User login
Firefighters’ blood pressure surges when they are called to action
In response to a 911 alert or page, firefighters’ systolic and diastolic blood pressure surges and their heart rate accelerates, with a similar response whether the call is for a fire or medical emergency, a small study suggests.
On average, the 41 firefighters monitored in the study, who were middle-aged and overweight, had a 9% increase in systolic blood pressure when called to a fire, a 9% increase in diastolic blood pressure when called to a medical emergency, and a 16% increase in heart rate for both types of calls.
Senior study author Deborah Feairheller, PhD, presented these results at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Firefighters have a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) than that of the general population, explained Dr. Feairheller, director of the Hypertension and Endothelial Function with Aerobic and Resistance Training (HEART) Lab and clinical associate professor of kinesiology at the University of New Hampshire, Durham.
More than 50% of firefighter deaths in the line of duty are from CVD, she noted. Moreover, almost 75% of firefighters have hypertension and fewer than 25% have it under control.
The study findings show that all emergency and first responders “should know what their typical blood pressure level is and be aware of how it fluctuates,” Dr. Feairheller said in a press release from the AHA. “Most important, if they have high blood pressure, they should make sure it is well controlled,” she said.
“I really hope that fire departments everywhere see these data, rise to the occasion, and advocate for BP awareness in their crews,” Dr. Feairheller, a volunteer firefighter, said in an interview.
“I do think this has value to any occupation that wears a pager,” she added. “Clinicians, physicians, other emergency responders, all of those occupations are stressful and could place people at risk if they have undiagnosed or uncontrolled hypertension.”
Invited to comment, Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, an emergency department physician who was not involved with this research, said in an interview that she saw parallels between stress experienced by firefighters and, for example, emergency department physicians.
The transient increases in BP, both systolic and diastolic, along with the heart rate are likely due to the body’s natural fight or flight response to an emergency call, including increases in epinephrine and cortisol, said Dr. Sasson, vice president of science and innovation for emergency cardiovascular care at the American Heart Association.
“The thing that is most interesting to me,” said Dr. Sasson, who can be subject to a series of high-stress situations on a shift, such as multiple trauma victims, a stroke victim, or a person in cardiac arrest, is “what is the cumulative impact of this over time?”
She said she wonders if “having to be ‘ready to go’ at any time, along with disruptions in sleep/wake schedules, and poorer eating and working-out habits when you are on shift, has long-term sequelae on the body.”
Stress-related surges in blood pressure “could be a reason for worse health outcomes in this group,” Dr. Sasson said, adding that this needs to be investigated further.
Firefighters with high normal BP, high BMI
Dr. Feairheller and colleagues recruited 41 volunteer and employee firefighters from suburban Philadelphia and Dover, N.H.
On average, the 37 men and 4 women had a mean age of 41 years, had been working as firefighters for 16.9 years, and had a mean body mass index of 30.3 kg/m2.
They wore ambulatory blood pressure monitors during an on-call work shift for at least 12 consecutive hours.
In addition to the automatic readings, the participants were instructed to prompt the machine to take a reading whenever a pager or emergency call sounded or when they felt they were entering a stressful situation.
Over the 12-hour shift, on average, participants had a blood pressure of 131/79.3 mm Hg and a heart rate of 75.7 bpm.
When they were alerted go to a fire, their blood pressure surged by 19.2/10.5 mm Hg, and their heart rate rose to 85.5 bpm.
Similarly, when they were alerted to go to a medical emergency, their blood pressure jumped up by 18.7/16.5 mm Hg and their heart rate climbed to 90.5 bpm.
The surges in blood pressure and heart rate were similar when participants were riding in the fire truck to a call or when the call turned out to be a false alarm.
What can be done?
“If we can increase awareness and identify specific risk factors in firefighters,” Dr. Feairheller said, this could “save a life of someone who spends their day saving lives and property.”
To start, “regular, in-station or home BP monitoring should be encouraged,” she said. “Firefighters should start to track their BP levels in the morning, at night, at work. Being a volunteer firefighter myself, I know the stress and anxiety and sadness and heavy work that comes with the job,” she said. “I want to be able to do what I can to help make the crews healthier.”
Dr. Sasson suggested that ways to increase awareness and improve the health of firefighters might include “counseling, appropriate breaks, possibly food service/delivery to provide better nutritional options, built-in time for exercise (gym or cardio equipment on site), and discussions about how stress can impact the body over time.”
It is important to advocate for better mental health care, because people may have PTSD, depression, substance abuse, or other mental health conditions brought on by their stressful jobs, she said.
“Also, it would be interesting to know what is the current state of health monitoring (both physical, mental, and emotional) that occurs for firefighters,” she said.
The American Heart Association funded the study. The authors and Dr. Sasson report no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In response to a 911 alert or page, firefighters’ systolic and diastolic blood pressure surges and their heart rate accelerates, with a similar response whether the call is for a fire or medical emergency, a small study suggests.
On average, the 41 firefighters monitored in the study, who were middle-aged and overweight, had a 9% increase in systolic blood pressure when called to a fire, a 9% increase in diastolic blood pressure when called to a medical emergency, and a 16% increase in heart rate for both types of calls.
Senior study author Deborah Feairheller, PhD, presented these results at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Firefighters have a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) than that of the general population, explained Dr. Feairheller, director of the Hypertension and Endothelial Function with Aerobic and Resistance Training (HEART) Lab and clinical associate professor of kinesiology at the University of New Hampshire, Durham.
More than 50% of firefighter deaths in the line of duty are from CVD, she noted. Moreover, almost 75% of firefighters have hypertension and fewer than 25% have it under control.
The study findings show that all emergency and first responders “should know what their typical blood pressure level is and be aware of how it fluctuates,” Dr. Feairheller said in a press release from the AHA. “Most important, if they have high blood pressure, they should make sure it is well controlled,” she said.
“I really hope that fire departments everywhere see these data, rise to the occasion, and advocate for BP awareness in their crews,” Dr. Feairheller, a volunteer firefighter, said in an interview.
“I do think this has value to any occupation that wears a pager,” she added. “Clinicians, physicians, other emergency responders, all of those occupations are stressful and could place people at risk if they have undiagnosed or uncontrolled hypertension.”
Invited to comment, Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, an emergency department physician who was not involved with this research, said in an interview that she saw parallels between stress experienced by firefighters and, for example, emergency department physicians.
The transient increases in BP, both systolic and diastolic, along with the heart rate are likely due to the body’s natural fight or flight response to an emergency call, including increases in epinephrine and cortisol, said Dr. Sasson, vice president of science and innovation for emergency cardiovascular care at the American Heart Association.
“The thing that is most interesting to me,” said Dr. Sasson, who can be subject to a series of high-stress situations on a shift, such as multiple trauma victims, a stroke victim, or a person in cardiac arrest, is “what is the cumulative impact of this over time?”
She said she wonders if “having to be ‘ready to go’ at any time, along with disruptions in sleep/wake schedules, and poorer eating and working-out habits when you are on shift, has long-term sequelae on the body.”
Stress-related surges in blood pressure “could be a reason for worse health outcomes in this group,” Dr. Sasson said, adding that this needs to be investigated further.
Firefighters with high normal BP, high BMI
Dr. Feairheller and colleagues recruited 41 volunteer and employee firefighters from suburban Philadelphia and Dover, N.H.
On average, the 37 men and 4 women had a mean age of 41 years, had been working as firefighters for 16.9 years, and had a mean body mass index of 30.3 kg/m2.
They wore ambulatory blood pressure monitors during an on-call work shift for at least 12 consecutive hours.
In addition to the automatic readings, the participants were instructed to prompt the machine to take a reading whenever a pager or emergency call sounded or when they felt they were entering a stressful situation.
Over the 12-hour shift, on average, participants had a blood pressure of 131/79.3 mm Hg and a heart rate of 75.7 bpm.
When they were alerted go to a fire, their blood pressure surged by 19.2/10.5 mm Hg, and their heart rate rose to 85.5 bpm.
Similarly, when they were alerted to go to a medical emergency, their blood pressure jumped up by 18.7/16.5 mm Hg and their heart rate climbed to 90.5 bpm.
The surges in blood pressure and heart rate were similar when participants were riding in the fire truck to a call or when the call turned out to be a false alarm.
What can be done?
“If we can increase awareness and identify specific risk factors in firefighters,” Dr. Feairheller said, this could “save a life of someone who spends their day saving lives and property.”
To start, “regular, in-station or home BP monitoring should be encouraged,” she said. “Firefighters should start to track their BP levels in the morning, at night, at work. Being a volunteer firefighter myself, I know the stress and anxiety and sadness and heavy work that comes with the job,” she said. “I want to be able to do what I can to help make the crews healthier.”
Dr. Sasson suggested that ways to increase awareness and improve the health of firefighters might include “counseling, appropriate breaks, possibly food service/delivery to provide better nutritional options, built-in time for exercise (gym or cardio equipment on site), and discussions about how stress can impact the body over time.”
It is important to advocate for better mental health care, because people may have PTSD, depression, substance abuse, or other mental health conditions brought on by their stressful jobs, she said.
“Also, it would be interesting to know what is the current state of health monitoring (both physical, mental, and emotional) that occurs for firefighters,” she said.
The American Heart Association funded the study. The authors and Dr. Sasson report no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In response to a 911 alert or page, firefighters’ systolic and diastolic blood pressure surges and their heart rate accelerates, with a similar response whether the call is for a fire or medical emergency, a small study suggests.
On average, the 41 firefighters monitored in the study, who were middle-aged and overweight, had a 9% increase in systolic blood pressure when called to a fire, a 9% increase in diastolic blood pressure when called to a medical emergency, and a 16% increase in heart rate for both types of calls.
Senior study author Deborah Feairheller, PhD, presented these results at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Firefighters have a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) than that of the general population, explained Dr. Feairheller, director of the Hypertension and Endothelial Function with Aerobic and Resistance Training (HEART) Lab and clinical associate professor of kinesiology at the University of New Hampshire, Durham.
More than 50% of firefighter deaths in the line of duty are from CVD, she noted. Moreover, almost 75% of firefighters have hypertension and fewer than 25% have it under control.
The study findings show that all emergency and first responders “should know what their typical blood pressure level is and be aware of how it fluctuates,” Dr. Feairheller said in a press release from the AHA. “Most important, if they have high blood pressure, they should make sure it is well controlled,” she said.
“I really hope that fire departments everywhere see these data, rise to the occasion, and advocate for BP awareness in their crews,” Dr. Feairheller, a volunteer firefighter, said in an interview.
“I do think this has value to any occupation that wears a pager,” she added. “Clinicians, physicians, other emergency responders, all of those occupations are stressful and could place people at risk if they have undiagnosed or uncontrolled hypertension.”
Invited to comment, Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, an emergency department physician who was not involved with this research, said in an interview that she saw parallels between stress experienced by firefighters and, for example, emergency department physicians.
The transient increases in BP, both systolic and diastolic, along with the heart rate are likely due to the body’s natural fight or flight response to an emergency call, including increases in epinephrine and cortisol, said Dr. Sasson, vice president of science and innovation for emergency cardiovascular care at the American Heart Association.
“The thing that is most interesting to me,” said Dr. Sasson, who can be subject to a series of high-stress situations on a shift, such as multiple trauma victims, a stroke victim, or a person in cardiac arrest, is “what is the cumulative impact of this over time?”
She said she wonders if “having to be ‘ready to go’ at any time, along with disruptions in sleep/wake schedules, and poorer eating and working-out habits when you are on shift, has long-term sequelae on the body.”
Stress-related surges in blood pressure “could be a reason for worse health outcomes in this group,” Dr. Sasson said, adding that this needs to be investigated further.
Firefighters with high normal BP, high BMI
Dr. Feairheller and colleagues recruited 41 volunteer and employee firefighters from suburban Philadelphia and Dover, N.H.
On average, the 37 men and 4 women had a mean age of 41 years, had been working as firefighters for 16.9 years, and had a mean body mass index of 30.3 kg/m2.
They wore ambulatory blood pressure monitors during an on-call work shift for at least 12 consecutive hours.
In addition to the automatic readings, the participants were instructed to prompt the machine to take a reading whenever a pager or emergency call sounded or when they felt they were entering a stressful situation.
Over the 12-hour shift, on average, participants had a blood pressure of 131/79.3 mm Hg and a heart rate of 75.7 bpm.
When they were alerted go to a fire, their blood pressure surged by 19.2/10.5 mm Hg, and their heart rate rose to 85.5 bpm.
Similarly, when they were alerted to go to a medical emergency, their blood pressure jumped up by 18.7/16.5 mm Hg and their heart rate climbed to 90.5 bpm.
The surges in blood pressure and heart rate were similar when participants were riding in the fire truck to a call or when the call turned out to be a false alarm.
What can be done?
“If we can increase awareness and identify specific risk factors in firefighters,” Dr. Feairheller said, this could “save a life of someone who spends their day saving lives and property.”
To start, “regular, in-station or home BP monitoring should be encouraged,” she said. “Firefighters should start to track their BP levels in the morning, at night, at work. Being a volunteer firefighter myself, I know the stress and anxiety and sadness and heavy work that comes with the job,” she said. “I want to be able to do what I can to help make the crews healthier.”
Dr. Sasson suggested that ways to increase awareness and improve the health of firefighters might include “counseling, appropriate breaks, possibly food service/delivery to provide better nutritional options, built-in time for exercise (gym or cardio equipment on site), and discussions about how stress can impact the body over time.”
It is important to advocate for better mental health care, because people may have PTSD, depression, substance abuse, or other mental health conditions brought on by their stressful jobs, she said.
“Also, it would be interesting to know what is the current state of health monitoring (both physical, mental, and emotional) that occurs for firefighters,” she said.
The American Heart Association funded the study. The authors and Dr. Sasson report no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2021
Advanced CKD doesn’t derail empagliflozin in EMPEROR-preserved
More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.
The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.
Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
An end to ‘renalism’
“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).
“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.
EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.
In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.
These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.
“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.
In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin
Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.
In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.
“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.
At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.
Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.
EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.
EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.
The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.
Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
An end to ‘renalism’
“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).
“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.
EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.
In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.
These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.
“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.
In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin
Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.
In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.
“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.
At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.
Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.
EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.
EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More than half of the nearly 6,000 patients with heart failure and HFpEF enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had CKD (although renal function was not an enrollment criterion), including 10% with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) that fell in the range of 20-29 mL/min/1.73 m2, which categorized them as having stage 4 CKD.
The results showed, in a prespecified analysis, that treatment with empagliflozin led to a consistent, significant relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure “across the full spectrum of kidney function, down to an eGFR of 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.
Among the 46.5% of enrolled patients without CKD, empagliflozin produced a significant 20% drop in the primary outcome relative to those who received placebo. Among the 53.5% of patients with CKD at time of randomization (defined as an eGFR <60 mL/min/1/73 m2 or a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g), treatment with empagliflozin was associated with a significant 25% cut in the primary endpoint compared with placebo.
Empagliflozin was also “well tolerated” by patients with HFpEF, whether or not they also had CKD, “including patients with severely impaired kidney function,” said Dr. Zannad, a professor of cardiology therapeutics at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, at the virtual meeting.
An end to ‘renalism’
“This is a nail in the coffin for the concept of ‘renalism,’” the erroneous notion held by many clinicians and researchers that various treatments are not as effective and potentially more likely to cause adverse effects in patients with CKD compared with those with better renal function, commented Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist who is a professor and director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
In addition to EMPEROR-Preserved, other large trials of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class bucked the premise of renalism and took the “groundbreaking step” of enrolling patients with moderate-severe CKD, noted Dr. Rangaswami in an interview. In particular, two trials took this approach when enrolling patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), EMPEROR-Reduced (which also tested empagliflozin and matched the design of EMPEROR-Preserved) and DAPA-HF (which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin [Farxiga, AstraZeneca]).
“It was a huge, bold step, especially in EMPEROR-Preserved and in EMPEROR-Reduced, which both enrolled patients with eGFRs as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2,” Dr. Rangaswami said. DAPA-HF included patients with eGFRs as low as 30 mL/min/1.73m2.
EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF – published earlier this year – both had similar findings as EMPEROR-Preserved as reported by Dr. Zannad: consistent benefit from empagliflozin or dapagliflozin regardless of eGFR level and no signal of increased adverse events from treatment.
In fact, all three analyses show that patients with worse renal function had the highest risk for cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure; hence, the beneficial impact from SGLT2 inhibitors is greatest in these patients.
These observations “make it easier to focus on the group with moderate-to-severe CKD,” both in the routine care setting as well as in future trials, said Dr. Rangaswami.
“This is a welcome trend that paves the way to test more treatments in patients with stage 4 and even stage 5 CKD, patients ... excluded from trials in the past,” she said.
In addition, the consistent benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors in these three heart failure trials regardless of CKD “means there is simply no room for renalism. There is no room for clinicians to say that because a patient’s eGFR is 30 mL/min/1.73m2 they are worried about starting an SGLT2 inhibitor,” she stressed.
More CKD-independent effects of empagliflozin
Results of other new analyses from EMPEROR-Preserved, also reported by Dr. Zannad, included the finding that empagliflozin was associated with a similar slowing of loss of renal function over time compared with placebo, regardless of CKD status.
In patients with CKD, empagliflozin slowed eGFR loss by 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, and in those without CKD, by 1.3 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, relative to placebo.
“Even in patients without CKD, there was a relevant eGFR decline in the placebo group that was attenuated by empagliflozin,” Dr. Zannad said.
At the end of the study, when empagliflozin was stopped, patients with or without CKD had their eGFR bounce back by an identical 2.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo.
Empagliflozin slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and significantly reduced the incidence of acute kidney injury by a similar amount regardless of CKD status compared with placebo.
EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with function-limiting HFpEF, a left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, and a minimum level of a reliable serum marker of heart failure, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the trial’s primary outcome by an absolute 3.3 percentage points and by a significant relative risk reduction of 21% after a median 26 months of follow-up, according to a report published in October 2021.
EMPEROR-Preserved is the first prospective, randomized trial to unequivocally show the efficacy and safety of a drug for improving outcomes in patients with HFpEF.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, which market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Zannad has reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim as well as other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has reported being a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM KIDNEY WEEK 2021
Empagliflozin a winner in challenging arena of stabilized acute HF
The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.
Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.
Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.
There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”
EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.
The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.
Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”
Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.
“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”
EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.
At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.
The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.
Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.
They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.
Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.
Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.
There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”
EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.
The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.
Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”
Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.
“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”
EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.
At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.
The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.
Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.
They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors, relative newcomers among first-line agents for chronic heart failure (HF), could well attain the same go-to status in patients hospitalized with acute HF if the EMPULSE trial has anything to say about it.
Of the study’s 530 such patients, those started on daily empagliflozin (Jardiance) soon after they were stabilized, compared with a control group, were less likely to die or be rehospitalized for HF over the next 3 months.
Also, “we saw an improvement in quality of life, we saw a greater reduction in body weight, and we didn’t see any safety concerns in this very vulnerable and sick patient population,” Adriaan A. Voors, MD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands), said when presenting the trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Patients assigned to empagliflozin had a 36% greater likelihood of showing a benefit as reflected in the treatment’s win ratio when opposed by placebo, an emerging way to express outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials. The SGLT2 inhibitor’s win ratio for the primary endpoint was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.68, P = .0054), Dr. Voors reported. The outcome consisted of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and 90-day change in quality of life scores.
There is reluctance in practice to start patients that early after decompensation on drugs used in chronic HF, Dr. Voors said in an interview. Empagliflozin in the trial was initiated in the stabilized setting an average of 3 days after hospital admission, he said. The trial should reassure physicians that the drug “is not only safe to start early in hospital, but it’s also beneficial to start early in hospital.”
EMPULSE, combined with support from other recent trials, “should be clinical practice changing, with early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with HF being the expectation, along with clear recognition that delaying SGLT2 inhibitor initiation may expose patients to unnecessary harms and delays in improved health status,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.
“For patients with HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, early in-hospital initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors – once stabilized and in the absence of contraindications – should be considered a new standard of care,” said Fonarow, who was not part of EMPULSE.
The trial also lends new weight to the strategy of “simultaneous or rapid-sequence initiation” of the so-called four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction in patients hospitalized with HFrEF, once they are stabilized, Dr. Fonarow said. The four-pronged approach, he noted, consists of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), and an SGLT2 inhibitor.
Indeed, the new findings “fill an important gap and are clearly practice changing,” agreed Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, Tucson, as an invited discussant following Dr. Voors’ presentation. “Few therapies have been shown to impact the course of those hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure.”
Of note in the trial, Dr. Sweitzer continued, patients were started on empagliflozin regardless of any drug therapy they might already be on for chronic HF. “Because patients in the EMPULSE trial could be enrolled with a new diagnosis of heart failure, they were, by definition, not all on chronic guideline-directed heart failure therapy. Nevertheless, such patients benefited equally from the study intervention,” she said.
“This is crucial, as it tells us these drugs have immediate and important effects and should not be withheld while other drug classes are initiated and optimized.”
EMPULSE entered patients hospitalized for acute HF, which could be de novo or a decompensation of chronic HF, without regard to ejection fraction or whether they had diabetes, and who were clinically stable after at least one dose of loop diuretics. Their ejection fractions averaged 35% and exceeded 40% in about one-third of the total cohort.
At 90 days in the win ratio analysis, the 265 patients assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg once daily were the “winners”; that is, they were more likely to show a clinical benefit about 54% of the time in paired match-ups of patient outcomes, compared with about 40% for the 265 in the control group. The match-ups were a tie 6.4% of the time.
The empagliflozin group also benefited significantly for the endpoint of death from any cause or first HF event, with a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99; P = .042). They also were less likely to experience acute renal failure (7.7% vs. 12.1% for the control group) or serious adverse events (32.3% vs. 43.6%), Dr. Voors reported.
Tempting as it might be, the findings can’t necessarily be generalized to other SGLT2 inhibitors without an evidence base. But as Dr. Voors observed, several ongoing trials are exploring dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in a similar clinical setting.
They include DICTATE-AHF in patients with diabetes admitted with acute HF, and DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68, which is entering patients stabilized during hospitalization with acute decompensated HFrEF. The trials are scheduled for completion in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
EMPULSE was supported by the Boehringer Ingelheim–Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance. Dr. Voors disclosed research support and consulting for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sweitzer disclosed honoraria from Acorda and Myokardia, and reported receiving research support from Novartis and Merck. Dr. Fonarow cited honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Bayer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, and Novartis.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2021
FDA flags cardiac perforation risks during leadless pacemaker implantation
The Food and Drug Administration is reminding health care providers about the risk of major complications if cardiac perforation occurs during leadless pacemaker implantation.
Cardiac perforation is a rare complication and the overall risk associated with leadless pacemaker implantation appears similar to that with traditional transvenous pacemakers, the agency says. However, premarket clinical studies of the Micra leadless pacemaker (Medtronic) suggested major complications related to cardiac perforation appear to be more severe for those receiving a leadless pacemaker.
“Information from real-world use suggests that cardiac perforations associated with Micra leadless pacemakers are more likely to be associated with serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade or death, than with traditional pacemakers,” the FDA said Nov. 17 in a letter to health care professionals.
“The FDA is bringing this information to your attention as a reminder and to encourage you to report leadless pacemaker cardiac perforations and complications related to perforation to the manufacturer and the FDA,” it notes.
The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System in 2015 was the first leadless pacemaker approved in Europe, and was approved in the United States the following year with a mandated postapproval study to help assess continued safety and efficacy. The Micra device is currently the only approved leadless pacemaker in the United States.
The FDA continues to evaluate outcomes in patients who receive leadless pacing systems and recommends that health care providers discuss the risks and benefits of available pacing system options with patients as part of shared clinical decision-making.
Providers are advised to read and carefully follow the instructions for use and training for Medtronic’s Micra pacemaker.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System or any other pacemaker systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse-event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration is reminding health care providers about the risk of major complications if cardiac perforation occurs during leadless pacemaker implantation.
Cardiac perforation is a rare complication and the overall risk associated with leadless pacemaker implantation appears similar to that with traditional transvenous pacemakers, the agency says. However, premarket clinical studies of the Micra leadless pacemaker (Medtronic) suggested major complications related to cardiac perforation appear to be more severe for those receiving a leadless pacemaker.
“Information from real-world use suggests that cardiac perforations associated with Micra leadless pacemakers are more likely to be associated with serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade or death, than with traditional pacemakers,” the FDA said Nov. 17 in a letter to health care professionals.
“The FDA is bringing this information to your attention as a reminder and to encourage you to report leadless pacemaker cardiac perforations and complications related to perforation to the manufacturer and the FDA,” it notes.
The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System in 2015 was the first leadless pacemaker approved in Europe, and was approved in the United States the following year with a mandated postapproval study to help assess continued safety and efficacy. The Micra device is currently the only approved leadless pacemaker in the United States.
The FDA continues to evaluate outcomes in patients who receive leadless pacing systems and recommends that health care providers discuss the risks and benefits of available pacing system options with patients as part of shared clinical decision-making.
Providers are advised to read and carefully follow the instructions for use and training for Medtronic’s Micra pacemaker.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System or any other pacemaker systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse-event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration is reminding health care providers about the risk of major complications if cardiac perforation occurs during leadless pacemaker implantation.
Cardiac perforation is a rare complication and the overall risk associated with leadless pacemaker implantation appears similar to that with traditional transvenous pacemakers, the agency says. However, premarket clinical studies of the Micra leadless pacemaker (Medtronic) suggested major complications related to cardiac perforation appear to be more severe for those receiving a leadless pacemaker.
“Information from real-world use suggests that cardiac perforations associated with Micra leadless pacemakers are more likely to be associated with serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade or death, than with traditional pacemakers,” the FDA said Nov. 17 in a letter to health care professionals.
“The FDA is bringing this information to your attention as a reminder and to encourage you to report leadless pacemaker cardiac perforations and complications related to perforation to the manufacturer and the FDA,” it notes.
The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System in 2015 was the first leadless pacemaker approved in Europe, and was approved in the United States the following year with a mandated postapproval study to help assess continued safety and efficacy. The Micra device is currently the only approved leadless pacemaker in the United States.
The FDA continues to evaluate outcomes in patients who receive leadless pacing systems and recommends that health care providers discuss the risks and benefits of available pacing system options with patients as part of shared clinical decision-making.
Providers are advised to read and carefully follow the instructions for use and training for Medtronic’s Micra pacemaker.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System or any other pacemaker systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse-event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coffee or tea? Drinking both tied to lower stroke, dementia risk
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.
Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.
“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.
The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
Synergistic effect?
Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.
Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.
During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.
After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).
Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).
Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).
Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).
There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (EAST-AFNET trial)
Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes.
Study design: Prospective, open blinded randomized controlled trial.
Setting: 135 centers in 11 European countries.
Synopsis: Of patients with a new AFib diagnosis (less than 1 year, median 36 days), 2,789 were randomized 1:1 to rhythm control or usual care. Patients were 75 years old or older with prior CVA or 2 or fewer cardiovascular conditions. Both arms were continued on guideline-directed treatment, including rate control medications and anticoagulation. Rhythm control involved use of antiarrhythmics, catheter ablation (8% at enrollment, 20% by 5 years), or early cardioversion. Patients assigned to rhythm control had a lower risk for primary composite outcome of CV death, stroke, or hospitalization for worsening heart failure or acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.79; 96% confidence interval, 0.66-0.94; P = .005) at 5 years, and the trial was stopped early for efficacy. Despite the 21% relative risk reduction, the absolute risk reduction was modest at 1.1 per 100 person-years. There were no significant differences in composite rate of all-cause mortality, although more adverse events occurred in the rhythm arm (4.9% vs. 1%). Overall rates of stroke and death were relatively low in both groups, underscoring the importance of continuing guideline-directed therapy. Hospital days were similar between the two groups, suggesting that rhythm control is not associated with higher cost burden. Limitations include its open-label design, loss of patients to follow-up (9% in control arm), and lack of generalizability to patients with long-standing AFib.
Bottom line: Early initiation of rhythm control therapy was associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed AFib compared with usual care alone.
Citation: Kirchhof P et al. Early rhythm-control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29;383:1305-1316. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019422.
Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.
Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes.
Study design: Prospective, open blinded randomized controlled trial.
Setting: 135 centers in 11 European countries.
Synopsis: Of patients with a new AFib diagnosis (less than 1 year, median 36 days), 2,789 were randomized 1:1 to rhythm control or usual care. Patients were 75 years old or older with prior CVA or 2 or fewer cardiovascular conditions. Both arms were continued on guideline-directed treatment, including rate control medications and anticoagulation. Rhythm control involved use of antiarrhythmics, catheter ablation (8% at enrollment, 20% by 5 years), or early cardioversion. Patients assigned to rhythm control had a lower risk for primary composite outcome of CV death, stroke, or hospitalization for worsening heart failure or acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.79; 96% confidence interval, 0.66-0.94; P = .005) at 5 years, and the trial was stopped early for efficacy. Despite the 21% relative risk reduction, the absolute risk reduction was modest at 1.1 per 100 person-years. There were no significant differences in composite rate of all-cause mortality, although more adverse events occurred in the rhythm arm (4.9% vs. 1%). Overall rates of stroke and death were relatively low in both groups, underscoring the importance of continuing guideline-directed therapy. Hospital days were similar between the two groups, suggesting that rhythm control is not associated with higher cost burden. Limitations include its open-label design, loss of patients to follow-up (9% in control arm), and lack of generalizability to patients with long-standing AFib.
Bottom line: Early initiation of rhythm control therapy was associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed AFib compared with usual care alone.
Citation: Kirchhof P et al. Early rhythm-control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29;383:1305-1316. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019422.
Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.
Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes.
Study design: Prospective, open blinded randomized controlled trial.
Setting: 135 centers in 11 European countries.
Synopsis: Of patients with a new AFib diagnosis (less than 1 year, median 36 days), 2,789 were randomized 1:1 to rhythm control or usual care. Patients were 75 years old or older with prior CVA or 2 or fewer cardiovascular conditions. Both arms were continued on guideline-directed treatment, including rate control medications and anticoagulation. Rhythm control involved use of antiarrhythmics, catheter ablation (8% at enrollment, 20% by 5 years), or early cardioversion. Patients assigned to rhythm control had a lower risk for primary composite outcome of CV death, stroke, or hospitalization for worsening heart failure or acute coronary syndrome (HR, 0.79; 96% confidence interval, 0.66-0.94; P = .005) at 5 years, and the trial was stopped early for efficacy. Despite the 21% relative risk reduction, the absolute risk reduction was modest at 1.1 per 100 person-years. There were no significant differences in composite rate of all-cause mortality, although more adverse events occurred in the rhythm arm (4.9% vs. 1%). Overall rates of stroke and death were relatively low in both groups, underscoring the importance of continuing guideline-directed therapy. Hospital days were similar between the two groups, suggesting that rhythm control is not associated with higher cost burden. Limitations include its open-label design, loss of patients to follow-up (9% in control arm), and lack of generalizability to patients with long-standing AFib.
Bottom line: Early initiation of rhythm control therapy was associated with improved outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed AFib compared with usual care alone.
Citation: Kirchhof P et al. Early rhythm-control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29;383:1305-1316. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019422.
Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.
Long-term glucocorticoids in RA linked to increased cardiovascular risk
Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.
Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.
“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”
Christie Bartels, MD, associate professor and division head of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview that these findings indicate a need to consider the risks of long-term glucocorticoid use for RA.
“The clinical implications of these studies include informed consent when using steroids in patients and when advocating for steroid-sparing therapy,” said Dr. Bartels, who was not involved in either study. ”We have never had more options for steroid-sparing medications in rheumatoid arthritis than we have right now, making it a critical time to reduce glucocorticoid use whenever possible. For short-term function and pain relief, or in some cases with many contraindications, there is still a role for glucocorticoid use, but these data show that no amount of longer-term glucocorticoid use is without risk.”
VA study details
The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.
The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.
The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.
After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).
Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study
In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.
All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.
A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.
Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.
Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.
Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.
“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”
The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research
Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.
Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.
“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”
Christie Bartels, MD, associate professor and division head of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview that these findings indicate a need to consider the risks of long-term glucocorticoid use for RA.
“The clinical implications of these studies include informed consent when using steroids in patients and when advocating for steroid-sparing therapy,” said Dr. Bartels, who was not involved in either study. ”We have never had more options for steroid-sparing medications in rheumatoid arthritis than we have right now, making it a critical time to reduce glucocorticoid use whenever possible. For short-term function and pain relief, or in some cases with many contraindications, there is still a role for glucocorticoid use, but these data show that no amount of longer-term glucocorticoid use is without risk.”
VA study details
The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.
The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.
The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.
After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).
Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study
In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.
All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.
A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.
Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.
Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.
Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.
“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”
The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research
Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.
Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.
“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”
Christie Bartels, MD, associate professor and division head of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said in an interview that these findings indicate a need to consider the risks of long-term glucocorticoid use for RA.
“The clinical implications of these studies include informed consent when using steroids in patients and when advocating for steroid-sparing therapy,” said Dr. Bartels, who was not involved in either study. ”We have never had more options for steroid-sparing medications in rheumatoid arthritis than we have right now, making it a critical time to reduce glucocorticoid use whenever possible. For short-term function and pain relief, or in some cases with many contraindications, there is still a role for glucocorticoid use, but these data show that no amount of longer-term glucocorticoid use is without risk.”
VA study details
The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.
The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.
The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.
The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.
After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).
Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study
In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.
All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.
A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.
Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.
Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.
Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.
“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”
The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research
FROM ACR 2021
EMPEROR-Preserved findings confirmed in ‘true’ HFpEF patients
Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.
Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.
“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Streamlining heart failure treatment
The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.
That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure
The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.
The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%
Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:
- The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
- Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
- Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
- Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.
Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.
The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.
Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.
Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.
“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Streamlining heart failure treatment
The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.
That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure
The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.
The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%
Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:
- The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
- Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
- Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
- Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.
Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.
The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.
Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.
Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.
“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Streamlining heart failure treatment
The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.
That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure
The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.
The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%
Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:
- The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
- Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
- Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
- Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.
Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.
The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.
FROM AHA2021
Ticagrelor reversal agent achieves quick hemostasis: REVERSE-IT
The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.
“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.
Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.
REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
Platelet function assays test reversal
On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.
On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.
The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
Hemostasis documented in all but one patient
Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.
Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.
There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.
While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.
The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
No good current options for reversal
Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.
“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.
Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.
“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.
For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”
Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.
Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.
“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.
Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.
REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
Platelet function assays test reversal
On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.
On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.
The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
Hemostasis documented in all but one patient
Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.
Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.
There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.
While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.
The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
No good current options for reversal
Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.
“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.
Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.
“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.
For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”
Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.
Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.
“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.
Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.
REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
Platelet function assays test reversal
On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.
On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.
The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
Hemostasis documented in all but one patient
Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.
Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.
There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.
While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.
The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
No good current options for reversal
Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.
“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.
Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.
“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.
For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”
Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.
Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
FROM AHA 2021
Specific blood pressure-lowering drugs prevent onset of new diabetes
results from a new meta-analysis show.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) – so-called renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers – showed the strongest association with preventive effects, while conversely, beta-blocker and thiazide diuretic antihypertensives were linked to an increased risk of new-onset diabetes.
“This study suggests that blood pressure lowering can help prevent diabetes in addition to its well-established beneficial effects in reducing cardiovascular events,” write Milad Nazarzadeh and colleagues with the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration in their article published in The Lancet.
“The differing effects of the drug classes support decision-making for antihypertensive drug choice according to an individual’s risk profile,” note Mr. Nazarzadeh, of Deep Medicine, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, U.K., and colleagues.
“In particular, [RAS inhibitors], ACE inhibitors and ARBs, should become the drugs of choice when clinical risk of diabetes is of concern, whereas beta blockers and thiazide diuretics should be avoided where possible,” they add.
In an accompanying editorial, Matthew A. Cavender, MD, MPH, and Robert C. Wirka, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agree that the new findings, along with the bulk of previous evidence, point to an important role of RAS-inhibiting drugs in diabetes prevention.
“Based on the accumulated evidence, including the results of these analyses, blood pressure control, particularly with RAS inhibition, should be considered as a possible strategy to reduce the risk of developing diabetes,” they write.
They note that, while “the absolute risk reduction found in this meta-analysis is modest, interventions with small benefits can have an outsized effect when applied to conditions as common as hypertension.”
And commenting on the findings to the U.K. Science & Media Centre, Marc George, MBChB, PhD, blood pressure clinical lead for University College London Hospital, U.K., said: “Lowering blood pressure prevents heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure, and this new large and comprehensive study published in The Lancet also shows that it lowers the risk of developing diabetes. Until now this effect was not clear.”
Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics, The Open University, U.K., similarly concurs: “Though there is good evidence that lowering people’s blood pressure, if it is too high, can have important health benefits in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, it hasn’t been clear whether lowering blood pressure can reduce the chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. This is an impressive study.”
RAS blockers associated with lower diabetes risk
The findings are from an individual data meta-analysis of 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted between 1973 and 2008 and involving five major classes of antihypertensive drugs: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers.
Overall, the studies included 145,939 participants, of whom 60.6% were men.
Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 9,883 of the study participants developed new-onset type 2 diabetes.
Those treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs had a reduced relative risk of new-onset diabetes that was nearly identical (risk reduction, 0.84 for both) versus placebo.
However, treatment with beta-blockers or thiazide diuretics was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.48 and 1.20, respectively), consistent with previous evidence that, specifically, second-line thiazide diuretics and third-line beta blockers increase the risk of diabetes.
No significant reduction or increase in risk was observed with calcium channel blockers (RR, 1.02).
For the reductions with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, each reduction in systolic blood pressure of 5-mm Hg was associated with an 11% reduced risk of developing diabetes.
“The relative magnitude of reduction per 5-mm Hg systolic blood pressure lowering was similar to those reported for prevention of major cardiovascular events,” the authors say.
“[This] will strengthen the case for blood pressure reduction through lifestyle interventions known to reduce blood pressure, and blood pressure lowering treatments with drugs, and possibly device therapies,” they say.
In the opposite direction, research has suggested that each 20-mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure is associated with as much as a 77% increased risk of type 2 diabetes; however, the causality of that association is uncertain, the authors note.
Results fill gap in evidence for guidelines
The meta-analysis findings were further validated in a supplemental mendelian randomization analysis, which used data from the International Consortium for Blood Pressure genome-wide association study and the UK Biobank. The analysis showed that people with genetic variants that have a similar effect on the RAS pathway as ACE inhibitors and ARBs also had a reduced risk of diabetes.
On this point, Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, lecturer in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at St. George’s, University of London, told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is a comprehensive study triangulating clinical trial and genetic data to find support for effects of blood pressure reduction through particular pharmacological targets on glycemic control and risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Mr. Nazarzadeh and colleagues say that uncertainty regarding whether the reduction in diabetes risk is caused by blood pressure lowering itself, or by some other effect of the antihypertensive drugs, has meant that guideline recommendations on the role of antihypertensive drugs have been lacking.
However, the authors assert that “our study fills this gap in evidence using individual participant data from randomized controlled trials and assessing effects for a standardized fixed degree of blood pressure reduction.”
“With consistent results from both randomized controlled trials and genetic analyses, we have shown that elevated blood pressure is indeed a modifiable risk factor for new-onset type 2 diabetes in people without a diagnosis of diabetes, with a relative effect size similar to those seen for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease,” they state.
Authors of U.S. hypertension guidelines should follow lead of ESC
Under the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, RAS inhibitors (in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic) have a class 1 recommendation for the treatment of hypertension; however, diabetes and cardiology societies in the United States only recommend a preference for a RAS inhibitor over other agents among those with concomitant albuminuria.
But with an estimated 13% of Americans having diabetes and a striking 34.5% having prediabetes, the need for more measures to tackle the problem is urgent, say Dr. Cavender and Dr. Wirka in their editorial.
“Perhaps these data are enough to encourage the writers of the hypertension guidelines in the U.S. to follow the lead of the ESC to make RAS inhibitors the first-line hypertension treatment for all patients and not just in those with albuminuria,” they state.
Dr. Cavender has reported receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL Behring, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Wirka and Dr. George have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the SMC and member of its advisory committee. Dr. Gill is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results from a new meta-analysis show.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) – so-called renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers – showed the strongest association with preventive effects, while conversely, beta-blocker and thiazide diuretic antihypertensives were linked to an increased risk of new-onset diabetes.
“This study suggests that blood pressure lowering can help prevent diabetes in addition to its well-established beneficial effects in reducing cardiovascular events,” write Milad Nazarzadeh and colleagues with the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration in their article published in The Lancet.
“The differing effects of the drug classes support decision-making for antihypertensive drug choice according to an individual’s risk profile,” note Mr. Nazarzadeh, of Deep Medicine, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, U.K., and colleagues.
“In particular, [RAS inhibitors], ACE inhibitors and ARBs, should become the drugs of choice when clinical risk of diabetes is of concern, whereas beta blockers and thiazide diuretics should be avoided where possible,” they add.
In an accompanying editorial, Matthew A. Cavender, MD, MPH, and Robert C. Wirka, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agree that the new findings, along with the bulk of previous evidence, point to an important role of RAS-inhibiting drugs in diabetes prevention.
“Based on the accumulated evidence, including the results of these analyses, blood pressure control, particularly with RAS inhibition, should be considered as a possible strategy to reduce the risk of developing diabetes,” they write.
They note that, while “the absolute risk reduction found in this meta-analysis is modest, interventions with small benefits can have an outsized effect when applied to conditions as common as hypertension.”
And commenting on the findings to the U.K. Science & Media Centre, Marc George, MBChB, PhD, blood pressure clinical lead for University College London Hospital, U.K., said: “Lowering blood pressure prevents heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure, and this new large and comprehensive study published in The Lancet also shows that it lowers the risk of developing diabetes. Until now this effect was not clear.”
Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics, The Open University, U.K., similarly concurs: “Though there is good evidence that lowering people’s blood pressure, if it is too high, can have important health benefits in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, it hasn’t been clear whether lowering blood pressure can reduce the chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. This is an impressive study.”
RAS blockers associated with lower diabetes risk
The findings are from an individual data meta-analysis of 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted between 1973 and 2008 and involving five major classes of antihypertensive drugs: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers.
Overall, the studies included 145,939 participants, of whom 60.6% were men.
Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 9,883 of the study participants developed new-onset type 2 diabetes.
Those treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs had a reduced relative risk of new-onset diabetes that was nearly identical (risk reduction, 0.84 for both) versus placebo.
However, treatment with beta-blockers or thiazide diuretics was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.48 and 1.20, respectively), consistent with previous evidence that, specifically, second-line thiazide diuretics and third-line beta blockers increase the risk of diabetes.
No significant reduction or increase in risk was observed with calcium channel blockers (RR, 1.02).
For the reductions with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, each reduction in systolic blood pressure of 5-mm Hg was associated with an 11% reduced risk of developing diabetes.
“The relative magnitude of reduction per 5-mm Hg systolic blood pressure lowering was similar to those reported for prevention of major cardiovascular events,” the authors say.
“[This] will strengthen the case for blood pressure reduction through lifestyle interventions known to reduce blood pressure, and blood pressure lowering treatments with drugs, and possibly device therapies,” they say.
In the opposite direction, research has suggested that each 20-mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure is associated with as much as a 77% increased risk of type 2 diabetes; however, the causality of that association is uncertain, the authors note.
Results fill gap in evidence for guidelines
The meta-analysis findings were further validated in a supplemental mendelian randomization analysis, which used data from the International Consortium for Blood Pressure genome-wide association study and the UK Biobank. The analysis showed that people with genetic variants that have a similar effect on the RAS pathway as ACE inhibitors and ARBs also had a reduced risk of diabetes.
On this point, Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, lecturer in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at St. George’s, University of London, told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is a comprehensive study triangulating clinical trial and genetic data to find support for effects of blood pressure reduction through particular pharmacological targets on glycemic control and risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Mr. Nazarzadeh and colleagues say that uncertainty regarding whether the reduction in diabetes risk is caused by blood pressure lowering itself, or by some other effect of the antihypertensive drugs, has meant that guideline recommendations on the role of antihypertensive drugs have been lacking.
However, the authors assert that “our study fills this gap in evidence using individual participant data from randomized controlled trials and assessing effects for a standardized fixed degree of blood pressure reduction.”
“With consistent results from both randomized controlled trials and genetic analyses, we have shown that elevated blood pressure is indeed a modifiable risk factor for new-onset type 2 diabetes in people without a diagnosis of diabetes, with a relative effect size similar to those seen for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease,” they state.
Authors of U.S. hypertension guidelines should follow lead of ESC
Under the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, RAS inhibitors (in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic) have a class 1 recommendation for the treatment of hypertension; however, diabetes and cardiology societies in the United States only recommend a preference for a RAS inhibitor over other agents among those with concomitant albuminuria.
But with an estimated 13% of Americans having diabetes and a striking 34.5% having prediabetes, the need for more measures to tackle the problem is urgent, say Dr. Cavender and Dr. Wirka in their editorial.
“Perhaps these data are enough to encourage the writers of the hypertension guidelines in the U.S. to follow the lead of the ESC to make RAS inhibitors the first-line hypertension treatment for all patients and not just in those with albuminuria,” they state.
Dr. Cavender has reported receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL Behring, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Wirka and Dr. George have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the SMC and member of its advisory committee. Dr. Gill is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
results from a new meta-analysis show.
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) – so-called renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers – showed the strongest association with preventive effects, while conversely, beta-blocker and thiazide diuretic antihypertensives were linked to an increased risk of new-onset diabetes.
“This study suggests that blood pressure lowering can help prevent diabetes in addition to its well-established beneficial effects in reducing cardiovascular events,” write Milad Nazarzadeh and colleagues with the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration in their article published in The Lancet.
“The differing effects of the drug classes support decision-making for antihypertensive drug choice according to an individual’s risk profile,” note Mr. Nazarzadeh, of Deep Medicine, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, U.K., and colleagues.
“In particular, [RAS inhibitors], ACE inhibitors and ARBs, should become the drugs of choice when clinical risk of diabetes is of concern, whereas beta blockers and thiazide diuretics should be avoided where possible,” they add.
In an accompanying editorial, Matthew A. Cavender, MD, MPH, and Robert C. Wirka, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agree that the new findings, along with the bulk of previous evidence, point to an important role of RAS-inhibiting drugs in diabetes prevention.
“Based on the accumulated evidence, including the results of these analyses, blood pressure control, particularly with RAS inhibition, should be considered as a possible strategy to reduce the risk of developing diabetes,” they write.
They note that, while “the absolute risk reduction found in this meta-analysis is modest, interventions with small benefits can have an outsized effect when applied to conditions as common as hypertension.”
And commenting on the findings to the U.K. Science & Media Centre, Marc George, MBChB, PhD, blood pressure clinical lead for University College London Hospital, U.K., said: “Lowering blood pressure prevents heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure, and this new large and comprehensive study published in The Lancet also shows that it lowers the risk of developing diabetes. Until now this effect was not clear.”
Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics, The Open University, U.K., similarly concurs: “Though there is good evidence that lowering people’s blood pressure, if it is too high, can have important health benefits in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, it hasn’t been clear whether lowering blood pressure can reduce the chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. This is an impressive study.”
RAS blockers associated with lower diabetes risk
The findings are from an individual data meta-analysis of 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted between 1973 and 2008 and involving five major classes of antihypertensive drugs: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers.
Overall, the studies included 145,939 participants, of whom 60.6% were men.
Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 9,883 of the study participants developed new-onset type 2 diabetes.
Those treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs had a reduced relative risk of new-onset diabetes that was nearly identical (risk reduction, 0.84 for both) versus placebo.
However, treatment with beta-blockers or thiazide diuretics was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.48 and 1.20, respectively), consistent with previous evidence that, specifically, second-line thiazide diuretics and third-line beta blockers increase the risk of diabetes.
No significant reduction or increase in risk was observed with calcium channel blockers (RR, 1.02).
For the reductions with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, each reduction in systolic blood pressure of 5-mm Hg was associated with an 11% reduced risk of developing diabetes.
“The relative magnitude of reduction per 5-mm Hg systolic blood pressure lowering was similar to those reported for prevention of major cardiovascular events,” the authors say.
“[This] will strengthen the case for blood pressure reduction through lifestyle interventions known to reduce blood pressure, and blood pressure lowering treatments with drugs, and possibly device therapies,” they say.
In the opposite direction, research has suggested that each 20-mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure is associated with as much as a 77% increased risk of type 2 diabetes; however, the causality of that association is uncertain, the authors note.
Results fill gap in evidence for guidelines
The meta-analysis findings were further validated in a supplemental mendelian randomization analysis, which used data from the International Consortium for Blood Pressure genome-wide association study and the UK Biobank. The analysis showed that people with genetic variants that have a similar effect on the RAS pathway as ACE inhibitors and ARBs also had a reduced risk of diabetes.
On this point, Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, lecturer in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at St. George’s, University of London, told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is a comprehensive study triangulating clinical trial and genetic data to find support for effects of blood pressure reduction through particular pharmacological targets on glycemic control and risk of type 2 diabetes.”
Mr. Nazarzadeh and colleagues say that uncertainty regarding whether the reduction in diabetes risk is caused by blood pressure lowering itself, or by some other effect of the antihypertensive drugs, has meant that guideline recommendations on the role of antihypertensive drugs have been lacking.
However, the authors assert that “our study fills this gap in evidence using individual participant data from randomized controlled trials and assessing effects for a standardized fixed degree of blood pressure reduction.”
“With consistent results from both randomized controlled trials and genetic analyses, we have shown that elevated blood pressure is indeed a modifiable risk factor for new-onset type 2 diabetes in people without a diagnosis of diabetes, with a relative effect size similar to those seen for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease,” they state.
Authors of U.S. hypertension guidelines should follow lead of ESC
Under the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, RAS inhibitors (in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic) have a class 1 recommendation for the treatment of hypertension; however, diabetes and cardiology societies in the United States only recommend a preference for a RAS inhibitor over other agents among those with concomitant albuminuria.
But with an estimated 13% of Americans having diabetes and a striking 34.5% having prediabetes, the need for more measures to tackle the problem is urgent, say Dr. Cavender and Dr. Wirka in their editorial.
“Perhaps these data are enough to encourage the writers of the hypertension guidelines in the U.S. to follow the lead of the ESC to make RAS inhibitors the first-line hypertension treatment for all patients and not just in those with albuminuria,” they state.
Dr. Cavender has reported receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL Behring, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Wirka and Dr. George have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the SMC and member of its advisory committee. Dr. Gill is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET