User login
Hyperkalemia-related treatment changes linked to death in acute HF
The hyperkalemia that commonly occurs in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure does not affect outcomes, but it can lead to treatment changes that can in turn raise the risk of mortality.
That’s according to an analysis of data from 1,589 patients in the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function) (N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1419-28).
In PROTECT, patients with acute heart failure and mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min) were enrolled and randomized to receive placebo or rolofylline, a selective A1 adenosine receptor antagonist that is no longer in development. Because of the meticulous recording of potassium levels in PROTECT, investigators led by Joost C. Beusekamp of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, used the data to examine the relations between incident hyperkalemia and changes in treatment, focusing on mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs).
They found that of the 35% of the patients who developed hyperkalemia at least once during hospitalization, defined as at least one episode of potassium above 5.0 mEq/L, 53% had been taking MRAs before hospitalization. And of those patients who been taking MRAs before hospitalization, 35% and 44% developed incident hypokalemia and had “a normal potassium” level, respectively. The hyperkalemia patients were also more likely to have their MRAs down-titrated (15%) during their stay than were those with low (8%) and normal (9%) potassium levels.
No significant association was found between in-hospital potassium levels and 180-day mortality or a composite of rehospitalization for cardiovascular or renal causes or all-cause death at 30 days (data not provided). However, there was a significant link between MRA dose reductions and 180-day mortality in a multivariate analysis (HR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.60; P = 0.008).
“Incident hyperkalemia was strongly associated with down-titration of MRA therapy which was, in turn, associated with a worse prognosis,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.010.
The hyperkalemia that commonly occurs in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure does not affect outcomes, but it can lead to treatment changes that can in turn raise the risk of mortality.
That’s according to an analysis of data from 1,589 patients in the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function) (N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1419-28).
In PROTECT, patients with acute heart failure and mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min) were enrolled and randomized to receive placebo or rolofylline, a selective A1 adenosine receptor antagonist that is no longer in development. Because of the meticulous recording of potassium levels in PROTECT, investigators led by Joost C. Beusekamp of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, used the data to examine the relations between incident hyperkalemia and changes in treatment, focusing on mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs).
They found that of the 35% of the patients who developed hyperkalemia at least once during hospitalization, defined as at least one episode of potassium above 5.0 mEq/L, 53% had been taking MRAs before hospitalization. And of those patients who been taking MRAs before hospitalization, 35% and 44% developed incident hypokalemia and had “a normal potassium” level, respectively. The hyperkalemia patients were also more likely to have their MRAs down-titrated (15%) during their stay than were those with low (8%) and normal (9%) potassium levels.
No significant association was found between in-hospital potassium levels and 180-day mortality or a composite of rehospitalization for cardiovascular or renal causes or all-cause death at 30 days (data not provided). However, there was a significant link between MRA dose reductions and 180-day mortality in a multivariate analysis (HR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.60; P = 0.008).
“Incident hyperkalemia was strongly associated with down-titration of MRA therapy which was, in turn, associated with a worse prognosis,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.010.
The hyperkalemia that commonly occurs in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure does not affect outcomes, but it can lead to treatment changes that can in turn raise the risk of mortality.
That’s according to an analysis of data from 1,589 patients in the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function) (N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1419-28).
In PROTECT, patients with acute heart failure and mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min) were enrolled and randomized to receive placebo or rolofylline, a selective A1 adenosine receptor antagonist that is no longer in development. Because of the meticulous recording of potassium levels in PROTECT, investigators led by Joost C. Beusekamp of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, used the data to examine the relations between incident hyperkalemia and changes in treatment, focusing on mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs).
They found that of the 35% of the patients who developed hyperkalemia at least once during hospitalization, defined as at least one episode of potassium above 5.0 mEq/L, 53% had been taking MRAs before hospitalization. And of those patients who been taking MRAs before hospitalization, 35% and 44% developed incident hypokalemia and had “a normal potassium” level, respectively. The hyperkalemia patients were also more likely to have their MRAs down-titrated (15%) during their stay than were those with low (8%) and normal (9%) potassium levels.
No significant association was found between in-hospital potassium levels and 180-day mortality or a composite of rehospitalization for cardiovascular or renal causes or all-cause death at 30 days (data not provided). However, there was a significant link between MRA dose reductions and 180-day mortality in a multivariate analysis (HR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.60; P = 0.008).
“Incident hyperkalemia was strongly associated with down-titration of MRA therapy which was, in turn, associated with a worse prognosis,” the investigators concluded.
SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.010.
FROM JACC: HEART FAILURE
Evidence builds for AFib ablation’s efficacy in heart failure
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
Data build on cardiovascular disease risk after GDM, HDP
WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.
Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And ”
Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.
An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.
The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).
HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.
Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).
Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”
The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data
The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.
Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.
An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).
The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.
Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.
The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.
Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.
“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”
Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care
Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.
Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.
At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.
A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).
Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.
A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).
“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”
For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.
Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.
WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.
Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And ”
Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.
An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.
The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).
HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.
Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).
Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”
The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data
The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.
Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.
An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).
The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.
Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.
The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.
Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.
“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”
Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care
Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.
Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.
At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.
A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).
Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.
A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).
“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”
For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.
Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.
WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.
Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And ”
Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.
An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.
The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).
HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.
Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).
Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”
The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data
The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.
Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.
An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).
The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.
Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.
The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.
Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.
“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”
Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care
Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.
Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).
On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.
At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.
A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).
Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.
A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).
“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”
For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.
Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.
REPORTING FROM THE DPSG-NA 2019
RNA inhibitors silence two new targets in dyslipidemia
PHILADELPHIA – A novel treatment strategy tackling hypertriglyceridemia via long-acting agents targeting two specific culprit genes caused a stir based on the highly encouraging early results of two small proof-of-concept studies presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
ARO-APOC3 is a small interfering ribonucleic acid molecule (siRNA) targeting the apolipoprotein C-III gene (APOC3) specifically within hepatocytes, while ARO-ANG3 is an siRNA targeting hepatic angiotensinlike protein 3 (ANG3). ARO-APOC3 is being developed as a potential treatment for familial chylomicronemia syndrome, a rare disorder associated with triglyceride levels in excess of 800 mg/dL, as well as for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia and associated pancreatitis – a far more common condition – and ultimately, perhaps, for patients with hypertriglyceridemia and heart disease. ARO-ANG3, which lowers very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) as well as LDL cholesterol while increasing HDL cholesterol levels, is under development as a treatment for high triglycerides, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and metabolic diseases.
Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, presented the results of the phase 1/2a study of ARO-APOC3, which included 40 healthy subjects who received a single subcutaneous injection of the RNA inhibitor at 10, 25, 50, or 100 mg and were followed for 16 weeks. At the highest dose, it reduced serum APOC3 levels by 94%, triglyceride levels by 64%, LDL cholesterol levels by up to 25%, and VLDL by a maximum of 68%, while boosting HDL cholesterol levels by up to 69%. These substantial changes in lipids remained stable through week 16.
The observed prolonged duration of effect provides a potential opportunity for dosing quarterly or perhaps even twice a year. This would be ideal for patients who have problems with adherence to daily therapy with statins and other oral agents, observed Dr. Ballantyne, professor of medicine and professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Gerald F. Watts, MBBS, DM, DSc, PhD, presented a separate phase 1/2a, 16-week study of a single dose of ARO-ANG3 at 35, 100, 200, or 300 mg in 40 dyslipidemic subjects who were not on background lipid-lowering therapy. The impact on lipids was similar to that achieved by silencing apolipoprotein C-III, except that the reduction in LDL cholesterol was larger and ARO-ANG3 reduced HDL cholesterol in dose-dependent fashion by up to 26%. As in the ARO-APOC3 study, the safety profile of the ANG3 RNA inhibitor raised no concerns, with no study dropouts and no serious adverse events, added Dr. Watts, professor of medicine at the University of Western Australia, Perth.
Discussant Daniel J. Rader, MD, noted that there is an unmet need for hypertriglyceridemia-lowering therapies, because elevated triglycerides can cause pancreatitis as well as coronary disease.
“These siRNA molecules are catalytic: They can go around and destroy multiple aspects of the target RNAs in a way that provides substantial longevity of effect, which is quite remarkable,” explained Dr. Rader, professor of molecular medicine and director of the preventive cardiology program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Hypertriglyceridemia is often a challenge to treat successfully in clinical practice, so the siRNA studies drew considerable attention, not only for the impressive size and durability of the lipid changes, but also because of the way in which the target genes were identified, a process that began by genetic analysis of individuals with inherently low levels of APOC3 and ANG3.
“One of the really interesting parts of this story is the rapidity with which we went from target identification to therapeutics, now moving into phase 1 and 2 trials. It’s happening much more rapidly than we’ve ever seen before,” commented AHA scientific sessions program chair Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, senior associate dean for clinical and translational research and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Still, he was quick to inject a cautionary note. “These genomic studies can show us that having lower levels of these proteins is associated with lower risk. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that lowering levels of these proteins will lower risk, and it certainly doesn’t tell us anything about potential safety concerns.”
In an interview, AHA spokesperson Jennifer Robinson, MD, made a similar point: “We have had lots of fibrate trials in which we’ve lowered triglycerides, and they didn’t really work.”
Yet she, too, was clearly caught up in the thrill of the early evidence of a novel means of treating new targets in dyslipidemia.
“We’re on the cusp of the genetic revolution,” declared Dr. Robinson, professor of epidemiology and director of the preventive and intervention center at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “For us science nerds, this is so exciting. It’s so cool. The brilliance of these compounds is they have a very focused target in a very focused organ. If you’re just in the liver, you’re limiting off-target effects, so the safety issue should be better than with what we have now.”
Dr. Rader commented that plenty of questions remain to be answered about siRNA therapy for hyperlipidemia. These include which target – APOC3 or ANG3 – is the more effective for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia and/or for preventing major cardiovascular events, how frequently these agents will need to be dosed, whether there’s a clinical downside to the substantial HDL cholesterol lowering seen with silencing of ANG3, and whether the APOC3 that’s produced in the intestine – and which isn’t touched by hepatocentric ARO-APOC3 – will cause problems.
Dr. Ballantyne reported serving as a consultant to Arrowhead Pharmaceutics, which is developing the RNA inhibitors for hypertriglyceridemia, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Watts has received research grants from Amgen and Sanofi-Regeneron.
PHILADELPHIA – A novel treatment strategy tackling hypertriglyceridemia via long-acting agents targeting two specific culprit genes caused a stir based on the highly encouraging early results of two small proof-of-concept studies presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
ARO-APOC3 is a small interfering ribonucleic acid molecule (siRNA) targeting the apolipoprotein C-III gene (APOC3) specifically within hepatocytes, while ARO-ANG3 is an siRNA targeting hepatic angiotensinlike protein 3 (ANG3). ARO-APOC3 is being developed as a potential treatment for familial chylomicronemia syndrome, a rare disorder associated with triglyceride levels in excess of 800 mg/dL, as well as for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia and associated pancreatitis – a far more common condition – and ultimately, perhaps, for patients with hypertriglyceridemia and heart disease. ARO-ANG3, which lowers very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) as well as LDL cholesterol while increasing HDL cholesterol levels, is under development as a treatment for high triglycerides, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and metabolic diseases.
Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, presented the results of the phase 1/2a study of ARO-APOC3, which included 40 healthy subjects who received a single subcutaneous injection of the RNA inhibitor at 10, 25, 50, or 100 mg and were followed for 16 weeks. At the highest dose, it reduced serum APOC3 levels by 94%, triglyceride levels by 64%, LDL cholesterol levels by up to 25%, and VLDL by a maximum of 68%, while boosting HDL cholesterol levels by up to 69%. These substantial changes in lipids remained stable through week 16.
The observed prolonged duration of effect provides a potential opportunity for dosing quarterly or perhaps even twice a year. This would be ideal for patients who have problems with adherence to daily therapy with statins and other oral agents, observed Dr. Ballantyne, professor of medicine and professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Gerald F. Watts, MBBS, DM, DSc, PhD, presented a separate phase 1/2a, 16-week study of a single dose of ARO-ANG3 at 35, 100, 200, or 300 mg in 40 dyslipidemic subjects who were not on background lipid-lowering therapy. The impact on lipids was similar to that achieved by silencing apolipoprotein C-III, except that the reduction in LDL cholesterol was larger and ARO-ANG3 reduced HDL cholesterol in dose-dependent fashion by up to 26%. As in the ARO-APOC3 study, the safety profile of the ANG3 RNA inhibitor raised no concerns, with no study dropouts and no serious adverse events, added Dr. Watts, professor of medicine at the University of Western Australia, Perth.
Discussant Daniel J. Rader, MD, noted that there is an unmet need for hypertriglyceridemia-lowering therapies, because elevated triglycerides can cause pancreatitis as well as coronary disease.
“These siRNA molecules are catalytic: They can go around and destroy multiple aspects of the target RNAs in a way that provides substantial longevity of effect, which is quite remarkable,” explained Dr. Rader, professor of molecular medicine and director of the preventive cardiology program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Hypertriglyceridemia is often a challenge to treat successfully in clinical practice, so the siRNA studies drew considerable attention, not only for the impressive size and durability of the lipid changes, but also because of the way in which the target genes were identified, a process that began by genetic analysis of individuals with inherently low levels of APOC3 and ANG3.
“One of the really interesting parts of this story is the rapidity with which we went from target identification to therapeutics, now moving into phase 1 and 2 trials. It’s happening much more rapidly than we’ve ever seen before,” commented AHA scientific sessions program chair Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, senior associate dean for clinical and translational research and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Still, he was quick to inject a cautionary note. “These genomic studies can show us that having lower levels of these proteins is associated with lower risk. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that lowering levels of these proteins will lower risk, and it certainly doesn’t tell us anything about potential safety concerns.”
In an interview, AHA spokesperson Jennifer Robinson, MD, made a similar point: “We have had lots of fibrate trials in which we’ve lowered triglycerides, and they didn’t really work.”
Yet she, too, was clearly caught up in the thrill of the early evidence of a novel means of treating new targets in dyslipidemia.
“We’re on the cusp of the genetic revolution,” declared Dr. Robinson, professor of epidemiology and director of the preventive and intervention center at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “For us science nerds, this is so exciting. It’s so cool. The brilliance of these compounds is they have a very focused target in a very focused organ. If you’re just in the liver, you’re limiting off-target effects, so the safety issue should be better than with what we have now.”
Dr. Rader commented that plenty of questions remain to be answered about siRNA therapy for hyperlipidemia. These include which target – APOC3 or ANG3 – is the more effective for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia and/or for preventing major cardiovascular events, how frequently these agents will need to be dosed, whether there’s a clinical downside to the substantial HDL cholesterol lowering seen with silencing of ANG3, and whether the APOC3 that’s produced in the intestine – and which isn’t touched by hepatocentric ARO-APOC3 – will cause problems.
Dr. Ballantyne reported serving as a consultant to Arrowhead Pharmaceutics, which is developing the RNA inhibitors for hypertriglyceridemia, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Watts has received research grants from Amgen and Sanofi-Regeneron.
PHILADELPHIA – A novel treatment strategy tackling hypertriglyceridemia via long-acting agents targeting two specific culprit genes caused a stir based on the highly encouraging early results of two small proof-of-concept studies presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
ARO-APOC3 is a small interfering ribonucleic acid molecule (siRNA) targeting the apolipoprotein C-III gene (APOC3) specifically within hepatocytes, while ARO-ANG3 is an siRNA targeting hepatic angiotensinlike protein 3 (ANG3). ARO-APOC3 is being developed as a potential treatment for familial chylomicronemia syndrome, a rare disorder associated with triglyceride levels in excess of 800 mg/dL, as well as for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia and associated pancreatitis – a far more common condition – and ultimately, perhaps, for patients with hypertriglyceridemia and heart disease. ARO-ANG3, which lowers very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) as well as LDL cholesterol while increasing HDL cholesterol levels, is under development as a treatment for high triglycerides, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and metabolic diseases.
Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, presented the results of the phase 1/2a study of ARO-APOC3, which included 40 healthy subjects who received a single subcutaneous injection of the RNA inhibitor at 10, 25, 50, or 100 mg and were followed for 16 weeks. At the highest dose, it reduced serum APOC3 levels by 94%, triglyceride levels by 64%, LDL cholesterol levels by up to 25%, and VLDL by a maximum of 68%, while boosting HDL cholesterol levels by up to 69%. These substantial changes in lipids remained stable through week 16.
The observed prolonged duration of effect provides a potential opportunity for dosing quarterly or perhaps even twice a year. This would be ideal for patients who have problems with adherence to daily therapy with statins and other oral agents, observed Dr. Ballantyne, professor of medicine and professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Gerald F. Watts, MBBS, DM, DSc, PhD, presented a separate phase 1/2a, 16-week study of a single dose of ARO-ANG3 at 35, 100, 200, or 300 mg in 40 dyslipidemic subjects who were not on background lipid-lowering therapy. The impact on lipids was similar to that achieved by silencing apolipoprotein C-III, except that the reduction in LDL cholesterol was larger and ARO-ANG3 reduced HDL cholesterol in dose-dependent fashion by up to 26%. As in the ARO-APOC3 study, the safety profile of the ANG3 RNA inhibitor raised no concerns, with no study dropouts and no serious adverse events, added Dr. Watts, professor of medicine at the University of Western Australia, Perth.
Discussant Daniel J. Rader, MD, noted that there is an unmet need for hypertriglyceridemia-lowering therapies, because elevated triglycerides can cause pancreatitis as well as coronary disease.
“These siRNA molecules are catalytic: They can go around and destroy multiple aspects of the target RNAs in a way that provides substantial longevity of effect, which is quite remarkable,” explained Dr. Rader, professor of molecular medicine and director of the preventive cardiology program at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Hypertriglyceridemia is often a challenge to treat successfully in clinical practice, so the siRNA studies drew considerable attention, not only for the impressive size and durability of the lipid changes, but also because of the way in which the target genes were identified, a process that began by genetic analysis of individuals with inherently low levels of APOC3 and ANG3.
“One of the really interesting parts of this story is the rapidity with which we went from target identification to therapeutics, now moving into phase 1 and 2 trials. It’s happening much more rapidly than we’ve ever seen before,” commented AHA scientific sessions program chair Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, senior associate dean for clinical and translational research and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Still, he was quick to inject a cautionary note. “These genomic studies can show us that having lower levels of these proteins is associated with lower risk. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that lowering levels of these proteins will lower risk, and it certainly doesn’t tell us anything about potential safety concerns.”
In an interview, AHA spokesperson Jennifer Robinson, MD, made a similar point: “We have had lots of fibrate trials in which we’ve lowered triglycerides, and they didn’t really work.”
Yet she, too, was clearly caught up in the thrill of the early evidence of a novel means of treating new targets in dyslipidemia.
“We’re on the cusp of the genetic revolution,” declared Dr. Robinson, professor of epidemiology and director of the preventive and intervention center at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. “For us science nerds, this is so exciting. It’s so cool. The brilliance of these compounds is they have a very focused target in a very focused organ. If you’re just in the liver, you’re limiting off-target effects, so the safety issue should be better than with what we have now.”
Dr. Rader commented that plenty of questions remain to be answered about siRNA therapy for hyperlipidemia. These include which target – APOC3 or ANG3 – is the more effective for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia and/or for preventing major cardiovascular events, how frequently these agents will need to be dosed, whether there’s a clinical downside to the substantial HDL cholesterol lowering seen with silencing of ANG3, and whether the APOC3 that’s produced in the intestine – and which isn’t touched by hepatocentric ARO-APOC3 – will cause problems.
Dr. Ballantyne reported serving as a consultant to Arrowhead Pharmaceutics, which is developing the RNA inhibitors for hypertriglyceridemia, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Watts has received research grants from Amgen and Sanofi-Regeneron.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
The TWILIGHT of aspirin post-PCI for ACS?
PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.
The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.
The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.
The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.
Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.
Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y12 inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.
Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.
Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y12 inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.
“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”
The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y12 inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.
“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.
The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).
The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.
Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.
PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.
The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.
The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.
The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.
Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.
Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y12 inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.
Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.
Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y12 inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.
“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”
The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y12 inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.
“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.
The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).
The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.
Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.
PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.
The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.
The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.
The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.
Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.
Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y12 inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.
Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.
Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y12 inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.
“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”
The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y12 inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.
“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.
The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).
The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.
Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
GALILEO, GALILEO 4D: Mixed results in post-TAVR anticoagulation
PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.
In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.
However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.
Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.
The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.
However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.
Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”
Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.
GALILEO
Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.
These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.
In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.
From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).
The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).
Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).
Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).
A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).
The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”
Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.
Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”
Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.
“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.
The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.
GALILEO 4D
However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.
The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.
The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).
“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.
However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”
Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.
Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.
“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.
The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.
That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.
“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”
The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.
Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.
“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”
While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.
The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”
Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.
“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.
“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”
Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.
The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.
This article also appears on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.
In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.
However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.
Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.
The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.
However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.
Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”
Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.
GALILEO
Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.
These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.
In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.
From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).
The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).
Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).
Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).
A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).
The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”
Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.
Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”
Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.
“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.
The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.
GALILEO 4D
However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.
The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.
The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).
“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.
However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”
Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.
Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.
“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.
The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.
That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.
“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”
The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.
Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.
“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”
While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.
The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”
Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.
“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.
“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”
Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.
The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.
This article also appears on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.
In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.
However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.
Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.
The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.
However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.
Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”
Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.
GALILEO
Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.
These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.
In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.
From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).
The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).
Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).
Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).
A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).
The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”
Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.
Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”
Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.
“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.
The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.
GALILEO 4D
However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.
The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.
The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).
“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.
However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”
Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.
Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.
“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.
The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.
That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.
“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”
The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.
Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.
“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”
While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.
The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”
Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.
“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.
“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”
Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.
The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.
This article also appears on Medscape.com.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
ISCHEMIA trial hailed as practice changing
PHILADELPHIA – The eagerly awaited results of the ISCHEMIA trial – the largest-ever randomized trial of an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease – were emphatically declared practice-changing by interventional cardiologists and noninterventionalists alike at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
At a median 3.3 years of follow-up of 5,179 participants with baseline moderate or severe ischemia at 320 sites in 37 countries in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy accompanied by optimal medical therapy (OMT) didn’t reduce the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, compared with a conservative strategy of OMT alone. The rates at 4 years were 15.5% with the conservative strategy and 13.3% with the invasive strategy, reported study chair Judith S. Hochman, MD, professor of medicine and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University.
Nor was there a significant between-group difference in the major secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI: 13.9% with the conservative strategy, 11.7% with invasive management.
“The probability of at least a 10% benefit of the invasive strategy on all-cause mortality was less than 10%, based on a prespecified Bayesian analysis,” she added.
Prior to enrollment and randomization, CT angiography was routinely performed to rule out left main coronary artery disease.
Fifty-four percent of participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded trial had severe ischemia on a baseline noninvasive stress test. To the investigators’ surprise, patients with more severe ischemia or more extensive multivessel involvement didn’t do better with the invasive approach.
Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the conservative management group crossed over to revascularization within 4 years.
Quality-of-life results
An invasive strategy did result in significantly greater improvement in angina control and quality of life, as measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, than OMT alone in patients who had angina at least once a month at baseline.
“We have 100% confidence that there is a treatment benefit associated with an invasive approach early as well as late after randomization,” said John A. Spertus, MD, coprincipal investigator for the ISCHEMIA quality of life analysis.
Indeed, he calculated that, for patients with weekly angina, the number needed to treat with revascularization instead of OMT alone for one to be angina-free at 3 months was three.
However, in the 35% of ISCHEMIA participants who reported no angina within the past month at baseline, the invasive strategy offered no quality of life advantage, he added.
“I really think we need to hit ‘pause’ on asymptomatic revascularization. I just don’t see any benefit in patients without symptoms, left main disease excluded,” commented Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
The reaction
ISCHEMIA addressed a key clinical issue that’s long been surrounded by equipoise because of a paucity of high-quality data. As such, it was deemed worthy of its own AHA Late-Breaking Science session. The assembled discussants agreed the results will change their clinical practice.
“Based on the trial results to date in the patient population studied in the trial, I as a clinician would feel comfortable advising my patients not to undergo the invasive strategy if their angina was absent or controlled or tolerated. I don’t think we should feel obligated to take them to the cath lab,” said Alice K. Jacobs, MD, an AHA past-president and professor of medicine and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and interventional cardiology at Boston Medical Center.
The ISCHEMIA trial has been the target of criticism because of its cost, prolonged duration, and shifting endpoints, but Glenn L. Levine, MD, praised the ISCHEMIA investigators for achieving “as well-designed and -executed a trial as one could practically do in the real world.” ISCHEMIA will undoubtedly be incorporated into AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines on chest pain and on revascularization that are now in the process of being updated, predicted the cardiologist, who has chaired writing panels for numerous AHA/ACC guidelines.
“As someone who has been intimately involved with our national guidelines for the last 6 years, I say thank you to all the investigators and participants,” added Dr. Levine, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and director of the cardiac care unit at the Michael E. Debakey Medical Center, Houston.
“I’ll just say that this definitely will change my practice,” commented Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Just like the COURAGE trial taught me that not every blockage needs to have a stent in it right away, I think this is teaching me that not every patient with moderate-to-severe ischemia needs to go right away to the cath lab.”
Session cochair James de Lemos, MD, declared, “My take home is this is a remarkable finding. It’s medical proof that revascularization does not appear to have a marked effect.”
“I think the downstream implications of ISCHEMIA with regard to noninvasive testing are massive. I think that’s where will see more of an impact in our practice,” according to Dr. de Lemos, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and chief of the cardiology service at Parklawn Hospital in Dallas.
Numerous panelists expressed hope that the National Institutes of Health will fund a long-term extension of ISCHEMIA to learn if the results hold up.
The ISCHEMIA trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Spertus holds the copyright for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire.
SOURCE: Hochman JS. AHA late breaker.
PHILADELPHIA – The eagerly awaited results of the ISCHEMIA trial – the largest-ever randomized trial of an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease – were emphatically declared practice-changing by interventional cardiologists and noninterventionalists alike at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
At a median 3.3 years of follow-up of 5,179 participants with baseline moderate or severe ischemia at 320 sites in 37 countries in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy accompanied by optimal medical therapy (OMT) didn’t reduce the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, compared with a conservative strategy of OMT alone. The rates at 4 years were 15.5% with the conservative strategy and 13.3% with the invasive strategy, reported study chair Judith S. Hochman, MD, professor of medicine and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University.
Nor was there a significant between-group difference in the major secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI: 13.9% with the conservative strategy, 11.7% with invasive management.
“The probability of at least a 10% benefit of the invasive strategy on all-cause mortality was less than 10%, based on a prespecified Bayesian analysis,” she added.
Prior to enrollment and randomization, CT angiography was routinely performed to rule out left main coronary artery disease.
Fifty-four percent of participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded trial had severe ischemia on a baseline noninvasive stress test. To the investigators’ surprise, patients with more severe ischemia or more extensive multivessel involvement didn’t do better with the invasive approach.
Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the conservative management group crossed over to revascularization within 4 years.
Quality-of-life results
An invasive strategy did result in significantly greater improvement in angina control and quality of life, as measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, than OMT alone in patients who had angina at least once a month at baseline.
“We have 100% confidence that there is a treatment benefit associated with an invasive approach early as well as late after randomization,” said John A. Spertus, MD, coprincipal investigator for the ISCHEMIA quality of life analysis.
Indeed, he calculated that, for patients with weekly angina, the number needed to treat with revascularization instead of OMT alone for one to be angina-free at 3 months was three.
However, in the 35% of ISCHEMIA participants who reported no angina within the past month at baseline, the invasive strategy offered no quality of life advantage, he added.
“I really think we need to hit ‘pause’ on asymptomatic revascularization. I just don’t see any benefit in patients without symptoms, left main disease excluded,” commented Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
The reaction
ISCHEMIA addressed a key clinical issue that’s long been surrounded by equipoise because of a paucity of high-quality data. As such, it was deemed worthy of its own AHA Late-Breaking Science session. The assembled discussants agreed the results will change their clinical practice.
“Based on the trial results to date in the patient population studied in the trial, I as a clinician would feel comfortable advising my patients not to undergo the invasive strategy if their angina was absent or controlled or tolerated. I don’t think we should feel obligated to take them to the cath lab,” said Alice K. Jacobs, MD, an AHA past-president and professor of medicine and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and interventional cardiology at Boston Medical Center.
The ISCHEMIA trial has been the target of criticism because of its cost, prolonged duration, and shifting endpoints, but Glenn L. Levine, MD, praised the ISCHEMIA investigators for achieving “as well-designed and -executed a trial as one could practically do in the real world.” ISCHEMIA will undoubtedly be incorporated into AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines on chest pain and on revascularization that are now in the process of being updated, predicted the cardiologist, who has chaired writing panels for numerous AHA/ACC guidelines.
“As someone who has been intimately involved with our national guidelines for the last 6 years, I say thank you to all the investigators and participants,” added Dr. Levine, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and director of the cardiac care unit at the Michael E. Debakey Medical Center, Houston.
“I’ll just say that this definitely will change my practice,” commented Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Just like the COURAGE trial taught me that not every blockage needs to have a stent in it right away, I think this is teaching me that not every patient with moderate-to-severe ischemia needs to go right away to the cath lab.”
Session cochair James de Lemos, MD, declared, “My take home is this is a remarkable finding. It’s medical proof that revascularization does not appear to have a marked effect.”
“I think the downstream implications of ISCHEMIA with regard to noninvasive testing are massive. I think that’s where will see more of an impact in our practice,” according to Dr. de Lemos, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and chief of the cardiology service at Parklawn Hospital in Dallas.
Numerous panelists expressed hope that the National Institutes of Health will fund a long-term extension of ISCHEMIA to learn if the results hold up.
The ISCHEMIA trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Spertus holds the copyright for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire.
SOURCE: Hochman JS. AHA late breaker.
PHILADELPHIA – The eagerly awaited results of the ISCHEMIA trial – the largest-ever randomized trial of an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy for patients with stable ischemic heart disease – were emphatically declared practice-changing by interventional cardiologists and noninterventionalists alike at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
At a median 3.3 years of follow-up of 5,179 participants with baseline moderate or severe ischemia at 320 sites in 37 countries in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy accompanied by optimal medical therapy (OMT) didn’t reduce the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest, compared with a conservative strategy of OMT alone. The rates at 4 years were 15.5% with the conservative strategy and 13.3% with the invasive strategy, reported study chair Judith S. Hochman, MD, professor of medicine and senior associate dean for clinical sciences at New York University.
Nor was there a significant between-group difference in the major secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death or MI: 13.9% with the conservative strategy, 11.7% with invasive management.
“The probability of at least a 10% benefit of the invasive strategy on all-cause mortality was less than 10%, based on a prespecified Bayesian analysis,” she added.
Prior to enrollment and randomization, CT angiography was routinely performed to rule out left main coronary artery disease.
Fifty-four percent of participants in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded trial had severe ischemia on a baseline noninvasive stress test. To the investigators’ surprise, patients with more severe ischemia or more extensive multivessel involvement didn’t do better with the invasive approach.
Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the conservative management group crossed over to revascularization within 4 years.
Quality-of-life results
An invasive strategy did result in significantly greater improvement in angina control and quality of life, as measured using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, than OMT alone in patients who had angina at least once a month at baseline.
“We have 100% confidence that there is a treatment benefit associated with an invasive approach early as well as late after randomization,” said John A. Spertus, MD, coprincipal investigator for the ISCHEMIA quality of life analysis.
Indeed, he calculated that, for patients with weekly angina, the number needed to treat with revascularization instead of OMT alone for one to be angina-free at 3 months was three.
However, in the 35% of ISCHEMIA participants who reported no angina within the past month at baseline, the invasive strategy offered no quality of life advantage, he added.
“I really think we need to hit ‘pause’ on asymptomatic revascularization. I just don’t see any benefit in patients without symptoms, left main disease excluded,” commented Dr. Spertus, director of health outcomes research at St. Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
The reaction
ISCHEMIA addressed a key clinical issue that’s long been surrounded by equipoise because of a paucity of high-quality data. As such, it was deemed worthy of its own AHA Late-Breaking Science session. The assembled discussants agreed the results will change their clinical practice.
“Based on the trial results to date in the patient population studied in the trial, I as a clinician would feel comfortable advising my patients not to undergo the invasive strategy if their angina was absent or controlled or tolerated. I don’t think we should feel obligated to take them to the cath lab,” said Alice K. Jacobs, MD, an AHA past-president and professor of medicine and director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and interventional cardiology at Boston Medical Center.
The ISCHEMIA trial has been the target of criticism because of its cost, prolonged duration, and shifting endpoints, but Glenn L. Levine, MD, praised the ISCHEMIA investigators for achieving “as well-designed and -executed a trial as one could practically do in the real world.” ISCHEMIA will undoubtedly be incorporated into AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines on chest pain and on revascularization that are now in the process of being updated, predicted the cardiologist, who has chaired writing panels for numerous AHA/ACC guidelines.
“As someone who has been intimately involved with our national guidelines for the last 6 years, I say thank you to all the investigators and participants,” added Dr. Levine, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and director of the cardiac care unit at the Michael E. Debakey Medical Center, Houston.
“I’ll just say that this definitely will change my practice,” commented Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, an interventional cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “Just like the COURAGE trial taught me that not every blockage needs to have a stent in it right away, I think this is teaching me that not every patient with moderate-to-severe ischemia needs to go right away to the cath lab.”
Session cochair James de Lemos, MD, declared, “My take home is this is a remarkable finding. It’s medical proof that revascularization does not appear to have a marked effect.”
“I think the downstream implications of ISCHEMIA with regard to noninvasive testing are massive. I think that’s where will see more of an impact in our practice,” according to Dr. de Lemos, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and chief of the cardiology service at Parklawn Hospital in Dallas.
Numerous panelists expressed hope that the National Institutes of Health will fund a long-term extension of ISCHEMIA to learn if the results hold up.
The ISCHEMIA trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Spertus holds the copyright for the Seattle Angina Questionnaire.
SOURCE: Hochman JS. AHA late breaker.
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: .
Major finding: Immediate revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease provided no reduction in cardiovascular endpoints through 4 years of follow-up, compared with initial optimal medical therapy alone.
Study details: This international randomized trial included 5,129 patients with at least moderate ischemia who were assigned to initial invasive or conservative management and followed for a median of 3.3 years.
Disclosures: The ISCHEMIA trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Source: Hochman JS. AHA 2019 late breaker.
DAPA-HF: Dapagliflozin’s HFrEF efficacy confirmed in nondiabetics
PHILADELPHIA – The primary outcome results from the practice-changing DAPA-HF trial gave clinicians strong evidence that the diabetes drug dapagliflozin was equally effective at reducing cardiovascular death and acute exacerbations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, whether or not they also had type 2 diabetes. More detailed findings from the 2,605 enrolled patients in DAPA-HF who lacked diabetes (55% of the total study population) have now sealed the deal.
“The relative and absolute reductions in cardiovascular death and hospitalizations or urgent visits for heart failure were substantial, clinically important, and consistent in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” John McMurray, MD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as he summarized new trial results that confirmed the initial finding he reported previously.
While the initial report of the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) by the study’s lead investigator, Dr. McMurray, was limited to the finding that the relative risk reduction for the study’s primary endpoint was a highly statistically significant 25% in heart failure patients with diabetes and an equally strongly significant 27% relative cut among patients without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303), the new data showed that same consistency across the range of outcomes studied in the trial as well as across the range of glycosylated hemoglobin levels that patients had at study entry.
In an analysis that divided the entire study population of 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) into tertiles based on their entry blood level of hemoglobin A1c, patients with a normal level at or below 5.6% had a 26% relative reduction in the study’s primary endpoint, essentially the same response as the 29% relative cut in adverse events in the tertile of patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 5.7%-5.9% and the relative 28% relative reduction in events in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and having a hemoglobin A1c of 6.0% or greater, reported Dr. McMurray, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow. The results also showed a very benign safety profile in the patients without diabetes, similar to patients with diabetes and to placebo, and with no episodes of major hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
“It’s quite impressive that the result was consistent regardless of the level of hemoglobin A1c,” commented Larry A. Allen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for the report. Even though the patients without diabetes constituted just over half of the full DAPA-HF enrollment, the comparison of the effect of dapagliflozin in patients with or without diabetes was prespecified in a trial that enrolled a relatively large number of patients into each of the two subgroups by diabetes status. “I think there a good chance dapagliflozin will get an indication” for treating HFrEF patients without diabetes, Dr. Allen suggested in a video interview.
If the DAPA-HF results persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant a supplemental indication to dapagliflozin for use in cutting cardiovascular deaths and acute heart failure exacerbations in patients without diabetes, it would pave the way for health insurers to pay for the drug. Right now, even though Dr. Allen and other heart failure physicians have been impressed by the DAPA-HF findings and are eager to add the drug to the list of agents that HFrEF patients routinely receive, he’s been stymied so far by patients’ out-of pocket cost for using dapagliflozin off-label, roughly $500 a month.
“The DAPA-HF results suggest there is strong reason to consider dapagliflozin for patients without diabetes, and for payers to pay for it. I’m not prescribing dapagliflozin to HFrEF patients without diabetes right now; not because of the data, but because of noncoverage. Payers have not yet caught up with the data,” he said, and they likely will continue to not pay for the drug when used by patients without diabetes until a new labeled indication appears for those patients.
The immediate availability of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and the two other approved members of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor class of drugs, empagliflozin (Jardiance) and canagliflozin (Invokana), to treat patients with HFrEF, and the prospect of soon having dapagliflozin and possibly the other drugs in this class to treat patients with HFrEF but without diabetes also raises issues of drug sequencing in these patients and the overall number of drugs that HFrEF patients must now take to be on optimized medical therapy, Dr. Allen noted.
The already-existing lineup of medications for HFrEF patients includes starting on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and adding a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, then swapping out the initial renin-angiotensin system inhibitor for sacubitril/valsartan, and then, on top of all this, adding dapagliflozin or another drug in the same class. It raises questions of what is objectively the best way to introduce all these drugs into patients, and how to do it without subjecting patients to “financial toxicity,” Dr. Allen said during his discussion of the trial’s results.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
SOURCE: McMurray JJV. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
A labeling change for dapagliflozin that says the drug is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and without diabetes is critical so that payers will get on board with this new and important treatment. The evidence for efficacy and safety in patients without diabetes was so strong in the DAPA-HF trial that I don’t think a second trial will be needed for the Food and Drug Administration to add this indication to dapagliflozin’s label.
For patients with type 2 diabetes as well as HFrEF, it’s already full steam ahead to use dapagliflozin or another drug from the class of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, so far these drugs are not being widely prescribed by clinicians to patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. We need to build up the familiarity of clinicians with the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs so that primary care physicians will feel comfortable starting HFrEF patients on them. It’s relatively easy to start patients on the drugs in this class because of their good safety and no signal of problems when using them with other HFrEF medications.
The growing list of key drugs to use on patients with HFrEF means that we need to become smarter on how we start patients on these agents. Currently it’s done without evidence for which order of introduction works best. We also need to confirm that all five types of drugs that now appear indicated for HFrEF patients are all truly additive: an angiotensin receptor blocker coupled with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and now an SGLT2 inhibitor. I propose that researchers run studies that systematically stop one of these drugs to see whether the overall benefit to HFrEF patients remains unchanged, thereby identifying an agent that could be dropped from what is a growing list of drug classes, with possibly more classes to follow depending on results from studies now underway.
Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, is a heart failure physician and president of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va. He has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree Therapeutics. He made these comments in an interview.
A labeling change for dapagliflozin that says the drug is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and without diabetes is critical so that payers will get on board with this new and important treatment. The evidence for efficacy and safety in patients without diabetes was so strong in the DAPA-HF trial that I don’t think a second trial will be needed for the Food and Drug Administration to add this indication to dapagliflozin’s label.
For patients with type 2 diabetes as well as HFrEF, it’s already full steam ahead to use dapagliflozin or another drug from the class of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, so far these drugs are not being widely prescribed by clinicians to patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. We need to build up the familiarity of clinicians with the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs so that primary care physicians will feel comfortable starting HFrEF patients on them. It’s relatively easy to start patients on the drugs in this class because of their good safety and no signal of problems when using them with other HFrEF medications.
The growing list of key drugs to use on patients with HFrEF means that we need to become smarter on how we start patients on these agents. Currently it’s done without evidence for which order of introduction works best. We also need to confirm that all five types of drugs that now appear indicated for HFrEF patients are all truly additive: an angiotensin receptor blocker coupled with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and now an SGLT2 inhibitor. I propose that researchers run studies that systematically stop one of these drugs to see whether the overall benefit to HFrEF patients remains unchanged, thereby identifying an agent that could be dropped from what is a growing list of drug classes, with possibly more classes to follow depending on results from studies now underway.
Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, is a heart failure physician and president of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va. He has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree Therapeutics. He made these comments in an interview.
A labeling change for dapagliflozin that says the drug is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and without diabetes is critical so that payers will get on board with this new and important treatment. The evidence for efficacy and safety in patients without diabetes was so strong in the DAPA-HF trial that I don’t think a second trial will be needed for the Food and Drug Administration to add this indication to dapagliflozin’s label.
For patients with type 2 diabetes as well as HFrEF, it’s already full steam ahead to use dapagliflozin or another drug from the class of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, so far these drugs are not being widely prescribed by clinicians to patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. We need to build up the familiarity of clinicians with the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs so that primary care physicians will feel comfortable starting HFrEF patients on them. It’s relatively easy to start patients on the drugs in this class because of their good safety and no signal of problems when using them with other HFrEF medications.
The growing list of key drugs to use on patients with HFrEF means that we need to become smarter on how we start patients on these agents. Currently it’s done without evidence for which order of introduction works best. We also need to confirm that all five types of drugs that now appear indicated for HFrEF patients are all truly additive: an angiotensin receptor blocker coupled with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and now an SGLT2 inhibitor. I propose that researchers run studies that systematically stop one of these drugs to see whether the overall benefit to HFrEF patients remains unchanged, thereby identifying an agent that could be dropped from what is a growing list of drug classes, with possibly more classes to follow depending on results from studies now underway.
Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, is a heart failure physician and president of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va. He has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree Therapeutics. He made these comments in an interview.
PHILADELPHIA – The primary outcome results from the practice-changing DAPA-HF trial gave clinicians strong evidence that the diabetes drug dapagliflozin was equally effective at reducing cardiovascular death and acute exacerbations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, whether or not they also had type 2 diabetes. More detailed findings from the 2,605 enrolled patients in DAPA-HF who lacked diabetes (55% of the total study population) have now sealed the deal.
“The relative and absolute reductions in cardiovascular death and hospitalizations or urgent visits for heart failure were substantial, clinically important, and consistent in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” John McMurray, MD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as he summarized new trial results that confirmed the initial finding he reported previously.
While the initial report of the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) by the study’s lead investigator, Dr. McMurray, was limited to the finding that the relative risk reduction for the study’s primary endpoint was a highly statistically significant 25% in heart failure patients with diabetes and an equally strongly significant 27% relative cut among patients without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303), the new data showed that same consistency across the range of outcomes studied in the trial as well as across the range of glycosylated hemoglobin levels that patients had at study entry.
In an analysis that divided the entire study population of 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) into tertiles based on their entry blood level of hemoglobin A1c, patients with a normal level at or below 5.6% had a 26% relative reduction in the study’s primary endpoint, essentially the same response as the 29% relative cut in adverse events in the tertile of patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 5.7%-5.9% and the relative 28% relative reduction in events in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and having a hemoglobin A1c of 6.0% or greater, reported Dr. McMurray, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow. The results also showed a very benign safety profile in the patients without diabetes, similar to patients with diabetes and to placebo, and with no episodes of major hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
“It’s quite impressive that the result was consistent regardless of the level of hemoglobin A1c,” commented Larry A. Allen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for the report. Even though the patients without diabetes constituted just over half of the full DAPA-HF enrollment, the comparison of the effect of dapagliflozin in patients with or without diabetes was prespecified in a trial that enrolled a relatively large number of patients into each of the two subgroups by diabetes status. “I think there a good chance dapagliflozin will get an indication” for treating HFrEF patients without diabetes, Dr. Allen suggested in a video interview.
If the DAPA-HF results persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant a supplemental indication to dapagliflozin for use in cutting cardiovascular deaths and acute heart failure exacerbations in patients without diabetes, it would pave the way for health insurers to pay for the drug. Right now, even though Dr. Allen and other heart failure physicians have been impressed by the DAPA-HF findings and are eager to add the drug to the list of agents that HFrEF patients routinely receive, he’s been stymied so far by patients’ out-of pocket cost for using dapagliflozin off-label, roughly $500 a month.
“The DAPA-HF results suggest there is strong reason to consider dapagliflozin for patients without diabetes, and for payers to pay for it. I’m not prescribing dapagliflozin to HFrEF patients without diabetes right now; not because of the data, but because of noncoverage. Payers have not yet caught up with the data,” he said, and they likely will continue to not pay for the drug when used by patients without diabetes until a new labeled indication appears for those patients.
The immediate availability of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and the two other approved members of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor class of drugs, empagliflozin (Jardiance) and canagliflozin (Invokana), to treat patients with HFrEF, and the prospect of soon having dapagliflozin and possibly the other drugs in this class to treat patients with HFrEF but without diabetes also raises issues of drug sequencing in these patients and the overall number of drugs that HFrEF patients must now take to be on optimized medical therapy, Dr. Allen noted.
The already-existing lineup of medications for HFrEF patients includes starting on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and adding a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, then swapping out the initial renin-angiotensin system inhibitor for sacubitril/valsartan, and then, on top of all this, adding dapagliflozin or another drug in the same class. It raises questions of what is objectively the best way to introduce all these drugs into patients, and how to do it without subjecting patients to “financial toxicity,” Dr. Allen said during his discussion of the trial’s results.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
SOURCE: McMurray JJV. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
PHILADELPHIA – The primary outcome results from the practice-changing DAPA-HF trial gave clinicians strong evidence that the diabetes drug dapagliflozin was equally effective at reducing cardiovascular death and acute exacerbations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, whether or not they also had type 2 diabetes. More detailed findings from the 2,605 enrolled patients in DAPA-HF who lacked diabetes (55% of the total study population) have now sealed the deal.
“The relative and absolute reductions in cardiovascular death and hospitalizations or urgent visits for heart failure were substantial, clinically important, and consistent in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” John McMurray, MD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as he summarized new trial results that confirmed the initial finding he reported previously.
While the initial report of the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) by the study’s lead investigator, Dr. McMurray, was limited to the finding that the relative risk reduction for the study’s primary endpoint was a highly statistically significant 25% in heart failure patients with diabetes and an equally strongly significant 27% relative cut among patients without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303), the new data showed that same consistency across the range of outcomes studied in the trial as well as across the range of glycosylated hemoglobin levels that patients had at study entry.
In an analysis that divided the entire study population of 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) into tertiles based on their entry blood level of hemoglobin A1c, patients with a normal level at or below 5.6% had a 26% relative reduction in the study’s primary endpoint, essentially the same response as the 29% relative cut in adverse events in the tertile of patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 5.7%-5.9% and the relative 28% relative reduction in events in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and having a hemoglobin A1c of 6.0% or greater, reported Dr. McMurray, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow. The results also showed a very benign safety profile in the patients without diabetes, similar to patients with diabetes and to placebo, and with no episodes of major hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
“It’s quite impressive that the result was consistent regardless of the level of hemoglobin A1c,” commented Larry A. Allen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for the report. Even though the patients without diabetes constituted just over half of the full DAPA-HF enrollment, the comparison of the effect of dapagliflozin in patients with or without diabetes was prespecified in a trial that enrolled a relatively large number of patients into each of the two subgroups by diabetes status. “I think there a good chance dapagliflozin will get an indication” for treating HFrEF patients without diabetes, Dr. Allen suggested in a video interview.
If the DAPA-HF results persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant a supplemental indication to dapagliflozin for use in cutting cardiovascular deaths and acute heart failure exacerbations in patients without diabetes, it would pave the way for health insurers to pay for the drug. Right now, even though Dr. Allen and other heart failure physicians have been impressed by the DAPA-HF findings and are eager to add the drug to the list of agents that HFrEF patients routinely receive, he’s been stymied so far by patients’ out-of pocket cost for using dapagliflozin off-label, roughly $500 a month.
“The DAPA-HF results suggest there is strong reason to consider dapagliflozin for patients without diabetes, and for payers to pay for it. I’m not prescribing dapagliflozin to HFrEF patients without diabetes right now; not because of the data, but because of noncoverage. Payers have not yet caught up with the data,” he said, and they likely will continue to not pay for the drug when used by patients without diabetes until a new labeled indication appears for those patients.
The immediate availability of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and the two other approved members of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor class of drugs, empagliflozin (Jardiance) and canagliflozin (Invokana), to treat patients with HFrEF, and the prospect of soon having dapagliflozin and possibly the other drugs in this class to treat patients with HFrEF but without diabetes also raises issues of drug sequencing in these patients and the overall number of drugs that HFrEF patients must now take to be on optimized medical therapy, Dr. Allen noted.
The already-existing lineup of medications for HFrEF patients includes starting on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and adding a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, then swapping out the initial renin-angiotensin system inhibitor for sacubitril/valsartan, and then, on top of all this, adding dapagliflozin or another drug in the same class. It raises questions of what is objectively the best way to introduce all these drugs into patients, and how to do it without subjecting patients to “financial toxicity,” Dr. Allen said during his discussion of the trial’s results.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
SOURCE: McMurray JJV. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Key clinical point: Dapaglifozin produced as much benefit in HFrEF patients without diabetes as it did in those with type 2 diabetes.
Major finding: The relative risk reduction with dapagliflozin was 26% in patients with a hemoglobin A1c of 5.6% or less.
Study details: DAPA-HF is a multicenter, randomized trial involving 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Disclosures: DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
Source: McMurray JJV et al. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
Weaknesses exposed in valsartan recall
ED visits for hypertension in month after the 2018 recall spiked 55%
PHILADELPHIA – The 2018 recall of generic forms of the antihypertensive valsartan exposed weaknesses in the recall systems for generic drugs in both the United States and Canada that caused many patients on the drug to fall through the cracks, according to a study of prescribing patterns in Ontario before and after the recall reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results also have been published online in the journal Circulation (2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044494).
Cynthia Jackevicius, PharmD, of the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., reported that 90% of patients on recalled generic valsartan products switched to another antihypertension drug, but called the 10% for whom the study had no data “concerning.” She also said that ED visits for hypertension (HTN) in the month after the recall spiked 55%, from a rate of 0.11% to 0.17% (P = .02). While small, that increase was statistically significant, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada issued voluntary recalls of generic forms of valsartan in July 2018 following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a suspected carcinogen, being found in the products. Eventually, the recalls expanded to include valsartan products containing the contaminants N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) and N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), as well as losartan and irbesartan products.
The Ontario study evaluated prescribing patterns and health system utilization in four different provincewide health databases and involved 55,461 patients, all of whom were on recalled generic valsartan when Health Canada issued the recall. The study also computed monthly rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for HTN, congestive heart failure, stroke/transit ischemic attack, and MI as primary diagnoses for 18 months before and 6 months after the recall. Rates of utilization for CHF and MI remained relatively flat through the study period, Dr. Jackevicius said, but rates of ED visits for stroke/TIA showed “a very small relative increase: 6% and 8% in ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively.” Respective P values were .020 and .037.
As for the nature of the ED visits after the recall, Dr. Jackevicius said the study did not tease that out. Many visits could have been for uncontrolled HTN or to get expired prescriptions refilled.
“But either way, even if it is just getting a new prescription, this isn’t the best response,” she said. We need to have a better system where patients can more easily or with less burden deal with a recall.”
Session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, echoed Dr. Jackevicius’s concerns about the handling of drug recalls. “Recalls are increasing,” he said. “Is this just the tip of the iceberg on the quality of generics and we’re going to see these floodgates open? Is this going to be chaos or is this more isolated to this class of medication, the ARBs? This is becoming a little concerning.”
Dr. Jackevicius made note of the recalls that followed the original valsartan recall.
“This really opened a lot of questions in terms of the quality of generic products,” she said. Drug manufacturers are putting safeguards into place to detect these potential contaminants, she said, “but a lot more work needs to be done to ensure the supply. All of these recalls and the prominence of this will be increased.”
The response to the recalls also must undergo revision, she said, citing the experiences of the United States and Canada. “There isn’t really a good system or strategy for recalls in either country,” Dr. Jackevicius said, noting that regulatory bodies notify prescribers and physicians, but “they don’t know which patients are on it.”
A better strategy would be to involve pharmacies more in the process. “The pharmacies have the lot numbers, and they will know what patients are on the recalled drug,” she said. “The pharmacists are the ones who are making the changes in the drugs, and giving them the responsibility so patients don’t have to go into the ED is important. If it’s a basic interchange of a drug, the pharmacists can do that to help raise compliance.”
Dr. Jackevicius had no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Jackevicius J. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.
ED visits for hypertension in month after the 2018 recall spiked 55%
ED visits for hypertension in month after the 2018 recall spiked 55%
PHILADELPHIA – The 2018 recall of generic forms of the antihypertensive valsartan exposed weaknesses in the recall systems for generic drugs in both the United States and Canada that caused many patients on the drug to fall through the cracks, according to a study of prescribing patterns in Ontario before and after the recall reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results also have been published online in the journal Circulation (2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044494).
Cynthia Jackevicius, PharmD, of the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., reported that 90% of patients on recalled generic valsartan products switched to another antihypertension drug, but called the 10% for whom the study had no data “concerning.” She also said that ED visits for hypertension (HTN) in the month after the recall spiked 55%, from a rate of 0.11% to 0.17% (P = .02). While small, that increase was statistically significant, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada issued voluntary recalls of generic forms of valsartan in July 2018 following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a suspected carcinogen, being found in the products. Eventually, the recalls expanded to include valsartan products containing the contaminants N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) and N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), as well as losartan and irbesartan products.
The Ontario study evaluated prescribing patterns and health system utilization in four different provincewide health databases and involved 55,461 patients, all of whom were on recalled generic valsartan when Health Canada issued the recall. The study also computed monthly rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for HTN, congestive heart failure, stroke/transit ischemic attack, and MI as primary diagnoses for 18 months before and 6 months after the recall. Rates of utilization for CHF and MI remained relatively flat through the study period, Dr. Jackevicius said, but rates of ED visits for stroke/TIA showed “a very small relative increase: 6% and 8% in ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively.” Respective P values were .020 and .037.
As for the nature of the ED visits after the recall, Dr. Jackevicius said the study did not tease that out. Many visits could have been for uncontrolled HTN or to get expired prescriptions refilled.
“But either way, even if it is just getting a new prescription, this isn’t the best response,” she said. We need to have a better system where patients can more easily or with less burden deal with a recall.”
Session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, echoed Dr. Jackevicius’s concerns about the handling of drug recalls. “Recalls are increasing,” he said. “Is this just the tip of the iceberg on the quality of generics and we’re going to see these floodgates open? Is this going to be chaos or is this more isolated to this class of medication, the ARBs? This is becoming a little concerning.”
Dr. Jackevicius made note of the recalls that followed the original valsartan recall.
“This really opened a lot of questions in terms of the quality of generic products,” she said. Drug manufacturers are putting safeguards into place to detect these potential contaminants, she said, “but a lot more work needs to be done to ensure the supply. All of these recalls and the prominence of this will be increased.”
The response to the recalls also must undergo revision, she said, citing the experiences of the United States and Canada. “There isn’t really a good system or strategy for recalls in either country,” Dr. Jackevicius said, noting that regulatory bodies notify prescribers and physicians, but “they don’t know which patients are on it.”
A better strategy would be to involve pharmacies more in the process. “The pharmacies have the lot numbers, and they will know what patients are on the recalled drug,” she said. “The pharmacists are the ones who are making the changes in the drugs, and giving them the responsibility so patients don’t have to go into the ED is important. If it’s a basic interchange of a drug, the pharmacists can do that to help raise compliance.”
Dr. Jackevicius had no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Jackevicius J. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.
PHILADELPHIA – The 2018 recall of generic forms of the antihypertensive valsartan exposed weaknesses in the recall systems for generic drugs in both the United States and Canada that caused many patients on the drug to fall through the cracks, according to a study of prescribing patterns in Ontario before and after the recall reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The results also have been published online in the journal Circulation (2019 Nov 11. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044494).
Cynthia Jackevicius, PharmD, of the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, Calif., reported that 90% of patients on recalled generic valsartan products switched to another antihypertension drug, but called the 10% for whom the study had no data “concerning.” She also said that ED visits for hypertension (HTN) in the month after the recall spiked 55%, from a rate of 0.11% to 0.17% (P = .02). While small, that increase was statistically significant, she said.
The Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada issued voluntary recalls of generic forms of valsartan in July 2018 following reports of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a suspected carcinogen, being found in the products. Eventually, the recalls expanded to include valsartan products containing the contaminants N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) and N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA), as well as losartan and irbesartan products.
The Ontario study evaluated prescribing patterns and health system utilization in four different provincewide health databases and involved 55,461 patients, all of whom were on recalled generic valsartan when Health Canada issued the recall. The study also computed monthly rates of ED visits and hospitalizations for HTN, congestive heart failure, stroke/transit ischemic attack, and MI as primary diagnoses for 18 months before and 6 months after the recall. Rates of utilization for CHF and MI remained relatively flat through the study period, Dr. Jackevicius said, but rates of ED visits for stroke/TIA showed “a very small relative increase: 6% and 8% in ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively.” Respective P values were .020 and .037.
As for the nature of the ED visits after the recall, Dr. Jackevicius said the study did not tease that out. Many visits could have been for uncontrolled HTN or to get expired prescriptions refilled.
“But either way, even if it is just getting a new prescription, this isn’t the best response,” she said. We need to have a better system where patients can more easily or with less burden deal with a recall.”
Session moderator Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, echoed Dr. Jackevicius’s concerns about the handling of drug recalls. “Recalls are increasing,” he said. “Is this just the tip of the iceberg on the quality of generics and we’re going to see these floodgates open? Is this going to be chaos or is this more isolated to this class of medication, the ARBs? This is becoming a little concerning.”
Dr. Jackevicius made note of the recalls that followed the original valsartan recall.
“This really opened a lot of questions in terms of the quality of generic products,” she said. Drug manufacturers are putting safeguards into place to detect these potential contaminants, she said, “but a lot more work needs to be done to ensure the supply. All of these recalls and the prominence of this will be increased.”
The response to the recalls also must undergo revision, she said, citing the experiences of the United States and Canada. “There isn’t really a good system or strategy for recalls in either country,” Dr. Jackevicius said, noting that regulatory bodies notify prescribers and physicians, but “they don’t know which patients are on it.”
A better strategy would be to involve pharmacies more in the process. “The pharmacies have the lot numbers, and they will know what patients are on the recalled drug,” she said. “The pharmacists are the ones who are making the changes in the drugs, and giving them the responsibility so patients don’t have to go into the ED is important. If it’s a basic interchange of a drug, the pharmacists can do that to help raise compliance.”
Dr. Jackevicius had no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Jackevicius J. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Key clinical point: Neither Canada nor the United States has a good system or strategy for recalling generic drugs.
Major finding: One in 10 patients may have discontinued therapy after the recall.
Study details: Population study of prescribing patterns and health utilization rates of 55,461 patients on valsartan before and after the July 2018 recall.
Disclosures: Dr. Jackevicius has no relevant financial relationships to report.
Source: Jackevicius C. AHA 2019. Session FS.AOS.F1.
FDA panel supports Vascepa expanded indication for CVD reduction
Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.
REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.
But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.
Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.
Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.
Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.
Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.
However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.
Clinician reaction
Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.
The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.
“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”
Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.
But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.
Cost-effectiveness
An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.
Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.
Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.
“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.
Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.
Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.
REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.
But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.
Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.
Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.
Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.
Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.
However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.
Clinician reaction
Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.
The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.
“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”
Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.
But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.
Cost-effectiveness
An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.
Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.
Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.
“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.
Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.
Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.
REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.
But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.
Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.
Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.
Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.
Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.
However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.
Clinician reaction
Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.
The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.
“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”
Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.
But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.
Cost-effectiveness
An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.
Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.
Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.
“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.
Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.