Mitchel L. Zoler, PhD

A phenotype-guided strategy for systematically matching weight-loss patients to their potentially ideal weight-loss drug roughly doubled treatment efficacy, compared with usual practice, in a single-center, randomized study with 268 patients.

After classifying 68 patients into one of four obesity phenotypes through a series of tests and then tailoring drug treatment to the identified phenotype of each patient, researchers observed a 79% rate of greater than 10% weight loss versus baseline after 12 months. In contrast, in 200 patients who received weight loss–drug therapy selected by routine means, 35% achieved greater than 10% loss compared with their starting weight, Andres J. Acosta, MD, said at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

The phenotype-guided strategy also led to an average 16% weight loss from baseline after 12 months, compared with a 9% average loss among the usual-care controls, reported Dr. Acosta, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

A “one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss treatment is not working,” he declared. “Our long-term goal is to develop a personalized approach to obesity management.”

Personalized weight loss treatment isn’t new

“The better we can match treatment to a patient’s needs, the more likely it will succeed. That’s not a brand new idea. They are trying to standardize the way that we classify the disorders that play a role in why a person gains weight or has trouble losing weight,” commented John D. Clark III, MD, an internal medicine physician and weight-management specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The increased weight loss levels that Dr. Acosta reported in patients who underwent the study’s phenotyping protocol and received tailored treatment “are similar to the numbers we see when a patient’s treatment is the right fit for them. You see weight loss in these ranges,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.

The study run by Dr. Acosta and his associates consisted of two phases. First, they established normal and abnormal ranges for four different obesity phenotypes by studying 100 patients with obesity. The patients underwent an extensive and uniform workup designed to classify their obesity phenotype.

Four obesity phenotypes

The researchers categorized patients into one of four types:

• Disordered initial eating satiation, called ‘hungry brain,” and assessed by measuring food intake at a buffet, ad libidum meal.
• Disordered maintenance of satiety, called “hungry gut,” assessed by both a gastric-emptying study as well as patient self-assessment for postprandial fullness.
• “Emotional hunger,” assessed with two questionnaires.
• Disordered energy expenditure, called “slow burn,” assessed by measuring basal metabolic rate, and self-reports of both exercise and nonexercise activity.

Dr. Acosta estimated that the complete workup to assess all four potential phenotypes costs about $1,200.

The researchers then applied the 75th percentile value from each of these assessments to 450 patients with obesity in their clinic to see the prevalence of the four phenotypes. They identified a single phenotype in 58% of these patients, including 18% with hungry gut, 16% with hungry brain, 12% with emotional hunger, and 12% with slow burn. An additional 27% of the patients were positive for two or more phenotypes (including 9% who were positive for all four phenotypes), and 15% did not test positive for any of the four phenotypes.

Phenotype-guided treatments

They then applied their findings in a prospective randomized study that matched a drug intervention to each of the four phenotypes during a year-long, comprehensive weight-loss program at the Mayo Clinic’s Weight Management Clinic. The study randomized 100 patients to the phenotype-driven arm, with 68 of these patients receiving their assigned drug, and 200 patients served as controls. Patients averaged about 47 years old, and their average body mass index was about 41 kg/m².

The investigational arm included 30 patients classified as having a hungry brain, with 20 of these patients treated with phentermine plus topiramate and 10 treated with lorcaserin (before it was withdrawn by the Food and Drug Administration); 12 with hungry gut and treated with liraglutide (Saxenda); 19 with emotional hunger who received naltrexone SR/bupropion SR (Contrave); and seven with slow burn who received phentermine.

The control arm included 200 patients seeking weight loss treatment at Mayo who did not undergo phenotyping and received their drug treatment based on their personal preference in consultation with their Mayo physician. In this group, drug treatment broke down as 106 patients (53%) on phentermine plus topiramate, 41 (21%) on liraglutide, 34 (17%) on phentermine alone, 14 (7%) on naltrexone SR/bupropion SR, and 5 patients (3%) on locaserin (percentages total 101% because of rounding).

Overall, phenotyping led to more patients treated with naltrexone SR/buproprion SR and lorcaserin and fewer treated with phentermine or phentermine and topiramate ER. All patients were eligible to also receive behavioral interventions as needed.

“We do a lot of testing to identify the phenotype,” in addition to gathering additional clues from a detailed history, said Dr. Acosta. Patients identified with more than one phenotype in routine practice at Mayo are often begun on more than one drug. When phenotyping fails to classify a patient, Dr. Acosta puts the patient on a low-calorie diet and then does a follow-up assessment “to see if the phenotype pops up as a metabolic adaptation.”

“This is something we’re all working toward” in the obesity management field. “How can we better identify the underlying causes in a way that can fit into the work flow. How can we move from research to things we can use daily in the clinic,” observed Dr. Clark. “We need a lot more investigation to determine how well this works in the real world. Are there other tools we can use that are not as expensive” as what Dr. Acosta used for this study?

“For this proof of concept study, it made sense to be very rigorous, but that probably is not realistic for every patient. What are other ways to get this information, or perhaps only use an extensive workup when initial weight loss attempts are unsuccessful,” Dr. Clark suggested.

[email protected]

A phenotype-guided strategy for systematically matching weight-loss patients to their potentially ideal weight-loss drug roughly doubled treatment efficacy, compared with usual practice, in a single-center, randomized study with 268 patients.

After classifying 68 patients into one of four obesity phenotypes through a series of tests and then tailoring drug treatment to the identified phenotype of each patient, researchers observed a 79% rate of greater than 10% weight loss versus baseline after 12 months. In contrast, in 200 patients who received weight loss–drug therapy selected by routine means, 35% achieved greater than 10% loss compared with their starting weight, Andres J. Acosta, MD, said at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

The phenotype-guided strategy also led to an average 16% weight loss from baseline after 12 months, compared with a 9% average loss among the usual-care controls, reported Dr. Acosta, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

A “one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss treatment is not working,” he declared. “Our long-term goal is to develop a personalized approach to obesity management.”

Personalized weight loss treatment isn’t new

“The better we can match treatment to a patient’s needs, the more likely it will succeed. That’s not a brand new idea. They are trying to standardize the way that we classify the disorders that play a role in why a person gains weight or has trouble losing weight,” commented John D. Clark III, MD, an internal medicine physician and weight-management specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The increased weight loss levels that Dr. Acosta reported in patients who underwent the study’s phenotyping protocol and received tailored treatment “are similar to the numbers we see when a patient’s treatment is the right fit for them. You see weight loss in these ranges,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.

The study run by Dr. Acosta and his associates consisted of two phases. First, they established normal and abnormal ranges for four different obesity phenotypes by studying 100 patients with obesity. The patients underwent an extensive and uniform workup designed to classify their obesity phenotype.

Four obesity phenotypes

The researchers categorized patients into one of four types:

• Disordered initial eating satiation, called ‘hungry brain,” and assessed by measuring food intake at a buffet, ad libidum meal.
• Disordered maintenance of satiety, called “hungry gut,” assessed by both a gastric-emptying study as well as patient self-assessment for postprandial fullness.
• “Emotional hunger,” assessed with two questionnaires.
• Disordered energy expenditure, called “slow burn,” assessed by measuring basal metabolic rate, and self-reports of both exercise and nonexercise activity.

Dr. Acosta estimated that the complete workup to assess all four potential phenotypes costs about $1,200.

The researchers then applied the 75th percentile value from each of these assessments to 450 patients with obesity in their clinic to see the prevalence of the four phenotypes. They identified a single phenotype in 58% of these patients, including 18% with hungry gut, 16% with hungry brain, 12% with emotional hunger, and 12% with slow burn. An additional 27% of the patients were positive for two or more phenotypes (including 9% who were positive for all four phenotypes), and 15% did not test positive for any of the four phenotypes.

Phenotype-guided treatments

They then applied their findings in a prospective randomized study that matched a drug intervention to each of the four phenotypes during a year-long, comprehensive weight-loss program at the Mayo Clinic’s Weight Management Clinic. The study randomized 100 patients to the phenotype-driven arm, with 68 of these patients receiving their assigned drug, and 200 patients served as controls. Patients averaged about 47 years old, and their average body mass index was about 41 kg/m².

The investigational arm included 30 patients classified as having a hungry brain, with 20 of these patients treated with phentermine plus topiramate and 10 treated with lorcaserin (before it was withdrawn by the Food and Drug Administration); 12 with hungry gut and treated with liraglutide (Saxenda); 19 with emotional hunger who received naltrexone SR/bupropion SR (Contrave); and seven with slow burn who received phentermine.

The control arm included 200 patients seeking weight loss treatment at Mayo who did not undergo phenotyping and received their drug treatment based on their personal preference in consultation with their Mayo physician. In this group, drug treatment broke down as 106 patients (53%) on phentermine plus topiramate, 41 (21%) on liraglutide, 34 (17%) on phentermine alone, 14 (7%) on naltrexone SR/bupropion SR, and 5 patients (3%) on locaserin (percentages total 101% because of rounding).

Overall, phenotyping led to more patients treated with naltrexone SR/buproprion SR and lorcaserin and fewer treated with phentermine or phentermine and topiramate ER. All patients were eligible to also receive behavioral interventions as needed.

“We do a lot of testing to identify the phenotype,” in addition to gathering additional clues from a detailed history, said Dr. Acosta. Patients identified with more than one phenotype in routine practice at Mayo are often begun on more than one drug. When phenotyping fails to classify a patient, Dr. Acosta puts the patient on a low-calorie diet and then does a follow-up assessment “to see if the phenotype pops up as a metabolic adaptation.”

“This is something we’re all working toward” in the obesity management field. “How can we better identify the underlying causes in a way that can fit into the work flow. How can we move from research to things we can use daily in the clinic,” observed Dr. Clark. “We need a lot more investigation to determine how well this works in the real world. Are there other tools we can use that are not as expensive” as what Dr. Acosta used for this study?

“For this proof of concept study, it made sense to be very rigorous, but that probably is not realistic for every patient. What are other ways to get this information, or perhaps only use an extensive workup when initial weight loss attempts are unsuccessful,” Dr. Clark suggested.

[email protected]

A phenotype-guided strategy for systematically matching weight-loss patients to their potentially ideal weight-loss drug roughly doubled treatment efficacy, compared with usual practice, in a single-center, randomized study with 268 patients.

After classifying 68 patients into one of four obesity phenotypes through a series of tests and then tailoring drug treatment to the identified phenotype of each patient, researchers observed a 79% rate of greater than 10% weight loss versus baseline after 12 months. In contrast, in 200 patients who received weight loss–drug therapy selected by routine means, 35% achieved greater than 10% loss compared with their starting weight, Andres J. Acosta, MD, said at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

The phenotype-guided strategy also led to an average 16% weight loss from baseline after 12 months, compared with a 9% average loss among the usual-care controls, reported Dr. Acosta, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

A “one-size-fits-all approach to weight loss treatment is not working,” he declared. “Our long-term goal is to develop a personalized approach to obesity management.”

Personalized weight loss treatment isn’t new

“The better we can match treatment to a patient’s needs, the more likely it will succeed. That’s not a brand new idea. They are trying to standardize the way that we classify the disorders that play a role in why a person gains weight or has trouble losing weight,” commented John D. Clark III, MD, an internal medicine physician and weight-management specialist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The increased weight loss levels that Dr. Acosta reported in patients who underwent the study’s phenotyping protocol and received tailored treatment “are similar to the numbers we see when a patient’s treatment is the right fit for them. You see weight loss in these ranges,” Dr. Clark said in an interview.

The study run by Dr. Acosta and his associates consisted of two phases. First, they established normal and abnormal ranges for four different obesity phenotypes by studying 100 patients with obesity. The patients underwent an extensive and uniform workup designed to classify their obesity phenotype.

Four obesity phenotypes

The researchers categorized patients into one of four types:

• Disordered initial eating satiation, called ‘hungry brain,” and assessed by measuring food intake at a buffet, ad libidum meal.
• Disordered maintenance of satiety, called “hungry gut,” assessed by both a gastric-emptying study as well as patient self-assessment for postprandial fullness.
• “Emotional hunger,” assessed with two questionnaires.
• Disordered energy expenditure, called “slow burn,” assessed by measuring basal metabolic rate, and self-reports of both exercise and nonexercise activity.

Dr. Acosta estimated that the complete workup to assess all four potential phenotypes costs about $1,200.

The researchers then applied the 75th percentile value from each of these assessments to 450 patients with obesity in their clinic to see the prevalence of the four phenotypes. They identified a single phenotype in 58% of these patients, including 18% with hungry gut, 16% with hungry brain, 12% with emotional hunger, and 12% with slow burn. An additional 27% of the patients were positive for two or more phenotypes (including 9% who were positive for all four phenotypes), and 15% did not test positive for any of the four phenotypes.

Phenotype-guided treatments

They then applied their findings in a prospective randomized study that matched a drug intervention to each of the four phenotypes during a year-long, comprehensive weight-loss program at the Mayo Clinic’s Weight Management Clinic. The study randomized 100 patients to the phenotype-driven arm, with 68 of these patients receiving their assigned drug, and 200 patients served as controls. Patients averaged about 47 years old, and their average body mass index was about 41 kg/m².

The investigational arm included 30 patients classified as having a hungry brain, with 20 of these patients treated with phentermine plus topiramate and 10 treated with lorcaserin (before it was withdrawn by the Food and Drug Administration); 12 with hungry gut and treated with liraglutide (Saxenda); 19 with emotional hunger who received naltrexone SR/bupropion SR (Contrave); and seven with slow burn who received phentermine.

The control arm included 200 patients seeking weight loss treatment at Mayo who did not undergo phenotyping and received their drug treatment based on their personal preference in consultation with their Mayo physician. In this group, drug treatment broke down as 106 patients (53%) on phentermine plus topiramate, 41 (21%) on liraglutide, 34 (17%) on phentermine alone, 14 (7%) on naltrexone SR/bupropion SR, and 5 patients (3%) on locaserin (percentages total 101% because of rounding).

Overall, phenotyping led to more patients treated with naltrexone SR/buproprion SR and lorcaserin and fewer treated with phentermine or phentermine and topiramate ER. All patients were eligible to also receive behavioral interventions as needed.

“We do a lot of testing to identify the phenotype,” in addition to gathering additional clues from a detailed history, said Dr. Acosta. Patients identified with more than one phenotype in routine practice at Mayo are often begun on more than one drug. When phenotyping fails to classify a patient, Dr. Acosta puts the patient on a low-calorie diet and then does a follow-up assessment “to see if the phenotype pops up as a metabolic adaptation.”

“This is something we’re all working toward” in the obesity management field. “How can we better identify the underlying causes in a way that can fit into the work flow. How can we move from research to things we can use daily in the clinic,” observed Dr. Clark. “We need a lot more investigation to determine how well this works in the real world. Are there other tools we can use that are not as expensive” as what Dr. Acosta used for this study?

“For this proof of concept study, it made sense to be very rigorous, but that probably is not realistic for every patient. What are other ways to get this information, or perhaps only use an extensive workup when initial weight loss attempts are unsuccessful,” Dr. Clark suggested.

[email protected]

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Cancer patients who receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor have more than a doubled rate of venous thromboembolism during the subsequent 2 years, compared with their rate during the 2 years before treatment, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 2,800 patients treated at a single U.S. center.

The study focused on cancer patients treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. It showed that during the 2 years prior to treatment with any type of ICI, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) was 4.85/100 patient-years that then jumped to 11.75/100 patient-years during the 2 years following treatment. This translated into an incidence rate ratio of 2.43 during posttreatment follow-up, compared with pretreatment, Jingyi Gong, MD, said at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The increased VTE rate resulted from rises in both the rate of deep vein thrombosis, which had an IRR of 3.23 during the posttreatment period, and for pulmonary embolism, which showed an IRR of 2.24, said Dr. Gong, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She hypothesized that this effect may result from a procoagulant effect of the immune activation and inflammation triggered by ICIs.


Hypothesis-generating results

Cardiologists cautioned that these findings should only be considered hypothesis generating, but raise an important alert for clinicians to have heightened awareness of the potential for VTE following ICI treatment.

“A clear message is to be aware that there is this signal, and be vigilant for patients who might present with VTE following ICI treatment,” commented Richard J. Kovacs, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Indiana University, Indianapolis. The data that Dr. Gong reported are “moderately convincing,” he added in an interview.

“Awareness that patients who receive ICI may be at increased VTE risk is very important,” agreed Umberto Campia, MD, a cardiologist, vascular specialist, and member of the cardio-oncology group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved in the new study.

The potential impact of ICI treatment on VTE risk is slowly emerging, added Dr. Campia. Until recently, the literature primarily was case reports, but recently another retrospective, single-center study came out that reported a 13% incidence of VTE in cancer patients following ICI treatment. On the other hand, a recently published meta-analysis of more than 20,000 patients from 68 ICI studies failed to find a suggestion of increased VTE incidence following ICI interventions.

Attempting to assess the impact of treatment on VTE risk in cancer patients is challenging because cancer itself boosts the risk. Recommendations on the use of VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients most recently came out in 2014 from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which said that VTE prophylaxis for ambulatory cancer patients “may be considered for highly select high-risk patients.” The impact of cancer therapy on VTE risk and the need for prophylaxis is usually assessed by applying the Khorana score, Dr. Campia said in an interview.
 

VTE spikes acutely after ICI treatment

Dr. Gong analyzed VTE incidence rates by time during the total 4-year period studied, and found that the rate gradually and steadily rose with time throughout the 2 years preceding treatment, spiked immediately following ICI treatment, and then gradually and steadily fell back to roughly the rate seen just before treatment, reaching that level about a year after treatment. She ran a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients who died during the first year following their ICI treatment, and in this calculation an acute spike in VTE following ICI treatment still occurred but with reduced magnitude.

She also reported the results of several subgroup analyses. The IRRs remained consistent among women and men, among patients who were aged over or under 65 years, and regardless of cancer type or treatment with corticosteroids. But the subgroup analyses identified two parameters that seemed to clearly split VTE rates.

Among patients on treatment with an anticoagulant agent at the time of their ICI treatment, roughly 10% of the patients, the IRR was 0.56, compared with a ratio of 3.86 among the other patients, suggesting possible protection. A second factor that seemed linked with VTE incidence was the number of ICI treatment cycles a patient received. Those who received more than five cycles had a risk ratio of 3.95, while those who received five or fewer cycles had a RR of 1.66.

Her analysis included 2,842 cancer patients who received treatment with an ICI at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients averaged 64 years of age, slightly more than half were men, and 13% had a prior history of VTE. Patients received an average of 5 ICI treatment cycles, but a quarter of the patients received more than 10 cycles.

During the 2-year follow-up, 244 patients (9%) developed VTE. The patients who developed VTE were significantly younger than those who did not, with an average age of 63 years, compared with 65. And the patients who eventually developed VTE had a significantly higher prevalence of prior VTE at 18%, compared with 12% among the patients who stayed VTE free.

The cancer types patients had were non–small cell lung, 29%; melanoma, 28%; head and neck, 12%; renal genitourinary, 6%; and other, 25%. ICIs have been available for routine U.S. practice since 2011. The class includes agents such as pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and durvalumab (Imfinzi).

Researchers would need to perform a prospective, randomized study to determine whether anticoagulant prophylaxis is clearly beneficial for patients receiving ICI treatment, Dr. Gong said. But both Dr. Kovacs and Dr. Campia said that more data on this topic are first needed.

“We need to confirm that treatment with ICI is associated with VTEs. Retrospective data are not definitive,” said Dr. Campia. “We would need to prospectively assess the impact of ICI,” which will not be easy, as it’s quickly become a cornerstone for treating many cancers. “We need to become more familiar with the adverse effects of these drugs. We are still learning about their toxicities.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gong, Dr. Kovacs, and Dr. Campia had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Treatment with evinacumab, an investigational lipid-lowering drug with a novel mechanism of action, safely led to roughly a halving of LDL cholesterol levels in patients with treatment-refractory hypercholesterolemia in a multicenter, phase 2 study of 272 patients treated for 16 weeks.

The study enrolled patients with either heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) (72% of patients), or patients with hypercholesterolemia and clinical evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had failed to reached their recommended level of LDL cholesterol by treatment (when tolerated) with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

Notably, only 8 of the 272 randomized patients entered the study not on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. Despite these background treatments, all enrolled patients were above their goal LDL-cholesterol level, with an average level of 148 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol after 16 weeks compared with placebo among patients treated with subcutaneous drug delivery either weekly or every other week, and among patients treated with intravenous delivery every 4 weeks. Results of the dose-ranging study showed that the highest subcutaneous dosage tested produced a 56% cut in LDL cholesterol, while the highest IV dosage led to a 51% drop, Robert S. Rosenson, MD, said at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently with his report, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s safety among 194 patients who received evinacumab was “reassuring,” said Dr. Rosenson, professor of medicine and director of the cardiometabolic disorders unit at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “I see no concerning signals in the safety profile,” he said in an interview, an assessment that other experts shared.

“Safety looks pretty good. I don’t see any major concerns,” said lipidologist and endocrinologist Anne C. Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. The LDL-cholesterol effect shown was “very, very impressive in these hard to treat patients,” added Dr. Goldberg, who was a coinvestigator on the study.

“Nothing stands out” as a safety concern in the new data, agreed Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and lipid specialist at the University of Colorado in Aurora.

Drug’s unique mechanism extends potential benefits

The phase 2 study included dose-ranging assessments of both subcutaneous and intravenous treatment with evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like 3, an enzyme that inhibits two different lipases involved in metabolizing LDL cholesterol and other lipoproteins including triglycerides. When the drug inhibits angiopoietin-like 3, the lipases remain more active and further reduce levels of their target lipoproteins.

“The powerful contribution of this drug is that it works by a pathway independent of the LDL receptor,” said Dr. Rosenson.

By this mechanism evinacumab cut not only LDL cholesterol, but also lowered triglycerides by 53%-62% at the highest dosages, an effect seen as a potential plus. “Prospects are favorable for a drug that not only lowers atherogenic lipoproteins but also lowers triglycerides [TGs]. That’s a distinguishing feature of this treatment,” compared with other agents that lower LDL cholesterol, Dr. Rosenson said. It could make evinacumab especially attractive for treating patients with diabetes, who often have elevated TG levels, he noted. But Dr. Eckel cautioned that a clinical benefit directly linked to TG lowering has not yet been proven.

The drug also cut HDL cholesterol by an average of as much as 31% from baseline, though the consequence of this effect isn’t clear. “I’m not worried about the HDL levels,” said Dr. Goldberg, who noted that changes in HDL cholesterol produced by drug treatment have often not shown discernible effects.

Reaching goals by IV or subcutaneous delivery

Another measure of evinacumab’s efficacy was the percentage of patients who fell below the LDL-cholesterol threshold of 70 mg/dL set by recommendations of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for the highest risk patients, and the less than 55 mg/dL goal set for similar patients by the European Society of Cardiology. Among the subcutaneously-treated patients, 64% achieved the goal of less than 70 mg/dL, and 49% hit the goal of less than 55 mg/dL. Among those who received IV treatment, 71% fell below the 70 mg/dL threshold, and 50% dropped below 55 mg/dL.

The good efficacy shown with subcutaneous dosing is critical, noted Dr. Eckel, as this represents a new dimension for evinacumab that had previously been tested only as an IV agent in patients with homozygous FH (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 20;383[8]:711-20).

“Subcutaneous delivery is needed for wide real world use,” Dr. Eckel noted in an interview.

Evinacumab’s role hangs on further studies

The path that evinacumab takes from here into U.S. practice is not yet clear, said Dr. Rosenson. He cited the approval earlier in 2020 of another LDL-lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol) that received U.S. regulatory approval for a similar patient population after studies that proved only lipid-lowering safety and efficacy, without any clinical-endpoint data. He wondered: “Will the [Food and Drug Administration] require a cardiovascular outcomes trial” for evinacumab?

The growing experience using the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies to treat hyperlipidemia has made clinicians comfortable with this general approach to lipid management, but if evinacumab never accumulates similar efficacy evidence that may relegate it to the backseat compared with the PCSK9 inhibitors for quite some time, suggested Dr. Goldberg, though she said she’d be willing to prescribe evinacumab to selected patients based on lipid-lowering evidence alone.

By providing an alternative mechanism for lipid lowering, evinacumab can serve as a useful add-on for patients not reaching their LDL-cholesterol goal with more established agents, thereby providing an alternative to LDL apheresis, which now serves as the lipid-lowering therapy of last resort, said both Dr. Rosenson and Dr. Goldberg.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to Regeneron, and has also  been a consultant to or received research funding from Amgen, 89Bio, Corvidia, CVS Caremark, Kowa, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Regeneron and Sanofi, research grants from Amarin, Amgen, Ionis/AKCEA, Novartis, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AKCEA, Esperion, Merck and Novartis. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to KOWA and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected] 

Treatment with evinacumab, an investigational lipid-lowering drug with a novel mechanism of action, safely led to roughly a halving of LDL cholesterol levels in patients with treatment-refractory hypercholesterolemia in a multicenter, phase 2 study of 272 patients treated for 16 weeks.

The study enrolled patients with either heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) (72% of patients), or patients with hypercholesterolemia and clinical evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had failed to reached their recommended level of LDL cholesterol by treatment (when tolerated) with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

Notably, only 8 of the 272 randomized patients entered the study not on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. Despite these background treatments, all enrolled patients were above their goal LDL-cholesterol level, with an average level of 148 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol after 16 weeks compared with placebo among patients treated with subcutaneous drug delivery either weekly or every other week, and among patients treated with intravenous delivery every 4 weeks. Results of the dose-ranging study showed that the highest subcutaneous dosage tested produced a 56% cut in LDL cholesterol, while the highest IV dosage led to a 51% drop, Robert S. Rosenson, MD, said at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently with his report, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s safety among 194 patients who received evinacumab was “reassuring,” said Dr. Rosenson, professor of medicine and director of the cardiometabolic disorders unit at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “I see no concerning signals in the safety profile,” he said in an interview, an assessment that other experts shared.

“Safety looks pretty good. I don’t see any major concerns,” said lipidologist and endocrinologist Anne C. Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. The LDL-cholesterol effect shown was “very, very impressive in these hard to treat patients,” added Dr. Goldberg, who was a coinvestigator on the study.

“Nothing stands out” as a safety concern in the new data, agreed Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and lipid specialist at the University of Colorado in Aurora.

Drug’s unique mechanism extends potential benefits

The phase 2 study included dose-ranging assessments of both subcutaneous and intravenous treatment with evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like 3, an enzyme that inhibits two different lipases involved in metabolizing LDL cholesterol and other lipoproteins including triglycerides. When the drug inhibits angiopoietin-like 3, the lipases remain more active and further reduce levels of their target lipoproteins.

“The powerful contribution of this drug is that it works by a pathway independent of the LDL receptor,” said Dr. Rosenson.

By this mechanism evinacumab cut not only LDL cholesterol, but also lowered triglycerides by 53%-62% at the highest dosages, an effect seen as a potential plus. “Prospects are favorable for a drug that not only lowers atherogenic lipoproteins but also lowers triglycerides [TGs]. That’s a distinguishing feature of this treatment,” compared with other agents that lower LDL cholesterol, Dr. Rosenson said. It could make evinacumab especially attractive for treating patients with diabetes, who often have elevated TG levels, he noted. But Dr. Eckel cautioned that a clinical benefit directly linked to TG lowering has not yet been proven.

The drug also cut HDL cholesterol by an average of as much as 31% from baseline, though the consequence of this effect isn’t clear. “I’m not worried about the HDL levels,” said Dr. Goldberg, who noted that changes in HDL cholesterol produced by drug treatment have often not shown discernible effects.

Reaching goals by IV or subcutaneous delivery

Another measure of evinacumab’s efficacy was the percentage of patients who fell below the LDL-cholesterol threshold of 70 mg/dL set by recommendations of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for the highest risk patients, and the less than 55 mg/dL goal set for similar patients by the European Society of Cardiology. Among the subcutaneously-treated patients, 64% achieved the goal of less than 70 mg/dL, and 49% hit the goal of less than 55 mg/dL. Among those who received IV treatment, 71% fell below the 70 mg/dL threshold, and 50% dropped below 55 mg/dL.

The good efficacy shown with subcutaneous dosing is critical, noted Dr. Eckel, as this represents a new dimension for evinacumab that had previously been tested only as an IV agent in patients with homozygous FH (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 20;383[8]:711-20).

“Subcutaneous delivery is needed for wide real world use,” Dr. Eckel noted in an interview.

Evinacumab’s role hangs on further studies

The path that evinacumab takes from here into U.S. practice is not yet clear, said Dr. Rosenson. He cited the approval earlier in 2020 of another LDL-lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol) that received U.S. regulatory approval for a similar patient population after studies that proved only lipid-lowering safety and efficacy, without any clinical-endpoint data. He wondered: “Will the [Food and Drug Administration] require a cardiovascular outcomes trial” for evinacumab?

The growing experience using the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies to treat hyperlipidemia has made clinicians comfortable with this general approach to lipid management, but if evinacumab never accumulates similar efficacy evidence that may relegate it to the backseat compared with the PCSK9 inhibitors for quite some time, suggested Dr. Goldberg, though she said she’d be willing to prescribe evinacumab to selected patients based on lipid-lowering evidence alone.

By providing an alternative mechanism for lipid lowering, evinacumab can serve as a useful add-on for patients not reaching their LDL-cholesterol goal with more established agents, thereby providing an alternative to LDL apheresis, which now serves as the lipid-lowering therapy of last resort, said both Dr. Rosenson and Dr. Goldberg.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to Regeneron, and has also  been a consultant to or received research funding from Amgen, 89Bio, Corvidia, CVS Caremark, Kowa, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Regeneron and Sanofi, research grants from Amarin, Amgen, Ionis/AKCEA, Novartis, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AKCEA, Esperion, Merck and Novartis. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to KOWA and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected] 

Treatment with evinacumab, an investigational lipid-lowering drug with a novel mechanism of action, safely led to roughly a halving of LDL cholesterol levels in patients with treatment-refractory hypercholesterolemia in a multicenter, phase 2 study of 272 patients treated for 16 weeks.

The study enrolled patients with either heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) (72% of patients), or patients with hypercholesterolemia and clinical evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who had failed to reached their recommended level of LDL cholesterol by treatment (when tolerated) with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor.

Notably, only 8 of the 272 randomized patients entered the study not on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor. Despite these background treatments, all enrolled patients were above their goal LDL-cholesterol level, with an average level of 148 mg/dL.

The study’s primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol after 16 weeks compared with placebo among patients treated with subcutaneous drug delivery either weekly or every other week, and among patients treated with intravenous delivery every 4 weeks. Results of the dose-ranging study showed that the highest subcutaneous dosage tested produced a 56% cut in LDL cholesterol, while the highest IV dosage led to a 51% drop, Robert S. Rosenson, MD, said at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently with his report, the results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s safety among 194 patients who received evinacumab was “reassuring,” said Dr. Rosenson, professor of medicine and director of the cardiometabolic disorders unit at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. “I see no concerning signals in the safety profile,” he said in an interview, an assessment that other experts shared.

“Safety looks pretty good. I don’t see any major concerns,” said lipidologist and endocrinologist Anne C. Goldberg, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis. The LDL-cholesterol effect shown was “very, very impressive in these hard to treat patients,” added Dr. Goldberg, who was a coinvestigator on the study.

“Nothing stands out” as a safety concern in the new data, agreed Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and lipid specialist at the University of Colorado in Aurora.

Drug’s unique mechanism extends potential benefits

The phase 2 study included dose-ranging assessments of both subcutaneous and intravenous treatment with evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like 3, an enzyme that inhibits two different lipases involved in metabolizing LDL cholesterol and other lipoproteins including triglycerides. When the drug inhibits angiopoietin-like 3, the lipases remain more active and further reduce levels of their target lipoproteins.

“The powerful contribution of this drug is that it works by a pathway independent of the LDL receptor,” said Dr. Rosenson.

By this mechanism evinacumab cut not only LDL cholesterol, but also lowered triglycerides by 53%-62% at the highest dosages, an effect seen as a potential plus. “Prospects are favorable for a drug that not only lowers atherogenic lipoproteins but also lowers triglycerides [TGs]. That’s a distinguishing feature of this treatment,” compared with other agents that lower LDL cholesterol, Dr. Rosenson said. It could make evinacumab especially attractive for treating patients with diabetes, who often have elevated TG levels, he noted. But Dr. Eckel cautioned that a clinical benefit directly linked to TG lowering has not yet been proven.

The drug also cut HDL cholesterol by an average of as much as 31% from baseline, though the consequence of this effect isn’t clear. “I’m not worried about the HDL levels,” said Dr. Goldberg, who noted that changes in HDL cholesterol produced by drug treatment have often not shown discernible effects.

Reaching goals by IV or subcutaneous delivery

Another measure of evinacumab’s efficacy was the percentage of patients who fell below the LDL-cholesterol threshold of 70 mg/dL set by recommendations of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for the highest risk patients, and the less than 55 mg/dL goal set for similar patients by the European Society of Cardiology. Among the subcutaneously-treated patients, 64% achieved the goal of less than 70 mg/dL, and 49% hit the goal of less than 55 mg/dL. Among those who received IV treatment, 71% fell below the 70 mg/dL threshold, and 50% dropped below 55 mg/dL.

The good efficacy shown with subcutaneous dosing is critical, noted Dr. Eckel, as this represents a new dimension for evinacumab that had previously been tested only as an IV agent in patients with homozygous FH (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 20;383[8]:711-20).

“Subcutaneous delivery is needed for wide real world use,” Dr. Eckel noted in an interview.

Evinacumab’s role hangs on further studies

The path that evinacumab takes from here into U.S. practice is not yet clear, said Dr. Rosenson. He cited the approval earlier in 2020 of another LDL-lowering drug, bempedoic acid (Nexletol) that received U.S. regulatory approval for a similar patient population after studies that proved only lipid-lowering safety and efficacy, without any clinical-endpoint data. He wondered: “Will the [Food and Drug Administration] require a cardiovascular outcomes trial” for evinacumab?

The growing experience using the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies to treat hyperlipidemia has made clinicians comfortable with this general approach to lipid management, but if evinacumab never accumulates similar efficacy evidence that may relegate it to the backseat compared with the PCSK9 inhibitors for quite some time, suggested Dr. Goldberg, though she said she’d be willing to prescribe evinacumab to selected patients based on lipid-lowering evidence alone.

By providing an alternative mechanism for lipid lowering, evinacumab can serve as a useful add-on for patients not reaching their LDL-cholesterol goal with more established agents, thereby providing an alternative to LDL apheresis, which now serves as the lipid-lowering therapy of last resort, said both Dr. Rosenson and Dr. Goldberg.

The study was sponsored by Regeneron, the company developing evinacumab. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to Regeneron, and has also  been a consultant to or received research funding from Amgen, 89Bio, Corvidia, CVS Caremark, Kowa, Novartis, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Goldberg has received research grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Regeneron and Sanofi, research grants from Amarin, Amgen, Ionis/AKCEA, Novartis, and Pfizer, and personal fees from AKCEA, Esperion, Merck and Novartis. Dr. Eckel has been a consultant to KOWA and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected] 

Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to significant reductions in both left ventricular end systolic and diastolic volumes in two independent randomized studies of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

These results provide important new evidence that one way a drug from this class exerts its beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes in these patients is by producing favorable left-ventricular remodeling.

One of the two studies involved only patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with diabetes and examined treatment impact after 36 weeks. The second study focused exclusively on HFrEF patients without diabetes and followed patients for 6 months. Both studies also generated additional significant evidence of favorable left-ventricular effects. 

“The results of these two new trials are incredibly important, as they tell cardiologists one of the mechanisms by which SGLT2 [sodium glucose co-transporter 2] inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death,” said Mark C. Petrie,  MBChB, professor at the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences at the University of Glasgow, and principal investigator for one of the two studies.

“Many cardiologists want to know mechanisms as well as clinical benefit. These remodeling data showing that these drugs reduce the size of abnormally large hearts [and] are also very important for patients,” Dr. Petrie said in an interview. “There have been more than 50 publications on potential mechanisms of benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in HFrEF, but these are the first randomized, mechanistic data.”

Mechanistic clues follow large cardiovascular outcome trials

Results from a large randomized trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, recently showed that treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) on top of standard HFrEF treatment led to significant benefits in patients with or without type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with placebo, for major cardiovascular and renal endpoints, including the combination of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. And results from a second large randomized trial, DAPA-HF, showed similar results with a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), in an earlier report.

But while these reports led to quick uptake of these two drugs for the treatment of patients with HFrEF, the means by which these agents exert their HFrEF benefits have been unclear.

“Our study identifies why this drug [empagliflozin] is effective – because it improves heart function, something that has not been understood until now,” Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, lead investigator for the second new report, said in a written statement. “Many doctors are afraid of prescribing a drug they do not understand, and our findings will help clinicians feel more comfortable giving this to patients once approved.”

On the strength of the DAPA-HF results, dapagliflozin received a revised U.S. label in May 2020 that added the indication for treating patients with HFrEF regardless of the whether patients also have T2D, the original indication for prescribing the drug. Many experts anticipate that a similar addition to the label for empagliflozin will soon occur.

EMPA-TROPISM examines patients with no T2D

The single-center study reported by Dr. Santos-Gallego randomized 84 patients with HFrEF and no diabetes to standard treatment with empagliflozin or placebo and measured several parameters in 80 patients who completed the planned 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoints were the changes in both left ventricular end systolic and diastolic volume from baseline in the empagliflozin-treated patients compared with patients on placebo, measured by cardiac MR.

The results showed an average reduction of end systolic volume of 26.6 mL from baseline compared with a small rise in the placebo patients, and an average drop in end diastolic volume of 25.1 mL from baseline compared again with a small increase in the controls. Both differences were statistically significant, reported the senior author of the study, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, in a talk at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently, the results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results from the EMPA-TROPISM study also showed several other significant benefits from empagliflozin treatment, both to left ventricular shape and function as well as to other measures of patient well being. The drug regimen led to an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, a decrease in left ventricular mass, reduced myocardial fibrosis and aortic stiffness, increased peak oxygen consumption, an increased distance traveled in a 6-minute walk test, and improved quality of life, said Dr. Badimon, professor of medicine and director of the Atherothrombosis Research Unit at the Cardiovascular Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

SUGAR-DM-HF enrolled only T2D patients

The second study, SUGAR-DM-HF, randomized 105 patients with HFrEF and T2D to treatment with empagliflozin or placebo at any of 15 centers in Scotland, with 92 patients completing the full 36 weeks on treatment. One of the study’s two primary endpoints was the change in left ventricular end systolic volume index, which dropped by an average of 7.9 mL/m2 in patients who received empagliflozin and by 1.5 mL/m2 in the controls, a significant average between-group difference of 6.0 mL/m2, reported Matthew M.Y. Lee, MBChB, at the same meeting.

However, the second primary endpoint, change in left ventricular global longitudinal strain, showed no significant difference in effect on empagliflozin compared with placebo, said Dr. Lee, a cardiologist at the University of Glasgow. Concurrently with his report the results appeared in an article published online in Circulation.

The results also showed a significant drop in left ventricular end diastolic volume index from baseline compared with the control patients, with an average between-group difference in the reduction from baseline of 8.2 mL/m2.
“Reverse cardiac remodeling is a mechanism by which SGLT2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Lee concluded during his presentation at the meeting.

Although the findings from both studies together provide strong evidence for an effect by empagliflozin on left ventricular shape and function, neither study provides much insight into how this drug exerts these effects. The authors of both studies agreed on several potential explanations, including reductions in cardiac preload and afterload that could reduce left ventricular stretch and volume; a change triggered in myocardial energetics that switches from a metabolism mostly dependent on glucose to one more geared to using fatty acids, ketone bodies, and branched chain amino acids; and a possible drug-induced reduction in oxidative stress and inflammation.

SUGAR-DM-HF was sponsored by a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that along with Eli Lilly markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lee had no disclosures. Dr. Petrie has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and to several other companies. EMPA-TROPISM was sponsored by a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego had no disclosures.

[email protected] 

Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to significant reductions in both left ventricular end systolic and diastolic volumes in two independent randomized studies of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

These results provide important new evidence that one way a drug from this class exerts its beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes in these patients is by producing favorable left-ventricular remodeling.

One of the two studies involved only patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with diabetes and examined treatment impact after 36 weeks. The second study focused exclusively on HFrEF patients without diabetes and followed patients for 6 months. Both studies also generated additional significant evidence of favorable left-ventricular effects. 

“The results of these two new trials are incredibly important, as they tell cardiologists one of the mechanisms by which SGLT2 [sodium glucose co-transporter 2] inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death,” said Mark C. Petrie,  MBChB, professor at the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences at the University of Glasgow, and principal investigator for one of the two studies.

“Many cardiologists want to know mechanisms as well as clinical benefit. These remodeling data showing that these drugs reduce the size of abnormally large hearts [and] are also very important for patients,” Dr. Petrie said in an interview. “There have been more than 50 publications on potential mechanisms of benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in HFrEF, but these are the first randomized, mechanistic data.”

Mechanistic clues follow large cardiovascular outcome trials

Results from a large randomized trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, recently showed that treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) on top of standard HFrEF treatment led to significant benefits in patients with or without type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with placebo, for major cardiovascular and renal endpoints, including the combination of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. And results from a second large randomized trial, DAPA-HF, showed similar results with a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), in an earlier report.

But while these reports led to quick uptake of these two drugs for the treatment of patients with HFrEF, the means by which these agents exert their HFrEF benefits have been unclear.

“Our study identifies why this drug [empagliflozin] is effective – because it improves heart function, something that has not been understood until now,” Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, lead investigator for the second new report, said in a written statement. “Many doctors are afraid of prescribing a drug they do not understand, and our findings will help clinicians feel more comfortable giving this to patients once approved.”

On the strength of the DAPA-HF results, dapagliflozin received a revised U.S. label in May 2020 that added the indication for treating patients with HFrEF regardless of the whether patients also have T2D, the original indication for prescribing the drug. Many experts anticipate that a similar addition to the label for empagliflozin will soon occur.

EMPA-TROPISM examines patients with no T2D

The single-center study reported by Dr. Santos-Gallego randomized 84 patients with HFrEF and no diabetes to standard treatment with empagliflozin or placebo and measured several parameters in 80 patients who completed the planned 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoints were the changes in both left ventricular end systolic and diastolic volume from baseline in the empagliflozin-treated patients compared with patients on placebo, measured by cardiac MR.

The results showed an average reduction of end systolic volume of 26.6 mL from baseline compared with a small rise in the placebo patients, and an average drop in end diastolic volume of 25.1 mL from baseline compared again with a small increase in the controls. Both differences were statistically significant, reported the senior author of the study, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, in a talk at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently, the results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results from the EMPA-TROPISM study also showed several other significant benefits from empagliflozin treatment, both to left ventricular shape and function as well as to other measures of patient well being. The drug regimen led to an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, a decrease in left ventricular mass, reduced myocardial fibrosis and aortic stiffness, increased peak oxygen consumption, an increased distance traveled in a 6-minute walk test, and improved quality of life, said Dr. Badimon, professor of medicine and director of the Atherothrombosis Research Unit at the Cardiovascular Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

SUGAR-DM-HF enrolled only T2D patients

The second study, SUGAR-DM-HF, randomized 105 patients with HFrEF and T2D to treatment with empagliflozin or placebo at any of 15 centers in Scotland, with 92 patients completing the full 36 weeks on treatment. One of the study’s two primary endpoints was the change in left ventricular end systolic volume index, which dropped by an average of 7.9 mL/m2 in patients who received empagliflozin and by 1.5 mL/m2 in the controls, a significant average between-group difference of 6.0 mL/m2, reported Matthew M.Y. Lee, MBChB, at the same meeting.

However, the second primary endpoint, change in left ventricular global longitudinal strain, showed no significant difference in effect on empagliflozin compared with placebo, said Dr. Lee, a cardiologist at the University of Glasgow. Concurrently with his report the results appeared in an article published online in Circulation.

The results also showed a significant drop in left ventricular end diastolic volume index from baseline compared with the control patients, with an average between-group difference in the reduction from baseline of 8.2 mL/m2.
“Reverse cardiac remodeling is a mechanism by which SGLT2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Lee concluded during his presentation at the meeting.

Although the findings from both studies together provide strong evidence for an effect by empagliflozin on left ventricular shape and function, neither study provides much insight into how this drug exerts these effects. The authors of both studies agreed on several potential explanations, including reductions in cardiac preload and afterload that could reduce left ventricular stretch and volume; a change triggered in myocardial energetics that switches from a metabolism mostly dependent on glucose to one more geared to using fatty acids, ketone bodies, and branched chain amino acids; and a possible drug-induced reduction in oxidative stress and inflammation.

SUGAR-DM-HF was sponsored by a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that along with Eli Lilly markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lee had no disclosures. Dr. Petrie has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and to several other companies. EMPA-TROPISM was sponsored by a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego had no disclosures.

[email protected] 

Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin led to significant reductions in both left ventricular end systolic and diastolic volumes in two independent randomized studies of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

These results provide important new evidence that one way a drug from this class exerts its beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes in these patients is by producing favorable left-ventricular remodeling.

One of the two studies involved only patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with diabetes and examined treatment impact after 36 weeks. The second study focused exclusively on HFrEF patients without diabetes and followed patients for 6 months. Both studies also generated additional significant evidence of favorable left-ventricular effects. 

“The results of these two new trials are incredibly important, as they tell cardiologists one of the mechanisms by which SGLT2 [sodium glucose co-transporter 2] inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death,” said Mark C. Petrie,  MBChB, professor at the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences at the University of Glasgow, and principal investigator for one of the two studies.

“Many cardiologists want to know mechanisms as well as clinical benefit. These remodeling data showing that these drugs reduce the size of abnormally large hearts [and] are also very important for patients,” Dr. Petrie said in an interview. “There have been more than 50 publications on potential mechanisms of benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in HFrEF, but these are the first randomized, mechanistic data.”

Mechanistic clues follow large cardiovascular outcome trials

Results from a large randomized trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, recently showed that treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) on top of standard HFrEF treatment led to significant benefits in patients with or without type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with placebo, for major cardiovascular and renal endpoints, including the combination of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. And results from a second large randomized trial, DAPA-HF, showed similar results with a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), in an earlier report.

But while these reports led to quick uptake of these two drugs for the treatment of patients with HFrEF, the means by which these agents exert their HFrEF benefits have been unclear.

“Our study identifies why this drug [empagliflozin] is effective – because it improves heart function, something that has not been understood until now,” Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, lead investigator for the second new report, said in a written statement. “Many doctors are afraid of prescribing a drug they do not understand, and our findings will help clinicians feel more comfortable giving this to patients once approved.”

On the strength of the DAPA-HF results, dapagliflozin received a revised U.S. label in May 2020 that added the indication for treating patients with HFrEF regardless of the whether patients also have T2D, the original indication for prescribing the drug. Many experts anticipate that a similar addition to the label for empagliflozin will soon occur.

EMPA-TROPISM examines patients with no T2D

The single-center study reported by Dr. Santos-Gallego randomized 84 patients with HFrEF and no diabetes to standard treatment with empagliflozin or placebo and measured several parameters in 80 patients who completed the planned 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoints were the changes in both left ventricular end systolic and diastolic volume from baseline in the empagliflozin-treated patients compared with patients on placebo, measured by cardiac MR.

The results showed an average reduction of end systolic volume of 26.6 mL from baseline compared with a small rise in the placebo patients, and an average drop in end diastolic volume of 25.1 mL from baseline compared again with a small increase in the controls. Both differences were statistically significant, reported the senior author of the study, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, in a talk at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Concurrently, the results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Results from the EMPA-TROPISM study also showed several other significant benefits from empagliflozin treatment, both to left ventricular shape and function as well as to other measures of patient well being. The drug regimen led to an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, a decrease in left ventricular mass, reduced myocardial fibrosis and aortic stiffness, increased peak oxygen consumption, an increased distance traveled in a 6-minute walk test, and improved quality of life, said Dr. Badimon, professor of medicine and director of the Atherothrombosis Research Unit at the Cardiovascular Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

SUGAR-DM-HF enrolled only T2D patients

The second study, SUGAR-DM-HF, randomized 105 patients with HFrEF and T2D to treatment with empagliflozin or placebo at any of 15 centers in Scotland, with 92 patients completing the full 36 weeks on treatment. One of the study’s two primary endpoints was the change in left ventricular end systolic volume index, which dropped by an average of 7.9 mL/m2 in patients who received empagliflozin and by 1.5 mL/m2 in the controls, a significant average between-group difference of 6.0 mL/m2, reported Matthew M.Y. Lee, MBChB, at the same meeting.

However, the second primary endpoint, change in left ventricular global longitudinal strain, showed no significant difference in effect on empagliflozin compared with placebo, said Dr. Lee, a cardiologist at the University of Glasgow. Concurrently with his report the results appeared in an article published online in Circulation.

The results also showed a significant drop in left ventricular end diastolic volume index from baseline compared with the control patients, with an average between-group difference in the reduction from baseline of 8.2 mL/m2.
“Reverse cardiac remodeling is a mechanism by which SGLT2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality,” Dr. Lee concluded during his presentation at the meeting.

Although the findings from both studies together provide strong evidence for an effect by empagliflozin on left ventricular shape and function, neither study provides much insight into how this drug exerts these effects. The authors of both studies agreed on several potential explanations, including reductions in cardiac preload and afterload that could reduce left ventricular stretch and volume; a change triggered in myocardial energetics that switches from a metabolism mostly dependent on glucose to one more geared to using fatty acids, ketone bodies, and branched chain amino acids; and a possible drug-induced reduction in oxidative stress and inflammation.

SUGAR-DM-HF was sponsored by a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that along with Eli Lilly markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Lee had no disclosures. Dr. Petrie has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and to several other companies. EMPA-TROPISM was sponsored by a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego had no disclosures.

[email protected] 

Omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, safely produced a significant but modest improvement in heart failure events or cardiovascular death in a pivotal trial with HFrEF patients, leaving experts unsure about the role this drug could have on top of an already crowded list of four first-line drug classes for this condition.

“It remains to be investigated and discussed where omecamtiv mecarbil fits in” the overall approach to treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), commented Paul Heidenreich, MD, designated discussant for the report at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Room for a fifth HFrEF drug?

In addition to the limited benefit, another question raised by the trial is how OM would perform when used on top of what is now considered standard, quadruple therapy for most HFrEF patients: a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto), and an agent from the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or empagliflozin (Jardiance). During the period when the new OM trial was run, 2017-2019, the SGLT2 inhibitors had not yet been established as a key part of standard HFrEF treatment, and hence fewer than 3% of enrolled patients were on one of these drugs.

Because of this evidence gap, OM “can’t be across the board a fifth drug on top of standard treatment,” based on the new results, cautioned Dr. Heidenreich, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

The positives of omecamtiv mercarbil

But in addition to its positive result in the GALACTIC-HF trial, treatment with OM showed other attractive characteristics in a study that treated a wide spectrum of 4,120 patients with HFrEF as well as including 4,112 patients randomized to placebo. Most notably, OM had a very clean safety profile, with adverse event rates similar to placebo patients across all adverse event subtypes, as well as causing no drop in blood pressure and actually an average 2.0–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure, no increase in potassium, no apparent impact on renal function, and a small but significant decline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with placebo.

This coupled with the novel mechanism of action of OM – direct augmentation of cardiac sarcomere function by increasing myosin attachment to actin – suggests that OM can be safely added on top of existing HFrEF treatment to provide an unique and incremental benefit.

“Other heart failure drugs [like beta-blockers and sacubitril-valsartan] lower blood pressure, so what can happen is that clinicians run out of room to add full dosages” when patients’ pressures fall too low, commented Gregory D. Lewis, MD, head of Heart Failure at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He is principle investigator for another OM trial, METEORIC-HF, which is examining the possible impact of the drug on exercise capacity in a randomized study with about 270 HFrEF patients.

If the METEORIC-HF results can could confirm some of the GALACTIC-HF results that suggested improvements in patient function, the combined data could potentially lead to regulatory approval for U.S. marketing of the drug, Dr. Lewis suggested. Results from that study are expected in 2021, he said in an interview.

The GALACTIC-HF results hinted at possible functional improvement after 24 weeks on treatment among patients who required hospitalization as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which measures quality life. However, this difference failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a significant effect.

Another intriguing suggestion of focused benefit was in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction at or below the median in GALACTIC-HF of 28%. In that subgroup, OM treatment was linked with a significant 16% relative reduction in the primary endpoint compared with placebo, while it had no significant effect in the other 50% of patients with higher ejection fractions. (The maximum left ventricular ejection fraction for enrollment was 35%.) This apparent subgroup interaction was statistically significant, reported Dr. Teerlink, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center.

Further analysis of the study data “will provide greater insight into subgroups who may demonstrate greater benefit, such as patients with lower ejection fraction in whom improving cardiac function may have a greater role,” he said. The idea that a drug that improves myocyte function at the molecular level could especially benefit patients with the lowest ejection fractions is “biologically plausible,” Dr. Teerlink said.

This scenario looks reasonable, and could make OM something of a niche drug for at least the near term, said Dr. Mann.

The world’s first myotropic drug

Possibly the most notable aspect of GALACTIC-HF is that it proved the efficacy, modest though it was, of a novel drug mechanism that fulfills a decades-long quest of heart failure researchers: a safe way to improve the heart’s pumping action.

“For years, the heart failure community struggled with treatment to improve cardiac performance, but invariably it ended in disaster by worsening cardiac deaths,” problems that led to abandonment of early inotropic drugs more than a generation ago, noted Dr. Mann.

But a more nuanced approach to inotropic agents recently has emerged from Dr. Teerlink and his associates, built on the premise that the dangers seen years ago related to the calcium modulations they caused. Their new paradigm is that the dangers of these “calcitropic” agents can be sidestepped with different agents that either mediate their effects via myosin, the myotropes like OM, or mitochondrial effects from mitotropic drugs.

The inotrope debacle from the 1990s made that drug-class name “a dirty word that causes fear and loathing in the heart failure community,” observed Dr. Mann. While the term myotrope has not yet really caught on, “If omecamtiv mecarbil starts getting used in routine practice, then I think you’ll start seeing uptake of the term myotrope,” he predicted.

GALACTIC-HF was sponsored by Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, the companies developing omecamtiv mecarbil. Dr. Teerlink has received research support from and been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, as well as Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures. Dr. Mann is on a steering committee for a trial sponsored by Novartis and has no other commercial disclosures. Dr. Lewis is principal investigator for a trial of omecamtiv mecarbil and has no other commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, safely produced a significant but modest improvement in heart failure events or cardiovascular death in a pivotal trial with HFrEF patients, leaving experts unsure about the role this drug could have on top of an already crowded list of four first-line drug classes for this condition.

“It remains to be investigated and discussed where omecamtiv mecarbil fits in” the overall approach to treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), commented Paul Heidenreich, MD, designated discussant for the report at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Room for a fifth HFrEF drug?

In addition to the limited benefit, another question raised by the trial is how OM would perform when used on top of what is now considered standard, quadruple therapy for most HFrEF patients: a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto), and an agent from the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or empagliflozin (Jardiance). During the period when the new OM trial was run, 2017-2019, the SGLT2 inhibitors had not yet been established as a key part of standard HFrEF treatment, and hence fewer than 3% of enrolled patients were on one of these drugs.

Because of this evidence gap, OM “can’t be across the board a fifth drug on top of standard treatment,” based on the new results, cautioned Dr. Heidenreich, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

The positives of omecamtiv mercarbil

But in addition to its positive result in the GALACTIC-HF trial, treatment with OM showed other attractive characteristics in a study that treated a wide spectrum of 4,120 patients with HFrEF as well as including 4,112 patients randomized to placebo. Most notably, OM had a very clean safety profile, with adverse event rates similar to placebo patients across all adverse event subtypes, as well as causing no drop in blood pressure and actually an average 2.0–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure, no increase in potassium, no apparent impact on renal function, and a small but significant decline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with placebo.

This coupled with the novel mechanism of action of OM – direct augmentation of cardiac sarcomere function by increasing myosin attachment to actin – suggests that OM can be safely added on top of existing HFrEF treatment to provide an unique and incremental benefit.

“Other heart failure drugs [like beta-blockers and sacubitril-valsartan] lower blood pressure, so what can happen is that clinicians run out of room to add full dosages” when patients’ pressures fall too low, commented Gregory D. Lewis, MD, head of Heart Failure at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He is principle investigator for another OM trial, METEORIC-HF, which is examining the possible impact of the drug on exercise capacity in a randomized study with about 270 HFrEF patients.

If the METEORIC-HF results can could confirm some of the GALACTIC-HF results that suggested improvements in patient function, the combined data could potentially lead to regulatory approval for U.S. marketing of the drug, Dr. Lewis suggested. Results from that study are expected in 2021, he said in an interview.

The GALACTIC-HF results hinted at possible functional improvement after 24 weeks on treatment among patients who required hospitalization as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which measures quality life. However, this difference failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a significant effect.

Another intriguing suggestion of focused benefit was in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction at or below the median in GALACTIC-HF of 28%. In that subgroup, OM treatment was linked with a significant 16% relative reduction in the primary endpoint compared with placebo, while it had no significant effect in the other 50% of patients with higher ejection fractions. (The maximum left ventricular ejection fraction for enrollment was 35%.) This apparent subgroup interaction was statistically significant, reported Dr. Teerlink, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center.

Further analysis of the study data “will provide greater insight into subgroups who may demonstrate greater benefit, such as patients with lower ejection fraction in whom improving cardiac function may have a greater role,” he said. The idea that a drug that improves myocyte function at the molecular level could especially benefit patients with the lowest ejection fractions is “biologically plausible,” Dr. Teerlink said.

This scenario looks reasonable, and could make OM something of a niche drug for at least the near term, said Dr. Mann.

The world’s first myotropic drug

Possibly the most notable aspect of GALACTIC-HF is that it proved the efficacy, modest though it was, of a novel drug mechanism that fulfills a decades-long quest of heart failure researchers: a safe way to improve the heart’s pumping action.

“For years, the heart failure community struggled with treatment to improve cardiac performance, but invariably it ended in disaster by worsening cardiac deaths,” problems that led to abandonment of early inotropic drugs more than a generation ago, noted Dr. Mann.

But a more nuanced approach to inotropic agents recently has emerged from Dr. Teerlink and his associates, built on the premise that the dangers seen years ago related to the calcium modulations they caused. Their new paradigm is that the dangers of these “calcitropic” agents can be sidestepped with different agents that either mediate their effects via myosin, the myotropes like OM, or mitochondrial effects from mitotropic drugs.

The inotrope debacle from the 1990s made that drug-class name “a dirty word that causes fear and loathing in the heart failure community,” observed Dr. Mann. While the term myotrope has not yet really caught on, “If omecamtiv mecarbil starts getting used in routine practice, then I think you’ll start seeing uptake of the term myotrope,” he predicted.

GALACTIC-HF was sponsored by Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, the companies developing omecamtiv mecarbil. Dr. Teerlink has received research support from and been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, as well as Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures. Dr. Mann is on a steering committee for a trial sponsored by Novartis and has no other commercial disclosures. Dr. Lewis is principal investigator for a trial of omecamtiv mecarbil and has no other commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, safely produced a significant but modest improvement in heart failure events or cardiovascular death in a pivotal trial with HFrEF patients, leaving experts unsure about the role this drug could have on top of an already crowded list of four first-line drug classes for this condition.

“It remains to be investigated and discussed where omecamtiv mecarbil fits in” the overall approach to treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), commented Paul Heidenreich, MD, designated discussant for the report at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Room for a fifth HFrEF drug?

In addition to the limited benefit, another question raised by the trial is how OM would perform when used on top of what is now considered standard, quadruple therapy for most HFrEF patients: a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto), and an agent from the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or empagliflozin (Jardiance). During the period when the new OM trial was run, 2017-2019, the SGLT2 inhibitors had not yet been established as a key part of standard HFrEF treatment, and hence fewer than 3% of enrolled patients were on one of these drugs.

Because of this evidence gap, OM “can’t be across the board a fifth drug on top of standard treatment,” based on the new results, cautioned Dr. Heidenreich, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

The positives of omecamtiv mercarbil

But in addition to its positive result in the GALACTIC-HF trial, treatment with OM showed other attractive characteristics in a study that treated a wide spectrum of 4,120 patients with HFrEF as well as including 4,112 patients randomized to placebo. Most notably, OM had a very clean safety profile, with adverse event rates similar to placebo patients across all adverse event subtypes, as well as causing no drop in blood pressure and actually an average 2.0–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure, no increase in potassium, no apparent impact on renal function, and a small but significant decline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with placebo.

This coupled with the novel mechanism of action of OM – direct augmentation of cardiac sarcomere function by increasing myosin attachment to actin – suggests that OM can be safely added on top of existing HFrEF treatment to provide an unique and incremental benefit.

“Other heart failure drugs [like beta-blockers and sacubitril-valsartan] lower blood pressure, so what can happen is that clinicians run out of room to add full dosages” when patients’ pressures fall too low, commented Gregory D. Lewis, MD, head of Heart Failure at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He is principle investigator for another OM trial, METEORIC-HF, which is examining the possible impact of the drug on exercise capacity in a randomized study with about 270 HFrEF patients.

If the METEORIC-HF results can could confirm some of the GALACTIC-HF results that suggested improvements in patient function, the combined data could potentially lead to regulatory approval for U.S. marketing of the drug, Dr. Lewis suggested. Results from that study are expected in 2021, he said in an interview.

The GALACTIC-HF results hinted at possible functional improvement after 24 weeks on treatment among patients who required hospitalization as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which measures quality life. However, this difference failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a significant effect.

Another intriguing suggestion of focused benefit was in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction at or below the median in GALACTIC-HF of 28%. In that subgroup, OM treatment was linked with a significant 16% relative reduction in the primary endpoint compared with placebo, while it had no significant effect in the other 50% of patients with higher ejection fractions. (The maximum left ventricular ejection fraction for enrollment was 35%.) This apparent subgroup interaction was statistically significant, reported Dr. Teerlink, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center.

Further analysis of the study data “will provide greater insight into subgroups who may demonstrate greater benefit, such as patients with lower ejection fraction in whom improving cardiac function may have a greater role,” he said. The idea that a drug that improves myocyte function at the molecular level could especially benefit patients with the lowest ejection fractions is “biologically plausible,” Dr. Teerlink said.

This scenario looks reasonable, and could make OM something of a niche drug for at least the near term, said Dr. Mann.

The world’s first myotropic drug

Possibly the most notable aspect of GALACTIC-HF is that it proved the efficacy, modest though it was, of a novel drug mechanism that fulfills a decades-long quest of heart failure researchers: a safe way to improve the heart’s pumping action.

“For years, the heart failure community struggled with treatment to improve cardiac performance, but invariably it ended in disaster by worsening cardiac deaths,” problems that led to abandonment of early inotropic drugs more than a generation ago, noted Dr. Mann.

But a more nuanced approach to inotropic agents recently has emerged from Dr. Teerlink and his associates, built on the premise that the dangers seen years ago related to the calcium modulations they caused. Their new paradigm is that the dangers of these “calcitropic” agents can be sidestepped with different agents that either mediate their effects via myosin, the myotropes like OM, or mitochondrial effects from mitotropic drugs.

The inotrope debacle from the 1990s made that drug-class name “a dirty word that causes fear and loathing in the heart failure community,” observed Dr. Mann. While the term myotrope has not yet really caught on, “If omecamtiv mecarbil starts getting used in routine practice, then I think you’ll start seeing uptake of the term myotrope,” he predicted.

GALACTIC-HF was sponsored by Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, the companies developing omecamtiv mecarbil. Dr. Teerlink has received research support from and been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, as well as Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures. Dr. Mann is on a steering committee for a trial sponsored by Novartis and has no other commercial disclosures. Dr. Lewis is principal investigator for a trial of omecamtiv mecarbil and has no other commercial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

A new equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, shows improved accuracy and precision, compared with commonly used equations.

The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.

The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.

“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”

“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.

Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
 

What’s new is Q

Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.

Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.

The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.

“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.

Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.

“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.

However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
 

Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI

In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.

“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.

The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.

In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.

“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”

Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
 

Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year

Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.

Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.

“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”

The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.

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

A new equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, shows improved accuracy and precision, compared with commonly used equations.

The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.

The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.

“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”

“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.

Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
 

What’s new is Q

Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.

Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.

The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.

“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.

Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.

“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.

However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
 

Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI

In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.

“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.

The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.

In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.

“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”

Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
 

Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year

Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.

Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.

“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”

The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.

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

A new equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, shows improved accuracy and precision, compared with commonly used equations.

The European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation surpasses existing equations by “resulting in generally lower bias across the spectrum of age and kidney function,” its developers wrote in an article published online Nov. 9 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The new EKFC equation may have helpful properties and perform better in estimating GFR, compared with the current KDIGO [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes]-recommended equations,” they added.

The primary KDIGO-recommended equation in its most recent guideline was the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation, designed for adults, and a companion equation, the CKiD, covers children and adolescents.

“Key in our [new] equation is the adjustment for differences in serum creatinine generation between children and adults, or between men and women,” lead author Hans Pottel, PhD, KU Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

In an accompanying editorial, Andrew M. Levey, MD, and associates wrote: “We agree that a single eGFR equation that can be used in children and adults and performs well in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a worthy goal.”

“But the claim of equivalent or superior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation is not conclusive,” claimed Dr. Levey, who led the research team that developed the CKD-EPI equation, and coauthors.

Dr. Levey is professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston.
 

What’s new is Q

Dr. Pottel and codevelopers devised what they call Q values: age- and sex-dependent median creatinine levels in normal individuals.

Q values act to “normalize or rescale creatinine before entering it into the equation, because we know that creatinine generation is different” based on factors that include age, sex, and muscle mass.

The EKFC equation extends the CKD-EPI equation and first eGFR equation by using Q values and applying across age ranges, like the full-age spectrum (FAS) equation, first reported in 2016 by a team led by Dr. Pottel.

“Although the FAS equation was designed to overcome the challenge in measuring GFR in patients transitioning from adolescence to adult nephrology care, it also underestimates GFR at low serum creatinine values and in patients with chronic kidney disease,” wrote Dr. Pottel and coauthors.

Hence, their intent to tweak the FAS equation to overcome this limitation and create the EKFC equation.

“The new equation combines the strengths of the CKD-EPI and FAS equations,” they woite.

However, “we acknowledge that lack of precision is still a major problem with all eGFR equations,” including the new EKFC, they added.
 

Editorialists dispute better performance of EKFC over CKD-EPI

In their editorial, Dr. Levey and coauthors noted the EKFC equations and other adapted equations in development “represent a conceptual advance over the FAS equations,” but they dispute the claims of better performance, compared with the CKD-EPI.

“We compared the performance of the EKFC and CKD-EPI equations in a different, large external validation population of Black and non-Black adults,” the external population used to validate the CKD-EPI equation, the editorialists reported.

The upshot was “our results did not confirm the author’s conclusions” about the EKFC equation.

In response, Dr. Pottel highlighted that the EKFC equation is currently not designed for use in Black patients.

“With its derivation and validation now reported in the new article, the EKFC equation is fully validated and ready for routine use in Whites,” he said. “We plan to evaluate and possibly fine tune our equation for its application in other ethnicities.”

Regarding the inferior performance, compared with the CKD-EPI equation in the non-Black population tested by the editorialists, Dr. Pottel cited “calibration issues for serum creatinine” that some experts have found in the datasets compiled by developers of the CKI-EPI equation that could limit the utility of these data.
 

Still room for improvement; app hopefully coming next year

Dr. Pottel and coauthors developed and validated the EKFC equation with data from 19,629 patients drawn from 13 cohorts. This included 11,251 patients from seven cohorts for development and internal validation, and 8378 from six cohorts for external validation. The EKFC effort received endorsement from the European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

However, “We acknowledge that there is still room for improvement,” Dr. Pottel said.

Although the new report presents the EKFC equations (actually two slightly different equations depending on whether a patient’s serum creatinine is higher or lower than the relevant Q value), most potential users will likely find the equations easier to work with once they’re in an app form that allows someone to simply plug in age, sex, and serum creatinine level. That app currently doesn’t exist but is coming soon, promised Dr. Pottel.

“I hope to have an electronic tool by the beginning of 2021,” he said. “I have to find a programmer who can do this for me.”

The EKFC project has received no commercial funding. Dr. Pottel reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Levey has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca.

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

Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.

Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction

“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.

“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.

But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”

Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”

It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”

Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link

The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).

Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.

Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.

Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.

The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.

The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”

“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.

Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.

Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction

“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.

“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.

But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”

Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”

It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”

Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link

The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).

Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.

Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.

Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.

The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.

The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”

“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.

Thyroid dysfunction had virtually no independent impact on survival in a retrospective study of nearly 5,000 English patients with chronic heart failure, adding to evidence that subclinical thyroid disorders in these patients requires no special management beyond ongoing monitoring.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

“Although thyroid dysfunction is related to outcome in patients with chronic heart failure, the association disappears when adjustment is made for established prognostic variables, such as age, NT-proBNP [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide], and [New York Heart Association] class,” wrote Nathan A. Samuel, MBChB, and coauthors in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Results from several earlier studies had shown evidence for reduced survival in heart failure patients with thyroid dysfunction, but in analyses that did not adjust for heart failure severity, such as a 2013 report that used data from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial SCD-HeFT. Other studies that adjusted for heart failure severity based on serum level of natriuretic peptides did not show significant associations between thyroid function and mortality, and when those results couple with the new report they together minimize the immediate risk from subclinical thyroid dysfunction faced by heart failure patients, wrote the authors of the new report.

Don’t treat subclinical thyroid dysfunction

“Our results suggest that subclinical thyroid disease has little impact on outcomes, and that we should not treat subclinical hypothyroidism in the expectation of improving outlook,” said Andrew L. Clark, MD, senior author on the new report and professor and head of the department of academic cardiology at Hull (England) York Medical School.

“Both hyper-and hypothyroidism can cause heart failure, so thyroid function should always be checked in patients when they present with heart failure. A small proportion of patients have heart failure that is potentially reversible” with thyroid-directed treatment, Dr. Clark said in an interview.

But “subclinical disease should probably not be treated, although we have not conducted a clinical trial that proves this assertion. We speculate, based on our findings, that such a trial is unlikely to be positive.”

Patients with subclinical thyroid disorders, particularly subclinical hypothyroidism, “need to be followed and treated should they develop clinical disease,” he maintained. “Except in extreme circumstances, such as the handful of patients who might have gross myxedema and may be near coma, thyroid replacement therapy for those [with heart failure] who have clinical hypothyroidism should follow standard lines.”

It is important to monitor thyroid function,” agreed Dr. Samuel, a researcher in the department of academic cardiology at Hull York Medical School. “We found that thyroxine use was most common among patients with hyperthyroidism, suggesting that they were previously hypothyroid and had received inappropriate treatment.”

Confounder adjustment mitigates the thyroid link

The new analysis used data collected from 6,782 consecutive heart failure patients enrolled during 2000-2018 at a community heart failure clinic that serves patients in the region of Hull, England. The researchers identified 4,992 of these patients with confirmed heart failure and adequate data for their analyses, including 2,997 (60%) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 1,995 (40%) with heart failure with normal ejection fraction (HFnEF, the term used by the authors but often called heart failure with preserved ejection fraction).

Thyroid hormone levels showed that 90% of these patients were euthyroid, 6% were hyperthyroid, and 4% were hypothyroid, rates consistent with prior reports for both the general population and heart failure patients. Only 12 patients (0.2%) had overt hypothyroidism, and fewer that 1% (about 45 patients) had overt hyperthyroidism. Patients averaged about 73 years of age, and during a median 4.6 years of follow-up 58% died.

Both the hypo- and hyperthyroid patients showed significantly higher mortality rates than euthyroid patients in a univariate analysis. But the patients with thyroid dysfunction also had more comorbidities, more severe heart failure symptoms measured by NYHA functional class, and more severe heart failure measured as higher serum levels of NT-proBNP.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for these factors, the significant differences disappeared among the entire group of heart failure patients for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and mortality or hospitalization with heart failure. The multivariate analysis also showed no significant association between higher levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and all-cause death or death plus heart failure hospitalization among the patients with HFrEF.

Among patients with HFnEF, the multivariate adjusted analysis showed a small increase in both mortality and mortality plus hospitalization for heart failure, a 2% rise for each of these two endpoints for each 1 mIU/L increase in TSH, the authors reported. Although the P value for each of these two significant differences among patients with HFnEF was .02, the 95% confidence interval included 1.00 and ranged from 1.00 to 1.04.

The multivariate analysis identified three variables with the strongest associations with all-cause mortality: older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, and higher NYHA class indicating greater functional impairment.

The results support the hypothesis that “worsening heart failure can lead to down-regulation of thyroid hormone signaling,” the authors suggested. Their study is also “the first to examine the prognostic significance of thyroid dysfunction in a large population of patients with HFnEF.” This analysis showed a “weak but significant association between increasing TSH and both mortality and the composite endpoint in patients with HFnEF.”

“HFnEF is a heterogeneous group of conditions that are difficult to diagnose in many cases. Therefore, future studies are needed to provide further clarity on the effect of thyroid dysfunction in these patients,” Dr. Samuel said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Samuel and Dr. Clark had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Samuel NA et al. Am J Cardiol. 2020 Oct 24. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.034.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.

Patients with mild heart failure who received a cardiac resynchronization device had significantly reduced rates of hospitalizations for heart failure during follow-up of 1,820 patients for an average of 5.6 years, identifying in this post hoc analysis another benefit from this device that patients potentially receive in addition to an established survival advantage.

Extended follow-up of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial showed that patients with either New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II cardiomyopathy who received a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator (CRT-D) had a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalization during follow-up, compared with control patients randomized to receive an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device. This reduction in all hospitalizations was specifically driven by a significant reduction in cardiovascular hospitalizations, and the drop in cardiovascular hospitalizations was specifically driven by a cut in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), Sabu Thomas, MD, said at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The data showed that during follow-up all-cause hospitalizations occurred in 73% of the CRT-D patients and 83% of those who received an ICD; cardiovascular hospitalizations happened in 29% of the CRT-D patients and in 43% of those with an ICD; and HHF occurred in 12% of the CRT-D patients and in 22% of those with an ICD, reported Dr. Thomas, a heart failure cardiologist at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. All three between-group differences were statistically significant for these post hoc endpoints.

These reduced hospitalizations also linked with better survival. Patients in the trial database with cardiovascular hospitalizations had a nearly fourfold higher rate of death, compared with nonhospitalized patients, Dr. Thomas said.

The findings “suggest that this device [CRT-D] has sustained benefit in these patients for up to 7 years,” said Dr. Thomas and his collaborator, Valentina Kutyifa, MD, in an interview. “However, this was only seen in patients with left bundle branch block [LBBB].” In patients with non-LBBB, CRT-D was not associated with a reduction in [cardiovascular] hospitalizations.

The LBBB connection

In a multivariate analysis, the 1,281 patients with LBBB (70% of the study cohort) who were more than 6 months out from device placement had a significant 43% relative cut in their incidence of cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with that of control patients who received an ICD, while the 537 patients with non-LBBB showed no benefit from CRT-D treatment, compared with those who received an ICD, for reducing cardiovascular hospitalizations. (Data from two enrolled patients weren’t available for the analyses.) This finding that the HHF benefit focused in patients with LBBB was consistent with many prior observations that CRT-D was most effective in this patient subgroup.

The researchers also highlighted that their findings apply only to patients with NYHA functional class I or II heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the only types of patients enrolled in the MADIT-CRT trial (15% had class I disease).

The results also showed that, during the first 6 months on CRT-D treatment, patients with a LBBB showed a significant 43% increase in their cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with control patients, which may have been driven by device-related events. “We did not investigate this in detail, and it needs more study,” said Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of Rochester.Their new findings extend the initial, prespecified results of the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial, which was designed to examine a primary endpoint of death from any cause or a nonfatal heart failure event. During the initial average follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant relative reduction in this endpoint of 34%, compared with patients on ICD treatment, exclusively in patients with LBBB. Extended follow-up for as long as 7 years of the same cohort showed a continued significant reduction of all-cause death compared with controls, a 41% relative risk reduction, that again was only apparent in patients with LBBB.

The MADIT-CRT findings are generally consistent with prevailing CRT-D recommendations from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association from 2013 that give a class I indication (“is indicated”) for using the device in heart failure patients with LBBB, a QRS interval of at least 150 msec, NYHA class II-IV function, and a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 35%. A lesser, class IIa recommendation (“can be useful”) exists for patients with a narrower QRS of 120-149 msec with the other class I criteria, and for patients with non-LBBB the recommendation drops to class IIb (“may be considered”).
 

CRT-D ‘is mysterious,’ especially for non-LBBB patients

“Every time researchers have tried to move beyond the [existing] paradigm of who benefits from CRT-D, it’s never panned out,” commented Jeffrey J. Goldberger, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and chief of the cardiovascular division at the University of Miami. “The guidelines are pretty correct on who should get CRT-D. I wouldn’t say that no patients with non-LBBB should get it, but they are less likely to benefit,” although he conceded that responses to CRT-D are highly individualized and hard to predict.

“CRT is mysterious. I’ve had patients who did incredibly well on it,” but “once you start getting outside of where the benefits are proven, you start to run into issues,” Dr. Goldberger said in an interview. “The only solid predictor of a CRT-D response is in patients with LBBB.”

The hospitalizations for heart failure that the University of Rochester investigators assessed as an additional study outcome represent an “important endpoint, but one that is much more subjective than survival,” making its reliability “a bit of a gray area,” he said. The analyses are also limited by being post hoc and, hence, just hypothesis generating.

A recently published analysis of the same dataset by many of the same investigators hinted that CRT-D might reduce HHF in non-LBBB patients when the focus is on recurrent hospitalizations.

Despite the evidence of a survival benefit from CRT-D placement in selected patients, especially those with LBBB, “registry data have shown that use of CRT-D varies widely and has been as low as 27% of eligible patients,” noted Dr. Thomas and Dr. Kutyifa. “There is an opportunity here to understand the barriers to more widespread adoption of CRT-D in appropriate patients,” they said. It is also “possible that CRT-D is overused in non-LBBB patients” given that this subgroup receives about a third of CRT-D devices now. “Future studies should carefully investigate the role of CRT-D in non-LBBB patients.”

MADIT-CRT was funded by Boston Scientific, which markets several CRT-D devices. Dr. Thomas had no disclosures. Dr. Kutyifa has been a consultant to Biotronik and Zoll and has received research funding from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Spire, and Zoll. Dr Goldberger is director of a not-for-profit think tank on risk stratification for sudden cardiac death that has received unrestricted educational grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Thomas S et al. HFSA 2020, Abstract 019.