a large consensus around this recommendation,” said STRONG-HF principal investigator Alexandre Mebazaa, MD, PhD, a co-author of both the 2021 and 2023 documents. Conducted before the advent of the four pillars of drug therapy, sometimes called quartet therapy, the trial’s requirement for evidence-based meds didn’t include SGLT2 inhibitors.

The new focused update considers the new status of those agents, especially with regard to their benefits independent of LVEF. So, it completed the quartet by adding empagliflozin or dapagliflozin to the agents that should be initiated predischarge, observed Dr. Mebazaa, University Hospitals Saint Louis‐Lariboisière, Paris, at the focused-update’s ESC 2023 sessions.

The new document also follows STRONG-HF with its emphasis on “frequent and careful follow-up” by recommending certain clinical and laboratory evaluations known to be prognostic in HF. They include congestion status, blood pressure, heart rate, natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and potassium levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Dr. Mebazaa stressed the importance of monitoring NT-proBNP after discharge. “What we saw in STRONG-HF is that sometimes the clinical signs do not necessarily tell you that the patient is still congested.”

After discharge, he said, NT-proBNP levels “should only go down.” So, knowing whether NT-proBNP levels “are stable or increasing” during the med optimization process can help guide diuretic dosing.
 

HF with comorbidities

The new document includes two new Class I recommendations for patients with HF and both type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease based on several recent randomized trials and meta-analyses.

The focused update recommends SGLT2 inhibitors as well as the selective, non-steroidal MRA finerenone (Kerendia) in HF patients with CKD and type-2 diabetes. Both Class I recommendations are supported by a level of evidence A.

The SGLT2 indication is based on DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY plus meta-analyses that included those trials along with others. The recommendation for finerenone derives from the FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD trials and a pooled analysis of the two studies.

The 2023 focused update also accounts for new clinical-trial insights for patients with HF and iron deficiency. The 2021 document featured recommendations for the diagnosis and iron-repletion therapy in such cases, but only as Class IIa or at lower low levels of evidence. The focused update considers more recent studies, especially IRONMAN and some meta-analyses.

The 2023 document indicates intravenous iron supplementation for symptomatic patients with iron deficiency and either HFrEF or HFmrEF to improve symptoms and quality of life (Class I, level of evidence A), and says it should be considered (Class IIa, level of evidence A) to reduce risk for HF hospitalization.

When the task force assembled to plan the 2023 focused update, Dr. Gardner observed, “the first thing we thought about was the nomenclature around the phenotyping of heart failure.”

Although the 2021 guidelines relied fundamentally on the distinctions between HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, it had become apparent to some in the field that some meds, especially the SGLT2 inhibitors, were obscuring their LVEF-based boundaries, at least with respect to drug therapy.

The 2023 document’s developers, Dr. Gardner said, seriously considered changing the three categories to two, that is HFrEF and – to account for all other heart failure – HF with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF).

That didn’t happen, although the proposal was popular within the task force. Any changes to the 2021 document would require a 75% consensus on the matter, Dr. Gardner explained. When the task force took a vote on whether to change the nomenclature, he said, 71% favored the proposal.

Disclosures for members of the task force can be found in a supplement to the published 2023 Focused Update.

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

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


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

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


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

Recorded Aug. 28, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

John M. Mandrola, MD: I’m here at the European Society of Cardiology meeting, and I’m very excited to have two colleagues whom I met at the Western Atrial Fibrillation Symposium (Western AFib) and who presented the CASTLE-HTx study. This is Christian Sohns and Philipp Sommer, and the CASTLE-HTx study is very exciting.

Before I get into that, I really want to introduce the concept of atrial fibrillation in heart failure. I like to say that there are two big populations of patients with atrial fibrillation, and the vast majority can be treated slowly with reassurance and education. There is a group of patients who have heart failure who, when they develop atrial fibrillation, can degenerate rapidly. The CASTLE-HTx study looked at catheter ablation versus medical therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Christian, why don’t you tell us the top-line results and what you found.
 

CASTLE-HTx key findings

Christian Sohns, MD, PhD: Thanks, first of all, for mentioning this special cohort of patients in end-stage heart failure, which is very important. The endpoint of the study was a composite of death from any cause or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and heart transplantation. These are very hard, strong clinical endpoints, not the rate of rehospitalization or something like that.

Catheter ablation was superior to medical therapy alone in terms of this composite endpoint. That was driven by cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, which highlights the fact that you should always consider atrial fibrillation ablation in the end-stage heart failure cohort. The findings were driven by the fact that we saw left ventricular reverse remodeling and the reduction of atrial fibrillation in these patients.

Dr. Mandrola: Tell me about how it came about. It was conducted at your center. Who were these patients?

Philipp Sommer, MD: As one of the biggest centers for heart transplantations all over Europe, with roughly 100 transplants per year, we had many patients being referred to our center with the questions of whether those patients are eligible for a heart transplantation. Not all of the patients in our study were listed for a transplant, but all of them were admitted in that end-stage heart failure status to evaluate their eligibility for transplant.

If we look at the baseline data of those patients, they had an ejection fraction of 29%. They had a 6-minute walk test as a functional capacity parameter of around 300 m. Approximately two thirds of them were New York Heart Association class III and IV, which is significantly worse than what we saw in the previous studies dealing with heart failure patients.

I think overall, if you also look at NT-proBNP levels, this is a really sick patient population where some people might doubt if they should admit and refer those patients for an ablation procedure. Therefore, it’s really interesting and fascinating to see the results.

Dr. Mandrola: I did read in the manuscript, and I heard from you, that these were recruited as outpatients. So they were stable outpatients who were referred to the center for consideration of an LVAD or transplant?

Dr. Sohns: The definition of stability is very difficult in these patients because they have hospital stays, they have a history of drug therapy, and they have a history of interventions also behind them – not atrial fibrillation ablation, but others. I think these patients are referred because the referring physicians are done with the case. They can no longer offer any option to the patients other than surgical treatment, assist device, pump implantation, or transplantation.

If you look at the guidelines, they do not comment on atrial fibrillation ablation in this cohort of patients. Also, they have different recommendations between the American societies and the European societies regarding what is end-stage heart failure and how to treat these patients. Therefore, it was a big benefit of CASTLE-HTx that we randomized a cohort of patients with advanced end-stage heart failure.
 

How can AFib ablation have such big, early effects?

Dr. Mandrola: These are very clinically significant findings, with large effect sizes and very early separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves. How do you explain how dramatic an effect that is, and how early of an effect?

Dr. Sommer: That’s one of the key questions at the end of the day. I think our job basically was to provide the data and to ensure that the data are clean and that it’s all perfectly done. The interpretation of these data is really kind of difficult, although we do not have the 100% perfect and obvious explanation why the curves separated so early. Our view on that is that we are talking about a pretty fragile patient population, so little differences like having a tachyarrhythmia of 110 day in, day out or being in sinus rhythm of 60 can make a huge difference. That’s obviously pretty early.

The one that remains in tachyarrhythmia will deteriorate and will require an LVAD after a couple of months, and the one that you may keep in sinus rhythm, even with reduced atrial fibrillation burden – not zero, but reduced atrial fibrillation burden – and improved LV function, all of a sudden this patient will still remain on a low level of being stable, but he or she will remain stable and will not require any surgical interventions for the next 1.5-2 years. If we can manage to do this, just postponing the natural cause of the disease, I think that is a great benefit for the patient.

Dr. Mandrola: One of the things that comes up in our center is that I look at some of these patients and think, there’s no way I can put this patient under general anesthetic and do all of this. Your ablation procedure wasn’t that extensive, was it?

Dr. Sohns: On the one hand, no. On the other hand, yes. You need to take into consideration that it has been performed by experienced physicians with experience in heart failure treatment and atrial fibrillation in heart transplantation centers, though it›s not sure that we can transfer these results one-to-one to all other centers in the world.

It is very clear that we have almost no major complications in these patients. We were able to do these ablation procedures without general anesthesia. We have 60% of patients who had pulmonary vein isolation only and 40% of patients who have PVI and additional therapy. We have a procedure duration of almost 90 minutes during radiofrequency ablation.

We have different categories. When you talk about the different patient cohorts, we also see different stages of myocardial tissue damage, which will be part of another publication for sure. It is, in part, surprising how normal some of the atria were despite having a volume of 180 mL, but they had no fibrosis. That was very interesting.

Dr. Mandrola: How did the persistent vs paroxysmal atrial fibrillation sort out? Were these mostly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

Dr. Sommer: Two-thirds were persistent. It would be expected in this patient population that you would not find so many paroxysmal cases. I think it›s very important what Christian was just mentioning that when we discussed the trial design, we were anticipating problems with the sedation, for example. With the follow-up of those procedures, would they decompensate because of the fluid that you have to deliver during such a procedure.

We were quite surprised at the end of the day that the procedures were quite straightforward. Fortunately, we had no major complications. I think there were four complications in the 100 ablated patients. I think we were really positive about how the procedures turned out.

I should mention that one of the exclusion criteria was a left atrial diameter of about 60 mm. The huge ones may be very diseased, and maybe the hopeless ones were excluded from the study. Below 60 mm, we did the ablation.
 

Rhythm control

Dr. Mandrola: One of my colleagues, who is even more skeptical than me, wanted me to ask you, why wouldn’t you take a patient with persistent atrial fibrillation who had heart failure and just cardiovert and use amiodarone and try and maintain sinus rhythm that way?

Dr. Sohns: It is important to mention that 50% of the patients have already had amiodarone before they were randomized and enrolled for the trial. It might bring you a couple of minutes or a couple of hours [of relief], but the patients would get recurrence.

It was very interesting also, and this is in line with the data from Jason Andrade, who demonstrated that we were able to reduce the percentage of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation to paroxysmal. We did a down-staging of the underlying disease. This is not possible with cardioversion or drugs, for example.

Dr. Sommer: What I really like about that question and that comment is the idea that rhythm control in this subset of patients obviously has a role and an importance. It may be a cardioversion initially, giving amiodarone if they didn’t have that before, and you can keep the patient in sinus rhythm with this therapy, I think we’re reaching the same goal.

I think the critical point to get into the mind of physicians who treat heart failure is that sinus rhythm is beneficial, however you get there. Ablation, of course, as in other studies, is the most powerful tool to get there. Cardioversion can be a really good thing to do; you just have to think about it and consider it.

Dr. Mandrola: I do want to say to everybody that there is a tension sometimes between the heart failure community and the electrophysiology community. I think the ideal situation is that we work together, because I think that we can help with the maintenance of sinus rhythm. The control group mortality at 1 year was 20%, and I’ve heard people say that that’s not advanced heart failure. Advanced heart failure patients have much higher mortality than that. My colleague who is a heart failure specialist was criticizing a selection bias in picking the best patients. How would you answer that?

Dr. Sohns: There are data available from Eurotransplant, for example, that the waiting list mortality is 18%, so I think we are almost in line with this 20% mortality in this conservative group. You cannot generalize it. All these patients have different histories. We have 60% dilated cardiomyopathy and 40% ischemic cardiomyopathy. I think it is a very representative group in contrast to your friend who suggests that it is not.

Dr. Sommer: What I like about the discussion is that some approach us to say that the mortality in the control group is much too high – like, what are you doing with those patients that you create so many endpoints? Then others say that it’s not high enough because that is not end-stage heart failure. Come on! We have a patient cohort that is very well described and very well characterized.

If the label is end-stage heart failure, advanced heart failure, or whatever, they are sicker than the patients that we had in earlier trials. The patients that we treated were mostly excluded from all other trials. We opened the door. We found a clear result. I think everyone can see whatever you like to see.

Dr. Mandrola: What would your take-home message be after having done this trial design, the trial was conducted in your single center, and you come up with these amazing results? What would your message be to the whole community?

Dr. Sohns: Taking into consideration how severely sick these patients are, I can just repeat it: They are one step away from death, more or less, or from surgical intervention that can prolong their life. You should also consider that there are options like atrial fibrillation ablation that can buy time, postpone the natural course, or even in some patients replace the destination therapy. Therefore, in my opinion the next guidelines should recommend that every patient should carefully be checked for sinus rhythm before bringing these patients into the environment of transplantation.

Dr. Sommer: My interpretation is that we have to try to bring into physicians’ minds that besides a well-established and well-documented effect of drug therapy with the fabulous four, we may now have the fabulous five, including an ablation option for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. Dr. Sohns is deputy director of the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany. Dr. Sommer is professor of cardiology at the Heart and Diabetes Center NRW. Dr. Mandrola reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Sohns reported receiving research funding from Else Kröner–Fresenius–Stiftung. Dr. Sommer reported consulting with Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic USA.


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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is my usual blog, except I am here from the absolutely beautiful city of Amsterdam, where the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology has been going on.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors for HFpEF and HFrEF

I’m going to review very briefly the 2023 focused update to the ESC heart failure guidelines. Theresa McDonagh was the first author of this and of the previous ESC or European guidelines. These are a little bit different than the American guidelines, which were presented in 2022. We know that we need an update. The Europeans have gotten ahead of us, and now we have the European update, which I find incredibly well written and it really highlights the areas that I think the takeaways are for the clinicians.

First, we have been seeing now for several years – since 2018 – the benefits of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Every time we lift the veil on something, there they are in a positive light. We have learned about heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for both empagliflozin and dapagliflozin. There are very similar results. One population may be enriched with a little of this and a little of that, but the basic messages are the same. In HFrEF, both of these drugs improve outcomes and it happens quickly. You don’t have to wait 1 or 2 years to see this. Within months, and actually within days, you start to see the curves split apart statistically.

The next logical ground was heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The definition, when we started the HFpEF trials, was 45% or greater. I want the audience to realize that, in the midst of all these trials, we came out – we meaning the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society – with the new definition of heart failure, which said that true HFpEF is 50% or greater. That in-between zone of 40%-50% or 41%-49% is mRF, or mid-range, what I call middle of the road. I think the Europeans have really emphasized that to us. I believe that those patients really behave much more like a HFrEF population.

Now that we have very positive findings with the SGLT2 inhibitors, both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in HFpEF – defined, as I said, as 40% or 45% or greater, not necessarily 50% – with excellent point estimates that just line up, one on top of the other. It doesn’t matter if patients have diabetes or not; the results are exactly the same.

This has been so promising that I am not surprised that the Europeans elevated the SGLT2 inhibitors to a class 1A indication. In the United States in 2022, we thought we were really way ahead by calling it a class 2A indication. Well, now it’s a class 1A indication in Europe, and I have a feeling that the AHA and the ACC are going to start talking about an update because the data are so strong.

Now, we even have data on initiating these drugs in the hospital. EMPULSE was a very large trial about the benefits of starting these drugs in the hospital. You do not have to wait until the patient is in the outpatient setting. You can start it in the hospital.

When? I have no specific day that I start it. I used to try to do a good diuresis first, get the patients somewhat decongested, and then start it. I don’t want to deprive the patients of the benefits of these drugs that happen very early by waiting until the patients are in the outpatient setting.

In the United States, we’ve had some issues with coverage of some of these drugs. In my institution, we now have both on the formulary, and I pick the drug depending upon the patient’s coverage. Medicare pretty much covers most of them. If the patient is older but not yet a Medicare patient, they may have a very large copay. I advise you to get your offices or your health system to look into this so that, when you give the prescription to the patient, whether they’re leaving the hospital or are now in your clinics, they can actually get the drug.
 

Finerenone and intravenous iron

There is an additional recommendation in these guidelines for finerenone, the mineralocorticoid receptor agonist that I’ve discussed before, that has some really promising data on type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease. They have called that a class 1A indication for finerenone. I think there is more to come.

One more: the iron deficiency. Giving intravenous iron actually does improve symptoms and quality of life. I have seen this in my own patients, so I have been very diligent at looking for iron deficiency.

It is a new era. We have more tools, obviously, for our patients. It means one more drug, and that’s always a challenge. We’ve already been doing the pillars of care. This is the fourth pillar of care, but now with a class 1A indication.

Take a look. They’re easy to read. Dr. McDonagh is the first author, and I think they’ve been extremely well done.

Dr. Piña is professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. She is a heart failure and cardiac transplantation expert. She disclosed serving as an adviser/consultant to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and has been a volunteer for the American Heart Association since 1982.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”

“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.

“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
 

Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough

Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.

Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.

Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
 

Effective management strategies

Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.

The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.

“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.

Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
 

Current treatments and future prospects

Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.

Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.

Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.

“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.

Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.

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

AMSTERDAM – For patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, initiating treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) before hospital discharge was safe, it appeared to improve diuresis and natriuresis while reducing the administered diuretic dose, and it meant quicker initiation of guideline-directed therapy in a controlled study of 238 patients.

Treatment with dapagliflozin was begun for people with heart failure on their first day of hospitalization for an acute episode. Such treatment “can be safely started to optimize a key medication,” Zachary Cox, PharmD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. It improved fluid removal, as evidenced in the “totality of diuretic measures,” it resulted in reduced doses of IV diuretics, and it shortened length of stay in the hospital.

In current U.S. practice, about 80% of people hospitalized with heart failure do not initially receive treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor during their hospital stay when they are not already taking an agent from the class, noted Dr. Cox, professor of pharmacy at Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy in Nashville, Tenn.

Physicians are often uncomfortable changing a patient’s medications on the first day of a hospitalization, he noted. “Our results should embolden physicians” to begin treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor early during hospitalization and to then continue it chronically, Dr. Cox said in a press briefing.

“Despite the messaging [from guidelines], we still see hesitancy. We hope more evidence of safety will improve uptake.” The study’s “key message is to start guideline-directed medical therapy early,” prior to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox concluded.
 

“Some support” for SGLT2 inhibitors

The study results “provide some support for SGLT2 inhibitors facilitating decongestion and hospital discharge without observed safety issues,” said Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, designated discussant for the report and a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

While initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor during an acute heart failure hospitalization received endorsement as a top management priority in both the 2023 heart failure guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and in 2022 U.S. guidelines, evidence of the safety and efficacy of this approach has been scanty, Dr. Wiviott noted.

Two prior studies addressed the issue. The SOLOIST-WHF trial tested the combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Inpefa, Lexicon) for patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, but only 142 of the 596 participants who were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin began receiving it at least a day before hospital discharge; for the remaining 454, treatment with sotagliflozin began on their discharge day, noted Dr. Wiviott.

In the EMPULSE trial, 530 people hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomly assigned to initially receive empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly) or placebo during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was largely driven by an improvement in the patient-reported outcome, as assessed on the basis of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, Dr. Wiviott added.

The DICTATE-AHF study included 238 adults who were within 24 hours of first presenting to any of six participating U.S. hospitals with hypervolemic acute heart failure. All patients underwent a standard treatment protocol with IV loop diuretics, and half received additional, open-label treatment with a daily 10-mg dose of dapagliflozin.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 71% had type 2 diabetes (the study excluded people with type 1 diabetes), and about half had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less.
 

Similar weight loss with lower diuretics dose

The study’s primary outcome was a measure of diuretic efficiency, calculated as a person’s cumulative weight change divided by the cumulative dose of loop diuretics.

Both treatment arms experienced nearly identical weight loss, but for the people who received dapagliflozin, this occurred with a lower cumulative dose of diuretics. The diuretic efficiency with dapagliflozin produced comparable weight loss with a 35% lower amount of loop diuretic dose, a difference that fell just short of significance (P = .06).

However, treatment with dapagliflozin also significantly boosted 24-hour natriuresis and 24-hour diuresis, and it significantly shortened the time to stopping treatment with IV diuretics and to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox reported. Dapagliflozin initiation and ongoing treatment was also safe and well tolerated compared with usual care.

The fact that the primary endpoint fell short of significance was “largely related” to the study’s relatively small size, Dr. Wiviott suggested. He noted that the DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 study, which is a much larger and potentially more definitive study of the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in comparison with usual care for patients with acute heart failure, is in progress. The study includes about 2,400 patients.

The primary outcome is the combined rate of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure during the 2 months following randomization. Results are expected in 2024.

DICTATE-AHF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Cox has received research funding from AstraZeneca and has been a consultant to Roche and Translational Catalyst. Dr. Wiviott has received research funding from AstraZeneca and from Merck and has been a consultant to Icon Clinical and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – For patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, initiating treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) before hospital discharge was safe, it appeared to improve diuresis and natriuresis while reducing the administered diuretic dose, and it meant quicker initiation of guideline-directed therapy in a controlled study of 238 patients.

Treatment with dapagliflozin was begun for people with heart failure on their first day of hospitalization for an acute episode. Such treatment “can be safely started to optimize a key medication,” Zachary Cox, PharmD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. It improved fluid removal, as evidenced in the “totality of diuretic measures,” it resulted in reduced doses of IV diuretics, and it shortened length of stay in the hospital.

In current U.S. practice, about 80% of people hospitalized with heart failure do not initially receive treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor during their hospital stay when they are not already taking an agent from the class, noted Dr. Cox, professor of pharmacy at Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy in Nashville, Tenn.

Physicians are often uncomfortable changing a patient’s medications on the first day of a hospitalization, he noted. “Our results should embolden physicians” to begin treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor early during hospitalization and to then continue it chronically, Dr. Cox said in a press briefing.

“Despite the messaging [from guidelines], we still see hesitancy. We hope more evidence of safety will improve uptake.” The study’s “key message is to start guideline-directed medical therapy early,” prior to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox concluded.
 

“Some support” for SGLT2 inhibitors

The study results “provide some support for SGLT2 inhibitors facilitating decongestion and hospital discharge without observed safety issues,” said Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, designated discussant for the report and a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

While initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor during an acute heart failure hospitalization received endorsement as a top management priority in both the 2023 heart failure guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and in 2022 U.S. guidelines, evidence of the safety and efficacy of this approach has been scanty, Dr. Wiviott noted.

Two prior studies addressed the issue. The SOLOIST-WHF trial tested the combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Inpefa, Lexicon) for patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, but only 142 of the 596 participants who were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin began receiving it at least a day before hospital discharge; for the remaining 454, treatment with sotagliflozin began on their discharge day, noted Dr. Wiviott.

In the EMPULSE trial, 530 people hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomly assigned to initially receive empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly) or placebo during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was largely driven by an improvement in the patient-reported outcome, as assessed on the basis of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, Dr. Wiviott added.

The DICTATE-AHF study included 238 adults who were within 24 hours of first presenting to any of six participating U.S. hospitals with hypervolemic acute heart failure. All patients underwent a standard treatment protocol with IV loop diuretics, and half received additional, open-label treatment with a daily 10-mg dose of dapagliflozin.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 71% had type 2 diabetes (the study excluded people with type 1 diabetes), and about half had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less.
 

Similar weight loss with lower diuretics dose

The study’s primary outcome was a measure of diuretic efficiency, calculated as a person’s cumulative weight change divided by the cumulative dose of loop diuretics.

Both treatment arms experienced nearly identical weight loss, but for the people who received dapagliflozin, this occurred with a lower cumulative dose of diuretics. The diuretic efficiency with dapagliflozin produced comparable weight loss with a 35% lower amount of loop diuretic dose, a difference that fell just short of significance (P = .06).

However, treatment with dapagliflozin also significantly boosted 24-hour natriuresis and 24-hour diuresis, and it significantly shortened the time to stopping treatment with IV diuretics and to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox reported. Dapagliflozin initiation and ongoing treatment was also safe and well tolerated compared with usual care.

The fact that the primary endpoint fell short of significance was “largely related” to the study’s relatively small size, Dr. Wiviott suggested. He noted that the DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 study, which is a much larger and potentially more definitive study of the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in comparison with usual care for patients with acute heart failure, is in progress. The study includes about 2,400 patients.

The primary outcome is the combined rate of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure during the 2 months following randomization. Results are expected in 2024.

DICTATE-AHF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Cox has received research funding from AstraZeneca and has been a consultant to Roche and Translational Catalyst. Dr. Wiviott has received research funding from AstraZeneca and from Merck and has been a consultant to Icon Clinical and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – For patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, initiating treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) before hospital discharge was safe, it appeared to improve diuresis and natriuresis while reducing the administered diuretic dose, and it meant quicker initiation of guideline-directed therapy in a controlled study of 238 patients.

Treatment with dapagliflozin was begun for people with heart failure on their first day of hospitalization for an acute episode. Such treatment “can be safely started to optimize a key medication,” Zachary Cox, PharmD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. It improved fluid removal, as evidenced in the “totality of diuretic measures,” it resulted in reduced doses of IV diuretics, and it shortened length of stay in the hospital.

In current U.S. practice, about 80% of people hospitalized with heart failure do not initially receive treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor during their hospital stay when they are not already taking an agent from the class, noted Dr. Cox, professor of pharmacy at Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy in Nashville, Tenn.

Physicians are often uncomfortable changing a patient’s medications on the first day of a hospitalization, he noted. “Our results should embolden physicians” to begin treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor early during hospitalization and to then continue it chronically, Dr. Cox said in a press briefing.

“Despite the messaging [from guidelines], we still see hesitancy. We hope more evidence of safety will improve uptake.” The study’s “key message is to start guideline-directed medical therapy early,” prior to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox concluded.
 

“Some support” for SGLT2 inhibitors

The study results “provide some support for SGLT2 inhibitors facilitating decongestion and hospital discharge without observed safety issues,” said Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, designated discussant for the report and a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

While initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor during an acute heart failure hospitalization received endorsement as a top management priority in both the 2023 heart failure guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and in 2022 U.S. guidelines, evidence of the safety and efficacy of this approach has been scanty, Dr. Wiviott noted.

Two prior studies addressed the issue. The SOLOIST-WHF trial tested the combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Inpefa, Lexicon) for patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, but only 142 of the 596 participants who were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin began receiving it at least a day before hospital discharge; for the remaining 454, treatment with sotagliflozin began on their discharge day, noted Dr. Wiviott.

In the EMPULSE trial, 530 people hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomly assigned to initially receive empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly) or placebo during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was largely driven by an improvement in the patient-reported outcome, as assessed on the basis of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, Dr. Wiviott added.

The DICTATE-AHF study included 238 adults who were within 24 hours of first presenting to any of six participating U.S. hospitals with hypervolemic acute heart failure. All patients underwent a standard treatment protocol with IV loop diuretics, and half received additional, open-label treatment with a daily 10-mg dose of dapagliflozin.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 71% had type 2 diabetes (the study excluded people with type 1 diabetes), and about half had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less.
 

Similar weight loss with lower diuretics dose

The study’s primary outcome was a measure of diuretic efficiency, calculated as a person’s cumulative weight change divided by the cumulative dose of loop diuretics.

Both treatment arms experienced nearly identical weight loss, but for the people who received dapagliflozin, this occurred with a lower cumulative dose of diuretics. The diuretic efficiency with dapagliflozin produced comparable weight loss with a 35% lower amount of loop diuretic dose, a difference that fell just short of significance (P = .06).

However, treatment with dapagliflozin also significantly boosted 24-hour natriuresis and 24-hour diuresis, and it significantly shortened the time to stopping treatment with IV diuretics and to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox reported. Dapagliflozin initiation and ongoing treatment was also safe and well tolerated compared with usual care.

The fact that the primary endpoint fell short of significance was “largely related” to the study’s relatively small size, Dr. Wiviott suggested. He noted that the DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 study, which is a much larger and potentially more definitive study of the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in comparison with usual care for patients with acute heart failure, is in progress. The study includes about 2,400 patients.

The primary outcome is the combined rate of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure during the 2 months following randomization. Results are expected in 2024.

DICTATE-AHF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Cox has received research funding from AstraZeneca and has been a consultant to Roche and Translational Catalyst. Dr. Wiviott has received research funding from AstraZeneca and from Merck and has been a consultant to Icon Clinical and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

Catheter ablation had long taken atrial fibrillation (AF) rhythm control to the next level before clinical trials showed it could help keep AF patients with heart failure (HF) alive and out of the hospital.

But those trials didn’t include many patients with AF on top of advanced or even end-stage HF. Lacking much of an evidence base and often viewed as too sick to gain a lot from the procedure, patients with AF and advanced HF aren’t offered ablation very often.

Now a randomized trial suggests that, on the contrary, AF ablation may confer a similar benefit to patients with HF so advanced that they were referred for evaluation at a transplant center.

The study, modestly sized with fewer than 200 such patients and conducted at a single center, assigned half of them to receive ablation and the other half to continued medical management.

Risk for the composite primary endpoint plunged 76% over a median of 18 months for those who underwent ablation. The outcome comprised death from any cause, implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or urgent heart transplantation.

The advantage for ablation emerged early enough that the trial, CASTLE-HTx, was halted for benefit only a year after reaching its planned enrollment, observed Christian Sohns, MD, when formally presenting the results in Amsterdam at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The difference in the primary endpoint “in this severely sick cohort of advanced, end-stage heart failure patients,” he said, was driven mostly by fewer deaths, especially cardiovascular deaths, in the ablation group.

Ablation’s effect on outcomes was associated, perhaps causally, with significant gains in left ventricular (LV) function and more than triple the reduction in AF burden seen in the control group, noted Dr. Sohns, from the Heart and Diabetes Center North-Rhine Westphalia, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.

“Our trial suggests that in patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage heart failure, catheter ablation may ameliorate the clinical course,” states the CASTLE-HTx primary report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with Dr. Sohns as lead author, in tandem with his ESC presentation.

One of the study’s key messages “is that AF ablation is safe and effective in patients with end-stage heart failure” and “should be part of our armamentarium” for treating them, said Philipp Sommer, MD, also with Heart and Diabetes Center North-Rhine Westphalia, at a press conference preceding Dr. Sohns’ presentation of CASTLE-HTx.

The intervention could potentially help such patients survive longer on transplant wait lists and even delay need for the surgery, proposed Dr. Sommer, who is senior author on the trial’s publication.

CASTLE-HTx suggests that patients with advanced HF and even persistent AF, “if they have reasonably small atria, should be actually considered for ablation, as it may prevent the need for heart transplant or LVAD implant,” said invited discussant Finn Gustafsson, MD, PhD, DMSc, after Dr. Sohns’ presentation. “And that, of course, would be a huge achievement.”

The trial “should, if anything, help eradicate the current somewhat nihilistic approach to atrial fibrillation management in patients with advanced heart failure,” said Dr. Gustafsson, medical director of cardiac transplantation and mechanical circulatory support, Rigshopsitalet Copenhagen University Hospital.

Still, he disputed the characterization by the investigators and indeed the published report that the patients, or most of them, had “end-stage heart failure.”

For example, about a third of the trial’s patients started out in NYHA class 2, Dr. Gustafsson noted. Not that they weren’t “high-risk” or their HF wasn’t severe, he offered, but they don’t seem to have been “a truly advanced heart failure population.”

The trial population consisted of “patients referred to an advanced heart failure center, rather than patients with advanced heart failure,” agreed Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston.

Also citing a large prevalence of patients in NYHA class-2, Dr. Mehra added that “we almost never see paroxysmal atrial fib in these patients. It’s usually an early-stage phenomenon.” In advanced HF, AF “is usually permanent,” he told this news organization. Yet it was paroxysmal in about 30% of cases.

To its credit, Dr. Mehra observed, the study does assert that advanced HF is no reason, necessarily, to avoid catheter ablation. Nor should an AF patient’s referral to an advanced-HF center “mean that you should rush to an LVAD or transplant” before considering ablation.

The study seems to be saying, “please exhaust all options before you biologically replace the heart or put in an LVAD,” Dr. Mehra said. “Certainly, this paper steers you in that direction.”

The trial entered 194 patients with symptomatic AF and HF of at least NYHA class 2, with impaired functional capacity by the 6-minute walk test, who had been referred to a major center in Germany for a heart-transplantation workup. With all on guideline-directed medical therapy, 97 were randomly assigned open-label to catheter ablation and 97 to continued standard care.

Catheter ablation was actually carried out in 81 patients (84%) who had been assigned to it and in 16 (16%) of those in the control group, the report states.

A total of 8 in the ablation group and 29 in the control arm died, received an LVAD, or went to urgent transplantation, for a hazard ratio of 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.52; P < .001) for the primary endpoint.

Death from any cause apparently played a big role in the risk reduction; its HR was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12-0.72).

One peculiarity of the data, Dr. Mehra said, is that event curves for the primary endpoint and its individual components “diverge almost from day 1.” That would mean the ablation group right away started having fewer deaths, LVAD placements, or heart transplants than the control group.

“It is surprising to see such a large effect size on endpoints that are very much dependent on operators and diverge within the first day.” Probably, Dr. Mehra said, “it has to do with this being a single-center study that may not be generalizable to other practices.”

CASTLE HTx was supported by a grant from Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung. Dr. Sommer discloses consulting for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Sohns reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gustafsson discloses receiving honoraria or fees for consulting from Abbott, Alnylam Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ionis, Novartis, and Pfizer; serving on a speakers bureau for Astra Zeneca and Orion; and receiving grants from Corvia Research. Dr. Mehra has reported receiving payments to his institution from Abbott for consulting; consulting fees from Janssen, Mesoblast, Broadview Ventures, Natera, Paragonix, Moderna, and the Baim Institute for Clinical Research; and serving on a scientific advisory board for NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart.

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

Catheter ablation had long taken atrial fibrillation (AF) rhythm control to the next level before clinical trials showed it could help keep AF patients with heart failure (HF) alive and out of the hospital.

But those trials didn’t include many patients with AF on top of advanced or even end-stage HF. Lacking much of an evidence base and often viewed as too sick to gain a lot from the procedure, patients with AF and advanced HF aren’t offered ablation very often.

Now a randomized trial suggests that, on the contrary, AF ablation may confer a similar benefit to patients with HF so advanced that they were referred for evaluation at a transplant center.

The study, modestly sized with fewer than 200 such patients and conducted at a single center, assigned half of them to receive ablation and the other half to continued medical management.

Risk for the composite primary endpoint plunged 76% over a median of 18 months for those who underwent ablation. The outcome comprised death from any cause, implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or urgent heart transplantation.

The advantage for ablation emerged early enough that the trial, CASTLE-HTx, was halted for benefit only a year after reaching its planned enrollment, observed Christian Sohns, MD, when formally presenting the results in Amsterdam at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The difference in the primary endpoint “in this severely sick cohort of advanced, end-stage heart failure patients,” he said, was driven mostly by fewer deaths, especially cardiovascular deaths, in the ablation group.

Ablation’s effect on outcomes was associated, perhaps causally, with significant gains in left ventricular (LV) function and more than triple the reduction in AF burden seen in the control group, noted Dr. Sohns, from the Heart and Diabetes Center North-Rhine Westphalia, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.

“Our trial suggests that in patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage heart failure, catheter ablation may ameliorate the clinical course,” states the CASTLE-HTx primary report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with Dr. Sohns as lead author, in tandem with his ESC presentation.

One of the study’s key messages “is that AF ablation is safe and effective in patients with end-stage heart failure” and “should be part of our armamentarium” for treating them, said Philipp Sommer, MD, also with Heart and Diabetes Center North-Rhine Westphalia, at a press conference preceding Dr. Sohns’ presentation of CASTLE-HTx.

The intervention could potentially help such patients survive longer on transplant wait lists and even delay need for the surgery, proposed Dr. Sommer, who is senior author on the trial’s publication.

CASTLE-HTx suggests that patients with advanced HF and even persistent AF, “if they have reasonably small atria, should be actually considered for ablation, as it may prevent the need for heart transplant or LVAD implant,” said invited discussant Finn Gustafsson, MD, PhD, DMSc, after Dr. Sohns’ presentation. “And that, of course, would be a huge achievement.”

The trial “should, if anything, help eradicate the current somewhat nihilistic approach to atrial fibrillation management in patients with advanced heart failure,” said Dr. Gustafsson, medical director of cardiac transplantation and mechanical circulatory support, Rigshopsitalet Copenhagen University Hospital.

Still, he disputed the characterization by the investigators and indeed the published report that the patients, or most of them, had “end-stage heart failure.”

For example, about a third of the trial’s patients started out in NYHA class 2, Dr. Gustafsson noted. Not that they weren’t “high-risk” or their HF wasn’t severe, he offered, but they don’t seem to have been “a truly advanced heart failure population.”

The trial population consisted of “patients referred to an advanced heart failure center, rather than patients with advanced heart failure,” agreed Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston.

Also citing a large prevalence of patients in NYHA class-2, Dr. Mehra added that “we almost never see paroxysmal atrial fib in these patients. It’s usually an early-stage phenomenon.” In advanced HF, AF “is usually permanent,” he told this news organization. Yet it was paroxysmal in about 30% of cases.

To its credit, Dr. Mehra observed, the study does assert that advanced HF is no reason, necessarily, to avoid catheter ablation. Nor should an AF patient’s referral to an advanced-HF center “mean that you should rush to an LVAD or transplant” before considering ablation.

The study seems to be saying, “please exhaust all options before you biologically replace the heart or put in an LVAD,” Dr. Mehra said. “Certainly, this paper steers you in that direction.”

The trial entered 194 patients with symptomatic AF and HF of at least NYHA class 2, with impaired functional capacity by the 6-minute walk test, who had been referred to a major center in Germany for a heart-transplantation workup. With all on guideline-directed medical therapy, 97 were randomly assigned open-label to catheter ablation and 97 to continued standard care.

Catheter ablation was actually carried out in 81 patients (84%) who had been assigned to it and in 16 (16%) of those in the control group, the report states.

A total of 8 in the ablation group and 29 in the control arm died, received an LVAD, or went to urgent transplantation, for a hazard ratio of 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.52; P < .001) for the primary endpoint.

Death from any cause apparently played a big role in the risk reduction; its HR was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12-0.72).

One peculiarity of the data, Dr. Mehra said, is that event curves for the primary endpoint and its individual components “diverge almost from day 1.” That would mean the ablation group right away started having fewer deaths, LVAD placements, or heart transplants than the control group.

“It is surprising to see such a large effect size on endpoints that are very much dependent on operators and diverge within the first day.” Probably, Dr. Mehra said, “it has to do with this being a single-center study that may not be generalizable to other practices.”

CASTLE HTx was supported by a grant from Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung. Dr. Sommer discloses consulting for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Sohns reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gustafsson discloses receiving honoraria or fees for consulting from Abbott, Alnylam Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ionis, Novartis, and Pfizer; serving on a speakers bureau for Astra Zeneca and Orion; and receiving grants from Corvia Research. Dr. Mehra has reported receiving payments to his institution from Abbott for consulting; consulting fees from Janssen, Mesoblast, Broadview Ventures, Natera, Paragonix, Moderna, and the Baim Institute for Clinical Research; and serving on a scientific advisory board for NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart.

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

Catheter ablation had long taken atrial fibrillation (AF) rhythm control to the next level before clinical trials showed it could help keep AF patients with heart failure (HF) alive and out of the hospital.

But those trials didn’t include many patients with AF on top of advanced or even end-stage HF. Lacking much of an evidence base and often viewed as too sick to gain a lot from the procedure, patients with AF and advanced HF aren’t offered ablation very often.

Now a randomized trial suggests that, on the contrary, AF ablation may confer a similar benefit to patients with HF so advanced that they were referred for evaluation at a transplant center.

The study, modestly sized with fewer than 200 such patients and conducted at a single center, assigned half of them to receive ablation and the other half to continued medical management.

Risk for the composite primary endpoint plunged 76% over a median of 18 months for those who underwent ablation. The outcome comprised death from any cause, implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or urgent heart transplantation.

The advantage for ablation emerged early enough that the trial, CASTLE-HTx, was halted for benefit only a year after reaching its planned enrollment, observed Christian Sohns, MD, when formally presenting the results in Amsterdam at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The difference in the primary endpoint “in this severely sick cohort of advanced, end-stage heart failure patients,” he said, was driven mostly by fewer deaths, especially cardiovascular deaths, in the ablation group.

Ablation’s effect on outcomes was associated, perhaps causally, with significant gains in left ventricular (LV) function and more than triple the reduction in AF burden seen in the control group, noted Dr. Sohns, from the Heart and Diabetes Center North-Rhine Westphalia, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.

“Our trial suggests that in patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage heart failure, catheter ablation may ameliorate the clinical course,” states the CASTLE-HTx primary report, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with Dr. Sohns as lead author, in tandem with his ESC presentation.

One of the study’s key messages “is that AF ablation is safe and effective in patients with end-stage heart failure” and “should be part of our armamentarium” for treating them, said Philipp Sommer, MD, also with Heart and Diabetes Center North-Rhine Westphalia, at a press conference preceding Dr. Sohns’ presentation of CASTLE-HTx.

The intervention could potentially help such patients survive longer on transplant wait lists and even delay need for the surgery, proposed Dr. Sommer, who is senior author on the trial’s publication.

CASTLE-HTx suggests that patients with advanced HF and even persistent AF, “if they have reasonably small atria, should be actually considered for ablation, as it may prevent the need for heart transplant or LVAD implant,” said invited discussant Finn Gustafsson, MD, PhD, DMSc, after Dr. Sohns’ presentation. “And that, of course, would be a huge achievement.”

The trial “should, if anything, help eradicate the current somewhat nihilistic approach to atrial fibrillation management in patients with advanced heart failure,” said Dr. Gustafsson, medical director of cardiac transplantation and mechanical circulatory support, Rigshopsitalet Copenhagen University Hospital.

Still, he disputed the characterization by the investigators and indeed the published report that the patients, or most of them, had “end-stage heart failure.”

For example, about a third of the trial’s patients started out in NYHA class 2, Dr. Gustafsson noted. Not that they weren’t “high-risk” or their HF wasn’t severe, he offered, but they don’t seem to have been “a truly advanced heart failure population.”

The trial population consisted of “patients referred to an advanced heart failure center, rather than patients with advanced heart failure,” agreed Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston.

Also citing a large prevalence of patients in NYHA class-2, Dr. Mehra added that “we almost never see paroxysmal atrial fib in these patients. It’s usually an early-stage phenomenon.” In advanced HF, AF “is usually permanent,” he told this news organization. Yet it was paroxysmal in about 30% of cases.

To its credit, Dr. Mehra observed, the study does assert that advanced HF is no reason, necessarily, to avoid catheter ablation. Nor should an AF patient’s referral to an advanced-HF center “mean that you should rush to an LVAD or transplant” before considering ablation.

The study seems to be saying, “please exhaust all options before you biologically replace the heart or put in an LVAD,” Dr. Mehra said. “Certainly, this paper steers you in that direction.”

The trial entered 194 patients with symptomatic AF and HF of at least NYHA class 2, with impaired functional capacity by the 6-minute walk test, who had been referred to a major center in Germany for a heart-transplantation workup. With all on guideline-directed medical therapy, 97 were randomly assigned open-label to catheter ablation and 97 to continued standard care.

Catheter ablation was actually carried out in 81 patients (84%) who had been assigned to it and in 16 (16%) of those in the control group, the report states.

A total of 8 in the ablation group and 29 in the control arm died, received an LVAD, or went to urgent transplantation, for a hazard ratio of 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.52; P < .001) for the primary endpoint.

Death from any cause apparently played a big role in the risk reduction; its HR was 0.29 (95% CI, 0.12-0.72).

One peculiarity of the data, Dr. Mehra said, is that event curves for the primary endpoint and its individual components “diverge almost from day 1.” That would mean the ablation group right away started having fewer deaths, LVAD placements, or heart transplants than the control group.

“It is surprising to see such a large effect size on endpoints that are very much dependent on operators and diverge within the first day.” Probably, Dr. Mehra said, “it has to do with this being a single-center study that may not be generalizable to other practices.”

CASTLE HTx was supported by a grant from Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung. Dr. Sommer discloses consulting for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Sohns reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gustafsson discloses receiving honoraria or fees for consulting from Abbott, Alnylam Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ionis, Novartis, and Pfizer; serving on a speakers bureau for Astra Zeneca and Orion; and receiving grants from Corvia Research. Dr. Mehra has reported receiving payments to his institution from Abbott for consulting; consulting fees from Janssen, Mesoblast, Broadview Ventures, Natera, Paragonix, Moderna, and the Baim Institute for Clinical Research; and serving on a scientific advisory board for NuPulseCV, Leviticus, and FineHeart.

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

AMSTERDAM – The more weight patients lost while on weekly semaglutide treatment in the STEP-HFpEF trial, the better their outcomes, suggesting that weight loss by itself was a major reason why the treatment improved a broad range of prespecified study outcomes, including symptoms and physical limitations, exercise capacity, and inflammation, new analyses from the trial show.

At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology where he presented these new findings, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, also posited that weight loss produced by weekly subcutaneous injections of 2.4 mg semaglutide (Wegovy) for 52 weeks in the study does not fully explain the multiple mechanisms that may be involved in producing this intervention’s effects in the STEP-HFpEF trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His report earlier at the congress and in a simultaneously published report of the trial’s primary outcomes established a role for medically induced weight loss in managing patients with obesity-phenotype HFpEF in a total of 529 randomized individuals with HFpEF and obesity but without diabetes.

The new analyses showed that for one of the two primary endpoints – the change from baseline in patients’ assessment on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ), the placebo-adjusted average change was a 16.1-point improvement in the 51 people with a 5%-10% weight loss during the 1-year study, and a 21.6-point improvement in the 58 who had at least a 20% weight loss, a between-group average 5.5 point difference that represents a clinically meaningful incremental improvement in this validated metric of symptoms and functional limitations.

Similar weight-related differences in benefit also occurred for the secondary outcomes of changes from baseline in 6-minute walk distance and in levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a measure of systemic inflammation.

In an adjusted regression model, every 10% drop from baseline body weight was significantly linked with a 6.4-point improvement in KCCQ score, a 14.4 meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance, and a 28% relative reduction from baseline in CRP, reported Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

These new, prespecified analyses also showed that people with obesity and HFpEF responded roughly the same to semaglutide treatment compared with placebo-treated controls regardless of their starting body mass index, including people with class 1 (30-34 kg/m²), class 2 (35-39 kg/m²), and class 3 (≥ 40 kg/m²) obesity.

Simultaneously with Dr. Kosiborod’s report at the congress, these findings appeared in a report posted online in Nature Medicine.
 

Not every benefit was fully mediated by weight loss

These analyses “do not tell us how much of the benefit was mediated by weight loss, but the data do say that the more weight a person lost, the more benefit they got,” Dr. Kosiborod explained in an interview. “That is not the same as saying that everything is mediated by weight. It doesn’t say that nothing beyond weight loss matters.”

He and his associates are planning a mediation analysis of data from STEP-HFpEF that will more directly address this issue.

“It’s likely that people who lost more weight with semaglutide also had greater benefits from other effects of semaglutide at the same time. Weight loss is a good surrogate marker” for the range of effects that a person receives from treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, Dr. Kosiborod said.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists may have direct effects on atherosclerosis, as well as other effects that are uncoupled from weight loss,” such as proven anti-inflammatory effects, he added.

Another exploratory effect from semaglutide treatment in the study and reported by Dr. Kosiborod was a significant reduction in serum levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, an association never previously seen with weight loss in people with heart failure.

“The outcomes we’ve already seen in STEP-HFpEF were largely symptomatic, which are extraordinarily important, but there may be a completely different relationship between weight and clinical events,” said John E. Deanfield, PhD, a professor of cardiology at University College Hospital, London, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Deanfield noted that important prognostic markers such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure reductions are usually not temporally related to weight loss. “The idea that [the benefits seen in STEP-HFpEF] are purely from weight loss is something we need to be careful about,” he said.

“My gut feeling is that at least 75% of the effect [in STEP-HFpEF} was due to weight loss,” said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not associated with the research.

STEP-HFpEF was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to, and has received honoraria from, Novo Nordisk. He has been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Deanfield has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Aegerion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has received research funding from Aegerion, Colgate, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – The more weight patients lost while on weekly semaglutide treatment in the STEP-HFpEF trial, the better their outcomes, suggesting that weight loss by itself was a major reason why the treatment improved a broad range of prespecified study outcomes, including symptoms and physical limitations, exercise capacity, and inflammation, new analyses from the trial show.

At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology where he presented these new findings, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, also posited that weight loss produced by weekly subcutaneous injections of 2.4 mg semaglutide (Wegovy) for 52 weeks in the study does not fully explain the multiple mechanisms that may be involved in producing this intervention’s effects in the STEP-HFpEF trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His report earlier at the congress and in a simultaneously published report of the trial’s primary outcomes established a role for medically induced weight loss in managing patients with obesity-phenotype HFpEF in a total of 529 randomized individuals with HFpEF and obesity but without diabetes.

The new analyses showed that for one of the two primary endpoints – the change from baseline in patients’ assessment on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ), the placebo-adjusted average change was a 16.1-point improvement in the 51 people with a 5%-10% weight loss during the 1-year study, and a 21.6-point improvement in the 58 who had at least a 20% weight loss, a between-group average 5.5 point difference that represents a clinically meaningful incremental improvement in this validated metric of symptoms and functional limitations.

Similar weight-related differences in benefit also occurred for the secondary outcomes of changes from baseline in 6-minute walk distance and in levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a measure of systemic inflammation.

In an adjusted regression model, every 10% drop from baseline body weight was significantly linked with a 6.4-point improvement in KCCQ score, a 14.4 meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance, and a 28% relative reduction from baseline in CRP, reported Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

These new, prespecified analyses also showed that people with obesity and HFpEF responded roughly the same to semaglutide treatment compared with placebo-treated controls regardless of their starting body mass index, including people with class 1 (30-34 kg/m²), class 2 (35-39 kg/m²), and class 3 (≥ 40 kg/m²) obesity.

Simultaneously with Dr. Kosiborod’s report at the congress, these findings appeared in a report posted online in Nature Medicine.
 

Not every benefit was fully mediated by weight loss

These analyses “do not tell us how much of the benefit was mediated by weight loss, but the data do say that the more weight a person lost, the more benefit they got,” Dr. Kosiborod explained in an interview. “That is not the same as saying that everything is mediated by weight. It doesn’t say that nothing beyond weight loss matters.”

He and his associates are planning a mediation analysis of data from STEP-HFpEF that will more directly address this issue.

“It’s likely that people who lost more weight with semaglutide also had greater benefits from other effects of semaglutide at the same time. Weight loss is a good surrogate marker” for the range of effects that a person receives from treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, Dr. Kosiborod said.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists may have direct effects on atherosclerosis, as well as other effects that are uncoupled from weight loss,” such as proven anti-inflammatory effects, he added.

Another exploratory effect from semaglutide treatment in the study and reported by Dr. Kosiborod was a significant reduction in serum levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, an association never previously seen with weight loss in people with heart failure.

“The outcomes we’ve already seen in STEP-HFpEF were largely symptomatic, which are extraordinarily important, but there may be a completely different relationship between weight and clinical events,” said John E. Deanfield, PhD, a professor of cardiology at University College Hospital, London, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Deanfield noted that important prognostic markers such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure reductions are usually not temporally related to weight loss. “The idea that [the benefits seen in STEP-HFpEF] are purely from weight loss is something we need to be careful about,” he said.

“My gut feeling is that at least 75% of the effect [in STEP-HFpEF} was due to weight loss,” said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not associated with the research.

STEP-HFpEF was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to, and has received honoraria from, Novo Nordisk. He has been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Deanfield has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Aegerion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has received research funding from Aegerion, Colgate, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – The more weight patients lost while on weekly semaglutide treatment in the STEP-HFpEF trial, the better their outcomes, suggesting that weight loss by itself was a major reason why the treatment improved a broad range of prespecified study outcomes, including symptoms and physical limitations, exercise capacity, and inflammation, new analyses from the trial show.

At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology where he presented these new findings, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, also posited that weight loss produced by weekly subcutaneous injections of 2.4 mg semaglutide (Wegovy) for 52 weeks in the study does not fully explain the multiple mechanisms that may be involved in producing this intervention’s effects in the STEP-HFpEF trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His report earlier at the congress and in a simultaneously published report of the trial’s primary outcomes established a role for medically induced weight loss in managing patients with obesity-phenotype HFpEF in a total of 529 randomized individuals with HFpEF and obesity but without diabetes.

The new analyses showed that for one of the two primary endpoints – the change from baseline in patients’ assessment on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ), the placebo-adjusted average change was a 16.1-point improvement in the 51 people with a 5%-10% weight loss during the 1-year study, and a 21.6-point improvement in the 58 who had at least a 20% weight loss, a between-group average 5.5 point difference that represents a clinically meaningful incremental improvement in this validated metric of symptoms and functional limitations.

Similar weight-related differences in benefit also occurred for the secondary outcomes of changes from baseline in 6-minute walk distance and in levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a measure of systemic inflammation.

In an adjusted regression model, every 10% drop from baseline body weight was significantly linked with a 6.4-point improvement in KCCQ score, a 14.4 meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance, and a 28% relative reduction from baseline in CRP, reported Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

These new, prespecified analyses also showed that people with obesity and HFpEF responded roughly the same to semaglutide treatment compared with placebo-treated controls regardless of their starting body mass index, including people with class 1 (30-34 kg/m²), class 2 (35-39 kg/m²), and class 3 (≥ 40 kg/m²) obesity.

Simultaneously with Dr. Kosiborod’s report at the congress, these findings appeared in a report posted online in Nature Medicine.
 

Not every benefit was fully mediated by weight loss

These analyses “do not tell us how much of the benefit was mediated by weight loss, but the data do say that the more weight a person lost, the more benefit they got,” Dr. Kosiborod explained in an interview. “That is not the same as saying that everything is mediated by weight. It doesn’t say that nothing beyond weight loss matters.”

He and his associates are planning a mediation analysis of data from STEP-HFpEF that will more directly address this issue.

“It’s likely that people who lost more weight with semaglutide also had greater benefits from other effects of semaglutide at the same time. Weight loss is a good surrogate marker” for the range of effects that a person receives from treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, Dr. Kosiborod said.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists may have direct effects on atherosclerosis, as well as other effects that are uncoupled from weight loss,” such as proven anti-inflammatory effects, he added.

Another exploratory effect from semaglutide treatment in the study and reported by Dr. Kosiborod was a significant reduction in serum levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, an association never previously seen with weight loss in people with heart failure.

“The outcomes we’ve already seen in STEP-HFpEF were largely symptomatic, which are extraordinarily important, but there may be a completely different relationship between weight and clinical events,” said John E. Deanfield, PhD, a professor of cardiology at University College Hospital, London, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Deanfield noted that important prognostic markers such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure reductions are usually not temporally related to weight loss. “The idea that [the benefits seen in STEP-HFpEF] are purely from weight loss is something we need to be careful about,” he said.

“My gut feeling is that at least 75% of the effect [in STEP-HFpEF} was due to weight loss,” said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not associated with the research.

STEP-HFpEF was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to, and has received honoraria from, Novo Nordisk. He has been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Deanfield has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Aegerion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has received research funding from Aegerion, Colgate, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – Intravenous iron supplementation showed modest benefits in recently hospitalized patients with heart failure and iron deficiency in the HEART-FID trial, but the study failed to meet the specified more rigorous definition of significance (P = .01) on the primary hierarchical composite of death, hospitalizations for heart failure, or 6-minute walk distance.

The trial, which investigated intravenous ferric carboxymaltose treatment vs. placebo, also showed no statistical difference in the main secondary endpoint: time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure hospitalization.

It was hoped that HEART-FID, the largest study to date to look at intravenous iron supplementation in heart failure, would confirm benefits suggested in previous smaller studies, but its modest results seem to have, if anything, caused more uncertainly on whether supplementing iron is actually worthwhile.

The HEART-FID trial was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Another presentation at the ESC Congress reported a pooled meta-analysis of all the intravenous iron supplementation studies, including HEART-FID. This showed a significant reduction in one coprimary endpoint (cardiovascular hospitalization/CV death) but not in the other (heart failure hospitalization/CV death), which is the more traditional and well-recognized endpoint in heart failure trials.

The meta-analysis was also published online in the European Heart Journal.

HEART-FID lead investigator, Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the totality of the evidence showed clinical benefits of intravenous iron supplementation with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose.

“I worry that people will focus on a P value rather than the actual clinical benefits seen across all the studies,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. “Technically, this study was neutral in respect to the primary endpoint, but when we look at all the evidence with respect to ferric carboxymaltose, including this new pooled analysis, this does support clinical benefits.”

Comoderator of the ESC Hotline session at which the trial was presented, John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow (Scotland), thought the trial had “muddied the waters a bit” on the issue of iron supplementation in heart failure.

“I would say we are in a less clear position on iron supplementation now than we were a few months ago. Those clinicians who have believed that checking iron levels and supplementing iron in those who are low is the right thing to do may now be wondering about that,” he told this news organization.  

Dr. McMurray noted that initial impressions of the data from both HEART-FID and the meta-analysis suggested some benefit of intravenous iron on CV death/heart failure hospitalization in the first year, but on longer term follow-up, that benefit was less evident.

“We need to look further into why there is that discrepancy,” he said. “This could be a statistical phenomenon or could be something to do with the frequency of redosing over the longer term.”

He explained that several previous studies of intravenous iron supplementation in heart failure have reported apparent convincing benefits on quality of life and functional capacity, but there has been some uncertainty on this because of the difficulty in producing a placebo for intravenous iron.

“So, it would have been great to have some additional confirmation of these benefits and on harder endpoints,” he said, “but even in HEART-FID, there was only a small nonsignificant benefit in walking distance.”
 

HEART-FID

The HEART-FID trial randomly assigned 3,065 ambulatory patients with heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, and iron deficiency to intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, given every 6 months as needed on the basis of iron indexes and hemoglobin levels, in addition to standard therapy for heart failure.

The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of death within 12 months after randomization, hospitalizations for heart failure within 12 months after randomization, or change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance. The significance level was set at .01.

Results showed that death by month 12 occurred in 8.6% of the ferric carboxymaltose group and 10.3% of the placebo group; a total of 297 and 332 hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively, occurred by month 12; and the mean change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance was 8 meters in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 4 meters with placebo. The P value for the primary composite was .02.

The trial also used another method (unmatched win ratio) to analyze the hierarchical composite outcome in the ferric carboxymaltose group as compared with the placebo group that gave a result of 1.10 (99% confidence interval, 0.99-1.23).

During the follow-up period, CV death or hospitalization for heart failure (the main secondary outcome) occurred in 31.0% of the ferric carboxymaltose group and in 32.2% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 96% CI, 0.81-1.06).

Repeated dosing of ferric carboxymaltose appeared to be safe, with an acceptable adverse-event profile in most patients. The number of patients with serious adverse events occurring during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (27.0% in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 26.2% in the placebo group).
 

‘It’s hard to argue that we are not disappointed’

Designated discussant of the HEART-FID study at the ESC HOTLINE session, Scott Solomon, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, described HEART-FID as “an extremely important and well-conducted trial.”

He noted that iron deficiency is extremely common in patients with heart failure, affecting at least about a third of patients, and is associated with reduced New York Heart Association class and reduced survival. Previous smaller studies have suggested benefit but have narrowly missed their primary endpoints. HEART-FID was a larger and sufficiently well-powered trial to test the hypothesis that iron supplementation can improve harder clinical endpoints.

Dr. Solomon said that the primary endpoint could be difficult to interpret, with a hierarchical composite, and a win ratio. “But I think it’s fair to say that the results are modest at best,” he added.

“When we look at the traditional cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization endpoint, one of the hard endpoints that we care about most in heart failure, it’s hard to argue that we are not disappointed,” he commented.

Referring to the P value of .01 threshold set for significance, which is based on new U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory standards, Dr. Solomon noted, “If they had used a standard P = .05 threshold, then they would be able to claim that this trial had met its primary endpoint. But, nevertheless, whatever threshold for significance we look at, the benefit was clearly modest.”

“As with all trials that show modest results, it will be useful to look at subgroups that are most likely to respond to the greatest extent to this therapy, and I look forward to learning more on this from further analyses,” Dr. Solomon concluded.

In an accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, Pieter Martens, MD, and Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, and Hasselt (Belgium) University, point out that analyses from previous trials have suggested that intravenous iron did not have a treatment effect in patients with a transferrin saturation of more than 20%.

They note that, in the ferric carboxymaltose group in the HEART-FID trial, the mean transferrin saturation was 23.9% at baseline, higher than in previous studies.

Future analyses should assess the importance of the transferrin saturation value at baseline, which “could help redefine the definition of iron deficiency in patients with heart failure and, we hope, help clinicians determine which patients might benefit from intravenous iron supplementation,” they write.
 

Meta-analysis of trials

The meta-analysis of intravenous iron supplementation trials in heart failure was presented by Piotr Ponikowski, MD, Medical University Wroclaw (Poland).

The analysis pooled individual patient data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials – CONFIRM-HF 2, AFFIRM-AHF 3, and HEART-FID – giving a total of 4,475 patients, with 2,241 receiving ferric carboxymaltose and 2,234 receiving placebo.

The two prespecified composite primary endpoints were CV hospitalizations/CV death and heart failure hospitalizations/CV death.

These showed similar 13%-14% relative risk reductions with ferric carboxymaltose, but only the former was statistically significant.

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

AMSTERDAM – Intravenous iron supplementation showed modest benefits in recently hospitalized patients with heart failure and iron deficiency in the HEART-FID trial, but the study failed to meet the specified more rigorous definition of significance (P = .01) on the primary hierarchical composite of death, hospitalizations for heart failure, or 6-minute walk distance.

The trial, which investigated intravenous ferric carboxymaltose treatment vs. placebo, also showed no statistical difference in the main secondary endpoint: time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure hospitalization.

It was hoped that HEART-FID, the largest study to date to look at intravenous iron supplementation in heart failure, would confirm benefits suggested in previous smaller studies, but its modest results seem to have, if anything, caused more uncertainly on whether supplementing iron is actually worthwhile.

The HEART-FID trial was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Another presentation at the ESC Congress reported a pooled meta-analysis of all the intravenous iron supplementation studies, including HEART-FID. This showed a significant reduction in one coprimary endpoint (cardiovascular hospitalization/CV death) but not in the other (heart failure hospitalization/CV death), which is the more traditional and well-recognized endpoint in heart failure trials.

The meta-analysis was also published online in the European Heart Journal.

HEART-FID lead investigator, Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the totality of the evidence showed clinical benefits of intravenous iron supplementation with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose.

“I worry that people will focus on a P value rather than the actual clinical benefits seen across all the studies,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. “Technically, this study was neutral in respect to the primary endpoint, but when we look at all the evidence with respect to ferric carboxymaltose, including this new pooled analysis, this does support clinical benefits.”

Comoderator of the ESC Hotline session at which the trial was presented, John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow (Scotland), thought the trial had “muddied the waters a bit” on the issue of iron supplementation in heart failure.

“I would say we are in a less clear position on iron supplementation now than we were a few months ago. Those clinicians who have believed that checking iron levels and supplementing iron in those who are low is the right thing to do may now be wondering about that,” he told this news organization.  

Dr. McMurray noted that initial impressions of the data from both HEART-FID and the meta-analysis suggested some benefit of intravenous iron on CV death/heart failure hospitalization in the first year, but on longer term follow-up, that benefit was less evident.

“We need to look further into why there is that discrepancy,” he said. “This could be a statistical phenomenon or could be something to do with the frequency of redosing over the longer term.”

He explained that several previous studies of intravenous iron supplementation in heart failure have reported apparent convincing benefits on quality of life and functional capacity, but there has been some uncertainty on this because of the difficulty in producing a placebo for intravenous iron.

“So, it would have been great to have some additional confirmation of these benefits and on harder endpoints,” he said, “but even in HEART-FID, there was only a small nonsignificant benefit in walking distance.”
 

HEART-FID

The HEART-FID trial randomly assigned 3,065 ambulatory patients with heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, and iron deficiency to intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, given every 6 months as needed on the basis of iron indexes and hemoglobin levels, in addition to standard therapy for heart failure.

The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of death within 12 months after randomization, hospitalizations for heart failure within 12 months after randomization, or change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance. The significance level was set at .01.

Results showed that death by month 12 occurred in 8.6% of the ferric carboxymaltose group and 10.3% of the placebo group; a total of 297 and 332 hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively, occurred by month 12; and the mean change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance was 8 meters in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 4 meters with placebo. The P value for the primary composite was .02.

The trial also used another method (unmatched win ratio) to analyze the hierarchical composite outcome in the ferric carboxymaltose group as compared with the placebo group that gave a result of 1.10 (99% confidence interval, 0.99-1.23).

During the follow-up period, CV death or hospitalization for heart failure (the main secondary outcome) occurred in 31.0% of the ferric carboxymaltose group and in 32.2% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 96% CI, 0.81-1.06).

Repeated dosing of ferric carboxymaltose appeared to be safe, with an acceptable adverse-event profile in most patients. The number of patients with serious adverse events occurring during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (27.0% in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 26.2% in the placebo group).
 

‘It’s hard to argue that we are not disappointed’

Designated discussant of the HEART-FID study at the ESC HOTLINE session, Scott Solomon, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, described HEART-FID as “an extremely important and well-conducted trial.”

He noted that iron deficiency is extremely common in patients with heart failure, affecting at least about a third of patients, and is associated with reduced New York Heart Association class and reduced survival. Previous smaller studies have suggested benefit but have narrowly missed their primary endpoints. HEART-FID was a larger and sufficiently well-powered trial to test the hypothesis that iron supplementation can improve harder clinical endpoints.

Dr. Solomon said that the primary endpoint could be difficult to interpret, with a hierarchical composite, and a win ratio. “But I think it’s fair to say that the results are modest at best,” he added.

“When we look at the traditional cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization endpoint, one of the hard endpoints that we care about most in heart failure, it’s hard to argue that we are not disappointed,” he commented.

Referring to the P value of .01 threshold set for significance, which is based on new U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory standards, Dr. Solomon noted, “If they had used a standard P = .05 threshold, then they would be able to claim that this trial had met its primary endpoint. But, nevertheless, whatever threshold for significance we look at, the benefit was clearly modest.”

“As with all trials that show modest results, it will be useful to look at subgroups that are most likely to respond to the greatest extent to this therapy, and I look forward to learning more on this from further analyses,” Dr. Solomon concluded.

In an accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, Pieter Martens, MD, and Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, and Hasselt (Belgium) University, point out that analyses from previous trials have suggested that intravenous iron did not have a treatment effect in patients with a transferrin saturation of more than 20%.

They note that, in the ferric carboxymaltose group in the HEART-FID trial, the mean transferrin saturation was 23.9% at baseline, higher than in previous studies.

Future analyses should assess the importance of the transferrin saturation value at baseline, which “could help redefine the definition of iron deficiency in patients with heart failure and, we hope, help clinicians determine which patients might benefit from intravenous iron supplementation,” they write.
 

Meta-analysis of trials

The meta-analysis of intravenous iron supplementation trials in heart failure was presented by Piotr Ponikowski, MD, Medical University Wroclaw (Poland).

The analysis pooled individual patient data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials – CONFIRM-HF 2, AFFIRM-AHF 3, and HEART-FID – giving a total of 4,475 patients, with 2,241 receiving ferric carboxymaltose and 2,234 receiving placebo.

The two prespecified composite primary endpoints were CV hospitalizations/CV death and heart failure hospitalizations/CV death.

These showed similar 13%-14% relative risk reductions with ferric carboxymaltose, but only the former was statistically significant.

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

AMSTERDAM – Intravenous iron supplementation showed modest benefits in recently hospitalized patients with heart failure and iron deficiency in the HEART-FID trial, but the study failed to meet the specified more rigorous definition of significance (P = .01) on the primary hierarchical composite of death, hospitalizations for heart failure, or 6-minute walk distance.

The trial, which investigated intravenous ferric carboxymaltose treatment vs. placebo, also showed no statistical difference in the main secondary endpoint: time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure hospitalization.

It was hoped that HEART-FID, the largest study to date to look at intravenous iron supplementation in heart failure, would confirm benefits suggested in previous smaller studies, but its modest results seem to have, if anything, caused more uncertainly on whether supplementing iron is actually worthwhile.

The HEART-FID trial was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Another presentation at the ESC Congress reported a pooled meta-analysis of all the intravenous iron supplementation studies, including HEART-FID. This showed a significant reduction in one coprimary endpoint (cardiovascular hospitalization/CV death) but not in the other (heart failure hospitalization/CV death), which is the more traditional and well-recognized endpoint in heart failure trials.

The meta-analysis was also published online in the European Heart Journal.

HEART-FID lead investigator, Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said the totality of the evidence showed clinical benefits of intravenous iron supplementation with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose.

“I worry that people will focus on a P value rather than the actual clinical benefits seen across all the studies,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview. “Technically, this study was neutral in respect to the primary endpoint, but when we look at all the evidence with respect to ferric carboxymaltose, including this new pooled analysis, this does support clinical benefits.”

Comoderator of the ESC Hotline session at which the trial was presented, John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow (Scotland), thought the trial had “muddied the waters a bit” on the issue of iron supplementation in heart failure.

“I would say we are in a less clear position on iron supplementation now than we were a few months ago. Those clinicians who have believed that checking iron levels and supplementing iron in those who are low is the right thing to do may now be wondering about that,” he told this news organization.  

Dr. McMurray noted that initial impressions of the data from both HEART-FID and the meta-analysis suggested some benefit of intravenous iron on CV death/heart failure hospitalization in the first year, but on longer term follow-up, that benefit was less evident.

“We need to look further into why there is that discrepancy,” he said. “This could be a statistical phenomenon or could be something to do with the frequency of redosing over the longer term.”

He explained that several previous studies of intravenous iron supplementation in heart failure have reported apparent convincing benefits on quality of life and functional capacity, but there has been some uncertainty on this because of the difficulty in producing a placebo for intravenous iron.

“So, it would have been great to have some additional confirmation of these benefits and on harder endpoints,” he said, “but even in HEART-FID, there was only a small nonsignificant benefit in walking distance.”
 

HEART-FID

The HEART-FID trial randomly assigned 3,065 ambulatory patients with heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, and iron deficiency to intravenous ferric carboxymaltose or placebo, given every 6 months as needed on the basis of iron indexes and hemoglobin levels, in addition to standard therapy for heart failure.

The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of death within 12 months after randomization, hospitalizations for heart failure within 12 months after randomization, or change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance. The significance level was set at .01.

Results showed that death by month 12 occurred in 8.6% of the ferric carboxymaltose group and 10.3% of the placebo group; a total of 297 and 332 hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively, occurred by month 12; and the mean change from baseline to 6 months in the 6-minute walk distance was 8 meters in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 4 meters with placebo. The P value for the primary composite was .02.

The trial also used another method (unmatched win ratio) to analyze the hierarchical composite outcome in the ferric carboxymaltose group as compared with the placebo group that gave a result of 1.10 (99% confidence interval, 0.99-1.23).

During the follow-up period, CV death or hospitalization for heart failure (the main secondary outcome) occurred in 31.0% of the ferric carboxymaltose group and in 32.2% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 96% CI, 0.81-1.06).

Repeated dosing of ferric carboxymaltose appeared to be safe, with an acceptable adverse-event profile in most patients. The number of patients with serious adverse events occurring during the treatment period was similar in the two groups (27.0% in the ferric carboxymaltose group and 26.2% in the placebo group).
 

‘It’s hard to argue that we are not disappointed’

Designated discussant of the HEART-FID study at the ESC HOTLINE session, Scott Solomon, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, described HEART-FID as “an extremely important and well-conducted trial.”

He noted that iron deficiency is extremely common in patients with heart failure, affecting at least about a third of patients, and is associated with reduced New York Heart Association class and reduced survival. Previous smaller studies have suggested benefit but have narrowly missed their primary endpoints. HEART-FID was a larger and sufficiently well-powered trial to test the hypothesis that iron supplementation can improve harder clinical endpoints.

Dr. Solomon said that the primary endpoint could be difficult to interpret, with a hierarchical composite, and a win ratio. “But I think it’s fair to say that the results are modest at best,” he added.

“When we look at the traditional cardiovascular death/heart failure hospitalization endpoint, one of the hard endpoints that we care about most in heart failure, it’s hard to argue that we are not disappointed,” he commented.

Referring to the P value of .01 threshold set for significance, which is based on new U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory standards, Dr. Solomon noted, “If they had used a standard P = .05 threshold, then they would be able to claim that this trial had met its primary endpoint. But, nevertheless, whatever threshold for significance we look at, the benefit was clearly modest.”

“As with all trials that show modest results, it will be useful to look at subgroups that are most likely to respond to the greatest extent to this therapy, and I look forward to learning more on this from further analyses,” Dr. Solomon concluded.

In an accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, Pieter Martens, MD, and Wilfried Mullens, MD, PhD, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium, and Hasselt (Belgium) University, point out that analyses from previous trials have suggested that intravenous iron did not have a treatment effect in patients with a transferrin saturation of more than 20%.

They note that, in the ferric carboxymaltose group in the HEART-FID trial, the mean transferrin saturation was 23.9% at baseline, higher than in previous studies.

Future analyses should assess the importance of the transferrin saturation value at baseline, which “could help redefine the definition of iron deficiency in patients with heart failure and, we hope, help clinicians determine which patients might benefit from intravenous iron supplementation,” they write.
 

Meta-analysis of trials

The meta-analysis of intravenous iron supplementation trials in heart failure was presented by Piotr Ponikowski, MD, Medical University Wroclaw (Poland).

The analysis pooled individual patient data from three double-blind, placebo-controlled trials – CONFIRM-HF 2, AFFIRM-AHF 3, and HEART-FID – giving a total of 4,475 patients, with 2,241 receiving ferric carboxymaltose and 2,234 receiving placebo.

The two prespecified composite primary endpoints were CV hospitalizations/CV death and heart failure hospitalizations/CV death.

These showed similar 13%-14% relative risk reductions with ferric carboxymaltose, but only the former was statistically significant.

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