User login
Mitchel is a reporter for MDedge based in the Philadelphia area. He started with the company in 1992, when it was International Medical News Group (IMNG), and has since covered a range of medical specialties. Mitchel trained as a virologist at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, and then worked briefly as a researcher at Boston Children's Hospital before pivoting to journalism as a AAAS Mass Media Fellow in 1980. His first reporting job was with Science Digest magazine, and from the mid-1980s to early-1990s he was a reporter with Medical World News. @mitchelzoler
Uncertain generalizability limits AFib ablation in HFrEF
Despite several reports of dramatic efficacy and reasonable safety using catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, many clinicians, including many heart failure specialists, remain skeptical about whether existing evidence supports using ablation routinely in selected heart failure patients.
Though concerns vary, one core stumbling block is inadequate confidence that the ablation outcomes reported from studies represent the benefit that the average American heart failure patient might expect to receive from ablation done outside of a study. A related issue is whether atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure is cost effective, especially at sites that did not participate in the published studies.
The first part of this article discussed the building evidence that radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) can produce striking reductions in all-cause mortality of nearly 50%, and a greater than one-third cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to one recent meta-analysis (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]:e007414). A key question about the implications of these findings is their generalizability.
“Experience is an issue, and I agree that not every operator should do it. A common perception is that ablation doesn’t work, but that mindset is changing,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He noted that some apparent ablations failures happen because the treatment is used too late. “Ablation will fail if it is done too late. Think about using ablation earlier,” he advised. “The earlier you ablate, the earlier you reduce the AFib burden and the sooner the patient benefits. Ablation is a cost-effective, first-line strategy for younger patients with paroxysmal AFib. The unanswered question is whether it is cost effective for patients who have both AFib and heart failure. It may be, because in addition to the mortality benefit, there are likely savings from a lower rate of hospitalizations. A clearer picture should emerge from the cost-effectiveness analysis of CASTLE-AF.”
CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation Versus Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation), which randomized patients with heart failure and AFib to ablation or medical management (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27), is one of the highest-profile studies reported so far showing AFib ablation’s efficacy in patients with heart failure. However, it has drawn skepticism over its generalizability because of its long enrollment period of 8 years despite running at 33 worldwide sites, and by its winnowing of 3,013 patients assessed down to the 398 actually enrolled and 363 randomized and included in the efficacy analysis.
“CASTLE-HF showed a remarkable benefit. The problem was that it took years and years to enroll the patients,” commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in September 2019, French researchers reported data that supported the generalizability of the CASTLE-AF findings. The study used data collected from 252,395 patients in the French national hospital-discharge database during 2010-2018 who had diagnoses of both heart failure and AFib. Among these patients, 1,384 underwent catheter ablation and the remaining 251,011 were managed without ablation.
During a median follow-up of 537 days (about 1.5 years), the incidence of both all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization were both significantly lower in the ablated patients. The ablated patients were also much younger and were more often men, but both groups had several prevalent comorbidities at roughly similar rates. To better match the groups, the French researchers ran both a multivariate analysis, and then an even more intensively adjusting propensity-score analysis that compared the ablated patients with 1,384 closely matched patients from the nonablated group. Both analyses showed substantial incremental benefit from ablation. In the propensity score–matched analysis, ablation was linked with a relative 66% cut in all-cause death, and a relative 71% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, compared with the patients who did not undergo ablation, reported Arnaud Bisson, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Tours (France).
Another recent assessment of the generalizability of the AFib ablation trial findings used data from nearly 184,000 U.S. patients treated for AFib during 2009-2016 in an administrative database, including more than 12,000 treated with ablation. This analysis did not take into account the coexistence of heart failure. After propensity-score matching of the ablated patients with a similar subgroup of those managed medically, the results showed a 25% relative cut in the combined primary endpoint used in the CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) study (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Among the 74% of ablated patients who met the enrollment criteria for CABANA, the primary endpoint reduction was even greater, a 30% drop relative to matched patients who did not undergo ablation (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
“Professional societies are working to clarify best practices for procedural volume, outcomes, etc.,” said Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator. “There are some data on ablation cost effectiveness, and they generally favor” positive cost efficacy, with more analyses now in progress,” he noted in an interview.
Many unanswered questions remain about AFib in heart failure patients and how aggressively to use ablation to treat it. Most of the data so far have come from patients with HFrEF, and so most experts consider AFib ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) a big unknown, although nearly 80% of the heart failure patients enrolled in CABANA (the largest randomized trial of AFib ablation with more than 2,200 patients) had left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or greater, which translates into HFpEF. Another gray area is how to think about asymptomatic (also called subclinical) AFib and whether that warrants ablation in heart failure patients. The presence or absence of symptoms is a major consideration because the traditional indication for ablation has been to reduce or eliminate symptoms like palpitations, a step that can substantially improve patients’ quality of life as well as their left ventricular function. The indication to ablate asymptomatic AFib for the purpose of improving survival and reducing hospitalizations is the new and controversial concept. Yet it has been embraced by some heart failure physicians.
“Whether or not AFib is symptomatic doesn’t matter” in a heart failure patient, said Maria Rosa Costanzo, MD, a heart failure physician at Edward Heart Hospital in Naperville, Ill. “A patient with AFib doesn’t get the atrial contribution to cardiac output. When we look deeper, a patient with ‘asymptomatic’ AFib often has symptoms, such as new fatigue or obstructive sleep apnea, so when you see a patient with asymptomatic AFib look for sleep apnea, a trigger for AFib,” Dr. Costanzo advised. “Sleep apnea, AFib, and heart failure form a triad” that often clusters in patients, and the three conditions interact in a vicious circle of reinforcing comorbidities, she said in an interview.
The cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmia community clearly realizes that catheter ablation of AFib, in patients with or without heart failure, has many unaddressed questions about who should administer it and who should undergo it. In March 2019, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute held a workshop on AFib ablation. “Numerous knowledge gaps remain” about the best way to use ablation, said a summary of the workshop (Circulation. 2019 Nov 20;doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042706). Among the research needs highlighted by the workshop was “more definitive studies ... to delineate the impact of AFib ablation on outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.” The workshop recommended establishing a national U.S. registry for AFib ablations with a reliable source of funding, as well as “establishing the cause-effect relationship between ventricular dysfunction and AFib, and the potential moderating role of atrial structure and function.” The workshop also raised the possibility of sham-controlled assessments of AFib ablation, while conceding that enrollment into such trials would probably be very challenging.
The upshot is that, even while ablation advocates agree on the need for more study, clinicians are using AFib ablation on a growing number of heart failure patients (as well as on growing numbers of patients with AFib but without heart failure), with a focus on treating those who “have refractory symptoms or evidence of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy,” said Dr. Piccini. Extending that to a first-line, class I indication for heart failure patients seems to need more data, and also needs clinicians to collectively raise their comfort level with the ablation concept. If results from additional studies now underway support the dramatic efficacy and reasonable safety that’s already been seen with ablation, then increased comfort should follow.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. CASTLE-AF was funded by Biotronik. Dr. Di Biase, Dr. Jessup, and Dr. Bisson had no disclosures. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis; he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson; and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Costanzo has been a consultant to Abbott.
This is part 2 of a 2-part story. See part 1 here.
Despite several reports of dramatic efficacy and reasonable safety using catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, many clinicians, including many heart failure specialists, remain skeptical about whether existing evidence supports using ablation routinely in selected heart failure patients.
Though concerns vary, one core stumbling block is inadequate confidence that the ablation outcomes reported from studies represent the benefit that the average American heart failure patient might expect to receive from ablation done outside of a study. A related issue is whether atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure is cost effective, especially at sites that did not participate in the published studies.
The first part of this article discussed the building evidence that radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) can produce striking reductions in all-cause mortality of nearly 50%, and a greater than one-third cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to one recent meta-analysis (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]:e007414). A key question about the implications of these findings is their generalizability.
“Experience is an issue, and I agree that not every operator should do it. A common perception is that ablation doesn’t work, but that mindset is changing,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He noted that some apparent ablations failures happen because the treatment is used too late. “Ablation will fail if it is done too late. Think about using ablation earlier,” he advised. “The earlier you ablate, the earlier you reduce the AFib burden and the sooner the patient benefits. Ablation is a cost-effective, first-line strategy for younger patients with paroxysmal AFib. The unanswered question is whether it is cost effective for patients who have both AFib and heart failure. It may be, because in addition to the mortality benefit, there are likely savings from a lower rate of hospitalizations. A clearer picture should emerge from the cost-effectiveness analysis of CASTLE-AF.”
CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation Versus Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation), which randomized patients with heart failure and AFib to ablation or medical management (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27), is one of the highest-profile studies reported so far showing AFib ablation’s efficacy in patients with heart failure. However, it has drawn skepticism over its generalizability because of its long enrollment period of 8 years despite running at 33 worldwide sites, and by its winnowing of 3,013 patients assessed down to the 398 actually enrolled and 363 randomized and included in the efficacy analysis.
“CASTLE-HF showed a remarkable benefit. The problem was that it took years and years to enroll the patients,” commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in September 2019, French researchers reported data that supported the generalizability of the CASTLE-AF findings. The study used data collected from 252,395 patients in the French national hospital-discharge database during 2010-2018 who had diagnoses of both heart failure and AFib. Among these patients, 1,384 underwent catheter ablation and the remaining 251,011 were managed without ablation.
During a median follow-up of 537 days (about 1.5 years), the incidence of both all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization were both significantly lower in the ablated patients. The ablated patients were also much younger and were more often men, but both groups had several prevalent comorbidities at roughly similar rates. To better match the groups, the French researchers ran both a multivariate analysis, and then an even more intensively adjusting propensity-score analysis that compared the ablated patients with 1,384 closely matched patients from the nonablated group. Both analyses showed substantial incremental benefit from ablation. In the propensity score–matched analysis, ablation was linked with a relative 66% cut in all-cause death, and a relative 71% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, compared with the patients who did not undergo ablation, reported Arnaud Bisson, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Tours (France).
Another recent assessment of the generalizability of the AFib ablation trial findings used data from nearly 184,000 U.S. patients treated for AFib during 2009-2016 in an administrative database, including more than 12,000 treated with ablation. This analysis did not take into account the coexistence of heart failure. After propensity-score matching of the ablated patients with a similar subgroup of those managed medically, the results showed a 25% relative cut in the combined primary endpoint used in the CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) study (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Among the 74% of ablated patients who met the enrollment criteria for CABANA, the primary endpoint reduction was even greater, a 30% drop relative to matched patients who did not undergo ablation (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
“Professional societies are working to clarify best practices for procedural volume, outcomes, etc.,” said Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator. “There are some data on ablation cost effectiveness, and they generally favor” positive cost efficacy, with more analyses now in progress,” he noted in an interview.
Many unanswered questions remain about AFib in heart failure patients and how aggressively to use ablation to treat it. Most of the data so far have come from patients with HFrEF, and so most experts consider AFib ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) a big unknown, although nearly 80% of the heart failure patients enrolled in CABANA (the largest randomized trial of AFib ablation with more than 2,200 patients) had left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or greater, which translates into HFpEF. Another gray area is how to think about asymptomatic (also called subclinical) AFib and whether that warrants ablation in heart failure patients. The presence or absence of symptoms is a major consideration because the traditional indication for ablation has been to reduce or eliminate symptoms like palpitations, a step that can substantially improve patients’ quality of life as well as their left ventricular function. The indication to ablate asymptomatic AFib for the purpose of improving survival and reducing hospitalizations is the new and controversial concept. Yet it has been embraced by some heart failure physicians.
“Whether or not AFib is symptomatic doesn’t matter” in a heart failure patient, said Maria Rosa Costanzo, MD, a heart failure physician at Edward Heart Hospital in Naperville, Ill. “A patient with AFib doesn’t get the atrial contribution to cardiac output. When we look deeper, a patient with ‘asymptomatic’ AFib often has symptoms, such as new fatigue or obstructive sleep apnea, so when you see a patient with asymptomatic AFib look for sleep apnea, a trigger for AFib,” Dr. Costanzo advised. “Sleep apnea, AFib, and heart failure form a triad” that often clusters in patients, and the three conditions interact in a vicious circle of reinforcing comorbidities, she said in an interview.
The cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmia community clearly realizes that catheter ablation of AFib, in patients with or without heart failure, has many unaddressed questions about who should administer it and who should undergo it. In March 2019, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute held a workshop on AFib ablation. “Numerous knowledge gaps remain” about the best way to use ablation, said a summary of the workshop (Circulation. 2019 Nov 20;doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042706). Among the research needs highlighted by the workshop was “more definitive studies ... to delineate the impact of AFib ablation on outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.” The workshop recommended establishing a national U.S. registry for AFib ablations with a reliable source of funding, as well as “establishing the cause-effect relationship between ventricular dysfunction and AFib, and the potential moderating role of atrial structure and function.” The workshop also raised the possibility of sham-controlled assessments of AFib ablation, while conceding that enrollment into such trials would probably be very challenging.
The upshot is that, even while ablation advocates agree on the need for more study, clinicians are using AFib ablation on a growing number of heart failure patients (as well as on growing numbers of patients with AFib but without heart failure), with a focus on treating those who “have refractory symptoms or evidence of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy,” said Dr. Piccini. Extending that to a first-line, class I indication for heart failure patients seems to need more data, and also needs clinicians to collectively raise their comfort level with the ablation concept. If results from additional studies now underway support the dramatic efficacy and reasonable safety that’s already been seen with ablation, then increased comfort should follow.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. CASTLE-AF was funded by Biotronik. Dr. Di Biase, Dr. Jessup, and Dr. Bisson had no disclosures. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis; he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson; and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Costanzo has been a consultant to Abbott.
This is part 2 of a 2-part story. See part 1 here.
Despite several reports of dramatic efficacy and reasonable safety using catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, many clinicians, including many heart failure specialists, remain skeptical about whether existing evidence supports using ablation routinely in selected heart failure patients.
Though concerns vary, one core stumbling block is inadequate confidence that the ablation outcomes reported from studies represent the benefit that the average American heart failure patient might expect to receive from ablation done outside of a study. A related issue is whether atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with heart failure is cost effective, especially at sites that did not participate in the published studies.
The first part of this article discussed the building evidence that radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) can produce striking reductions in all-cause mortality of nearly 50%, and a greater than one-third cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), according to one recent meta-analysis (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]:e007414). A key question about the implications of these findings is their generalizability.
“Experience is an issue, and I agree that not every operator should do it. A common perception is that ablation doesn’t work, but that mindset is changing,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He noted that some apparent ablations failures happen because the treatment is used too late. “Ablation will fail if it is done too late. Think about using ablation earlier,” he advised. “The earlier you ablate, the earlier you reduce the AFib burden and the sooner the patient benefits. Ablation is a cost-effective, first-line strategy for younger patients with paroxysmal AFib. The unanswered question is whether it is cost effective for patients who have both AFib and heart failure. It may be, because in addition to the mortality benefit, there are likely savings from a lower rate of hospitalizations. A clearer picture should emerge from the cost-effectiveness analysis of CASTLE-AF.”
CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation Versus Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation), which randomized patients with heart failure and AFib to ablation or medical management (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27), is one of the highest-profile studies reported so far showing AFib ablation’s efficacy in patients with heart failure. However, it has drawn skepticism over its generalizability because of its long enrollment period of 8 years despite running at 33 worldwide sites, and by its winnowing of 3,013 patients assessed down to the 398 actually enrolled and 363 randomized and included in the efficacy analysis.
“CASTLE-HF showed a remarkable benefit. The problem was that it took years and years to enroll the patients,” commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in September 2019, French researchers reported data that supported the generalizability of the CASTLE-AF findings. The study used data collected from 252,395 patients in the French national hospital-discharge database during 2010-2018 who had diagnoses of both heart failure and AFib. Among these patients, 1,384 underwent catheter ablation and the remaining 251,011 were managed without ablation.
During a median follow-up of 537 days (about 1.5 years), the incidence of both all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization were both significantly lower in the ablated patients. The ablated patients were also much younger and were more often men, but both groups had several prevalent comorbidities at roughly similar rates. To better match the groups, the French researchers ran both a multivariate analysis, and then an even more intensively adjusting propensity-score analysis that compared the ablated patients with 1,384 closely matched patients from the nonablated group. Both analyses showed substantial incremental benefit from ablation. In the propensity score–matched analysis, ablation was linked with a relative 66% cut in all-cause death, and a relative 71% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, compared with the patients who did not undergo ablation, reported Arnaud Bisson, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Tours (France).
Another recent assessment of the generalizability of the AFib ablation trial findings used data from nearly 184,000 U.S. patients treated for AFib during 2009-2016 in an administrative database, including more than 12,000 treated with ablation. This analysis did not take into account the coexistence of heart failure. After propensity-score matching of the ablated patients with a similar subgroup of those managed medically, the results showed a 25% relative cut in the combined primary endpoint used in the CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) study (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Among the 74% of ablated patients who met the enrollment criteria for CABANA, the primary endpoint reduction was even greater, a 30% drop relative to matched patients who did not undergo ablation (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
“Professional societies are working to clarify best practices for procedural volume, outcomes, etc.,” said Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator. “There are some data on ablation cost effectiveness, and they generally favor” positive cost efficacy, with more analyses now in progress,” he noted in an interview.
Many unanswered questions remain about AFib in heart failure patients and how aggressively to use ablation to treat it. Most of the data so far have come from patients with HFrEF, and so most experts consider AFib ablation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) a big unknown, although nearly 80% of the heart failure patients enrolled in CABANA (the largest randomized trial of AFib ablation with more than 2,200 patients) had left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or greater, which translates into HFpEF. Another gray area is how to think about asymptomatic (also called subclinical) AFib and whether that warrants ablation in heart failure patients. The presence or absence of symptoms is a major consideration because the traditional indication for ablation has been to reduce or eliminate symptoms like palpitations, a step that can substantially improve patients’ quality of life as well as their left ventricular function. The indication to ablate asymptomatic AFib for the purpose of improving survival and reducing hospitalizations is the new and controversial concept. Yet it has been embraced by some heart failure physicians.
“Whether or not AFib is symptomatic doesn’t matter” in a heart failure patient, said Maria Rosa Costanzo, MD, a heart failure physician at Edward Heart Hospital in Naperville, Ill. “A patient with AFib doesn’t get the atrial contribution to cardiac output. When we look deeper, a patient with ‘asymptomatic’ AFib often has symptoms, such as new fatigue or obstructive sleep apnea, so when you see a patient with asymptomatic AFib look for sleep apnea, a trigger for AFib,” Dr. Costanzo advised. “Sleep apnea, AFib, and heart failure form a triad” that often clusters in patients, and the three conditions interact in a vicious circle of reinforcing comorbidities, she said in an interview.
The cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmia community clearly realizes that catheter ablation of AFib, in patients with or without heart failure, has many unaddressed questions about who should administer it and who should undergo it. In March 2019, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute held a workshop on AFib ablation. “Numerous knowledge gaps remain” about the best way to use ablation, said a summary of the workshop (Circulation. 2019 Nov 20;doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042706). Among the research needs highlighted by the workshop was “more definitive studies ... to delineate the impact of AFib ablation on outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.” The workshop recommended establishing a national U.S. registry for AFib ablations with a reliable source of funding, as well as “establishing the cause-effect relationship between ventricular dysfunction and AFib, and the potential moderating role of atrial structure and function.” The workshop also raised the possibility of sham-controlled assessments of AFib ablation, while conceding that enrollment into such trials would probably be very challenging.
The upshot is that, even while ablation advocates agree on the need for more study, clinicians are using AFib ablation on a growing number of heart failure patients (as well as on growing numbers of patients with AFib but without heart failure), with a focus on treating those who “have refractory symptoms or evidence of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy,” said Dr. Piccini. Extending that to a first-line, class I indication for heart failure patients seems to need more data, and also needs clinicians to collectively raise their comfort level with the ablation concept. If results from additional studies now underway support the dramatic efficacy and reasonable safety that’s already been seen with ablation, then increased comfort should follow.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. CASTLE-AF was funded by Biotronik. Dr. Di Biase, Dr. Jessup, and Dr. Bisson had no disclosures. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis; he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson; and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Costanzo has been a consultant to Abbott.
This is part 2 of a 2-part story. See part 1 here.
New heart failure trial data presage guideline revisions
PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.
U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).
Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan
Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”
That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).
Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.
Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management
Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.
The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.
Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.
And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.
Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.
PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.
U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).
Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan
Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”
That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).
Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.
Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management
Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.
The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.
Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.
And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.
Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.
PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.
U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).
Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan
Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”
That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).
Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.
Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management
Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.
The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.
Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.
And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.
Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AHA 2019
DAPA-HF: Dapagliflozin benefits regardless of age, HF severity
PHILADELPHIA – The substantial benefits from adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial applied to patients regardless of their age or baseline health status, a pair of new post hoc analyses suggest.
These findings emerged a day after a report that more fully delineated dapagliflozin’s consistent safety and efficacy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of whether they also had type 2 diabetes. One of the new, post hoc analyses reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions suggested that even the most elderly enrolled patients, 75 years and older, had a similar cut in mortality and acute heart failure exacerbations, compared with younger patients. A second post hoc analysis indicated that patients with severe heart failure symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with mild baseline symptoms, measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).
The primary results from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, first reported in August 2019, showed that among more than 4,700 patients with HFrEF randomized to receive the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on top of standard HFrEF medications or placebo, those who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant, 26% decrease in their incidence of the primary study endpoint over a median 18 months, regardless of diabetes status (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
“These benefits were entirely consistent across the range of ages studied,” extending from patients younger than 55 years to those older than 75 years, John McMurray, MD, said at the meeting. “In many parts of the world, particularly North America and Western Europe, we have an increasingly elderly population. Many patients with heart failure are much older than in clinical trials,” he said. 
“The thing of concern is whether elderly patients get as much benefit and tolerate treatment as well as younger patients,” said Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow.
“Dapagliflozin worked across all ages, including some very elderly patients enrolled in the trial,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and transplant program at St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis. “Many trials have not looked at age like this. I hope this is a new way to analyze trials to produce more information that can help patients,” she said in an interview.
Quality-of-life outcomes
The other new, post hoc analysis showed that patients with severe HF symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with milder baseline symptoms and less impaired function, measured by the KCCQ. Dapagliflozin treatment “improved cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure to a similar extent across the entire range of KCCQ at baseline,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, said in a separate talk at the meeting. In addition, dapagliflozin treatment increased the rate of small, moderate, and large clinically meaningful improvements in patients’ KCCQ scores across all key domains of the metric, which scores symptom frequency and severity, physical and social limitations, and quality of life, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.
After the first 8 months of treatment in the DAPA-HF trial, 58% of the 2,373 patients who received dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful improvement in their total KCCQ symptom score of at least 5 points, compared with a 51% rate in the 2,371 patients in the control arm, a statistically significant difference. This meant that the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin was 14 patients to produce one additional patient with at least a 5-point KCCQ improvement compared with controls, a “very small” number needed to treat, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
Addition of the KCCQ to the panel of assessments that patients underwent during DAPA-HF reflected an evolved approach to measuring efficacy outcomes in clinical trials by including patient-reported outcomes. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance for heart failure drug development that explicitly called for efficacy endpoints in pivotal studies that measure how patients feel and function, and stating that these endpoints can be the basis for new drug approvals.
“To many patients, how they feel matters as much if not more than how long they live,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. The goals of heart failure treatments are not only to extend survival and reduced hospitalizations, but also to improve symptoms, function, and quality of life, he said.
“There is a lot of interest now in having outcomes in heart failure trials that are more meaningful to patients, like feeling better and being able to do more,” noted Dr. Walsh.
The DAPA-HF results also showed that patients had similar rates of reduction in death, heart failure hospitalization, or urgent clinical visits, regardless of how severely they were affected by their heart failure when they began dapagliflozin treatment. The researchers ran an analysis that divided the entire trial population into tertiles based on their KCCQ score on entering the study. Patients in the most severely-affected tertile had a 30% cut in their rate of death or acute heart failure exacerbation on dapagliflozin compared with placebo, while patients in the tertile with the mildest symptoms at baseline had a 38% reduction in their primary outcome incidence compared with controls who received placebo. Concurrently with Dr. Kosiborod’s report, the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044138).
Outcomes by age
Not surprisingly in DAPA-HF, the older patients were, the sicker, Dr. McMurray observed. Of the study’s 1,149 patients (24% of the study cohort) who were at least 75 years old, 62% had chronic kidney disease, compared with a 14% prevalence among the 636 patients younger than age 55. The 75-and-older group showed a steeper, 32% decline in incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy – than in the other studied age groups: a 24% decline in those 65-74 years old, a 29% cut in those 55-64 years old, and a 13% drop in patients younger than 55 years old.
In addition, patients aged 75 years or greater were just as likely as the overall group to show at least a 5-point improvement in their KCCQ Total Symptom Score on dapagliflozin, as well as about the same reduced rate of deterioration compared with placebo as tracked with the KCCQ.
Patients “got as much benefit in terms of symptoms as well as morbidity and mortality,” Dr. McMurray concluded. Concurrently with the meeting report the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044133).
“These data are of critical importance, as improving patient-reported outcomes in heart failure, especially in highly symptomatic patients, is an important goal in drug development,” G. Michael Felker, MD, wrote in an editorial accompanying the two published analyses (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044578). These new analyses also highlight another attractive feature of dapagliflozin and, apparently, the entire class of SGLT2 inhibitors: They “ ‘play well with others’ when it comes to overlapping intolerances that often limit (either in reality or in perception) optimization of GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy]. Although SGLT2 inhibitor therapy may lead to volume depletion and require adjustment of diuretics, the SGLT2 inhibitors generally lack some of the other dose-limiting adverse effects (such as renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and hypotension) that can make aggressive up-titration of GDMT problematic, particularly in older patients or those with more advanced disease,“ wrote Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “We stand at the beginning of a new era of ‘quadruple therapy’ for HFrEF with beta-blockers, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors,” he concluded.
A version of this article also appears on Medscape.com
In DAPA-HF, treatment with dapagliflozin met the three critical goals of heart failure management. When used on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy, the treatment reduced mortality, cut hospitalizations, and improved heart failure–related health status – all to a similar extent regardless of patients’ age or symptom severity at entry. These new, post hoc findings provide important, additional data supporting inhibition of sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 with dapagliflozin as the newest foundational pillar of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The results of the analysis by baseline symptoms severity as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) showed similar treatment effects from dapagliflozin regardless of a patient’s baseline KCCQ score, suggesting that the prior report of a blunted effect of dapagliflozin in patients classified at baseline as being in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV compared with class I and II patients was likely a chance finding.
Both the analyses by age and by KCCQ scores were limited by their post hoc status using data collected in a single study. No evidence addresses whether these are class effects for all drugs in the SGLT2-inhibitor class, whether these findings from DAPA-HF are generalizable to real world practice, or whether treatment with dapagliflozin would have similar effects on outcomes if it had been used more often in combination with sacubitril/valsartan. In DAPA-HF, 11% of patients also received sacubitril/valsartan even though existing management guidelines recommend sacubitril/valsartan as the preferred agent for inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system.
It’s also unclear whether patient-reported outcomes such as those measured by the KCCQ will help in sequencing the introduction of drugs for HFrEF patients, or drug selection by patients, providers, payers, and in guidelines.
Carolyn S.P. Lam, MD, is professor of medicine at Duke-National University of Singapore. She has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and several other companies. She made these comments as designated discussant for the two reports.
In DAPA-HF, treatment with dapagliflozin met the three critical goals of heart failure management. When used on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy, the treatment reduced mortality, cut hospitalizations, and improved heart failure–related health status – all to a similar extent regardless of patients’ age or symptom severity at entry. These new, post hoc findings provide important, additional data supporting inhibition of sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 with dapagliflozin as the newest foundational pillar of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The results of the analysis by baseline symptoms severity as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) showed similar treatment effects from dapagliflozin regardless of a patient’s baseline KCCQ score, suggesting that the prior report of a blunted effect of dapagliflozin in patients classified at baseline as being in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV compared with class I and II patients was likely a chance finding.
Both the analyses by age and by KCCQ scores were limited by their post hoc status using data collected in a single study. No evidence addresses whether these are class effects for all drugs in the SGLT2-inhibitor class, whether these findings from DAPA-HF are generalizable to real world practice, or whether treatment with dapagliflozin would have similar effects on outcomes if it had been used more often in combination with sacubitril/valsartan. In DAPA-HF, 11% of patients also received sacubitril/valsartan even though existing management guidelines recommend sacubitril/valsartan as the preferred agent for inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system.
It’s also unclear whether patient-reported outcomes such as those measured by the KCCQ will help in sequencing the introduction of drugs for HFrEF patients, or drug selection by patients, providers, payers, and in guidelines.
Carolyn S.P. Lam, MD, is professor of medicine at Duke-National University of Singapore. She has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and several other companies. She made these comments as designated discussant for the two reports.
In DAPA-HF, treatment with dapagliflozin met the three critical goals of heart failure management. When used on top of current guideline-directed medical therapy, the treatment reduced mortality, cut hospitalizations, and improved heart failure–related health status – all to a similar extent regardless of patients’ age or symptom severity at entry. These new, post hoc findings provide important, additional data supporting inhibition of sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 with dapagliflozin as the newest foundational pillar of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The results of the analysis by baseline symptoms severity as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) showed similar treatment effects from dapagliflozin regardless of a patient’s baseline KCCQ score, suggesting that the prior report of a blunted effect of dapagliflozin in patients classified at baseline as being in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV compared with class I and II patients was likely a chance finding.
Both the analyses by age and by KCCQ scores were limited by their post hoc status using data collected in a single study. No evidence addresses whether these are class effects for all drugs in the SGLT2-inhibitor class, whether these findings from DAPA-HF are generalizable to real world practice, or whether treatment with dapagliflozin would have similar effects on outcomes if it had been used more often in combination with sacubitril/valsartan. In DAPA-HF, 11% of patients also received sacubitril/valsartan even though existing management guidelines recommend sacubitril/valsartan as the preferred agent for inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system.
It’s also unclear whether patient-reported outcomes such as those measured by the KCCQ will help in sequencing the introduction of drugs for HFrEF patients, or drug selection by patients, providers, payers, and in guidelines.
Carolyn S.P. Lam, MD, is professor of medicine at Duke-National University of Singapore. She has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and several other companies. She made these comments as designated discussant for the two reports.
PHILADELPHIA – The substantial benefits from adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial applied to patients regardless of their age or baseline health status, a pair of new post hoc analyses suggest.
These findings emerged a day after a report that more fully delineated dapagliflozin’s consistent safety and efficacy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of whether they also had type 2 diabetes. One of the new, post hoc analyses reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions suggested that even the most elderly enrolled patients, 75 years and older, had a similar cut in mortality and acute heart failure exacerbations, compared with younger patients. A second post hoc analysis indicated that patients with severe heart failure symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with mild baseline symptoms, measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).
The primary results from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, first reported in August 2019, showed that among more than 4,700 patients with HFrEF randomized to receive the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on top of standard HFrEF medications or placebo, those who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant, 26% decrease in their incidence of the primary study endpoint over a median 18 months, regardless of diabetes status (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
“These benefits were entirely consistent across the range of ages studied,” extending from patients younger than 55 years to those older than 75 years, John McMurray, MD, said at the meeting. “In many parts of the world, particularly North America and Western Europe, we have an increasingly elderly population. Many patients with heart failure are much older than in clinical trials,” he said.
“The thing of concern is whether elderly patients get as much benefit and tolerate treatment as well as younger patients,” said Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow.
“Dapagliflozin worked across all ages, including some very elderly patients enrolled in the trial,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and transplant program at St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis. “Many trials have not looked at age like this. I hope this is a new way to analyze trials to produce more information that can help patients,” she said in an interview.
Quality-of-life outcomes
The other new, post hoc analysis showed that patients with severe HF symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with milder baseline symptoms and less impaired function, measured by the KCCQ. Dapagliflozin treatment “improved cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure to a similar extent across the entire range of KCCQ at baseline,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, said in a separate talk at the meeting. In addition, dapagliflozin treatment increased the rate of small, moderate, and large clinically meaningful improvements in patients’ KCCQ scores across all key domains of the metric, which scores symptom frequency and severity, physical and social limitations, and quality of life, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.
After the first 8 months of treatment in the DAPA-HF trial, 58% of the 2,373 patients who received dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful improvement in their total KCCQ symptom score of at least 5 points, compared with a 51% rate in the 2,371 patients in the control arm, a statistically significant difference. This meant that the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin was 14 patients to produce one additional patient with at least a 5-point KCCQ improvement compared with controls, a “very small” number needed to treat, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
Addition of the KCCQ to the panel of assessments that patients underwent during DAPA-HF reflected an evolved approach to measuring efficacy outcomes in clinical trials by including patient-reported outcomes. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance for heart failure drug development that explicitly called for efficacy endpoints in pivotal studies that measure how patients feel and function, and stating that these endpoints can be the basis for new drug approvals.
“To many patients, how they feel matters as much if not more than how long they live,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. The goals of heart failure treatments are not only to extend survival and reduced hospitalizations, but also to improve symptoms, function, and quality of life, he said.
“There is a lot of interest now in having outcomes in heart failure trials that are more meaningful to patients, like feeling better and being able to do more,” noted Dr. Walsh.
The DAPA-HF results also showed that patients had similar rates of reduction in death, heart failure hospitalization, or urgent clinical visits, regardless of how severely they were affected by their heart failure when they began dapagliflozin treatment. The researchers ran an analysis that divided the entire trial population into tertiles based on their KCCQ score on entering the study. Patients in the most severely-affected tertile had a 30% cut in their rate of death or acute heart failure exacerbation on dapagliflozin compared with placebo, while patients in the tertile with the mildest symptoms at baseline had a 38% reduction in their primary outcome incidence compared with controls who received placebo. Concurrently with Dr. Kosiborod’s report, the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044138).
Outcomes by age
Not surprisingly in DAPA-HF, the older patients were, the sicker, Dr. McMurray observed. Of the study’s 1,149 patients (24% of the study cohort) who were at least 75 years old, 62% had chronic kidney disease, compared with a 14% prevalence among the 636 patients younger than age 55. The 75-and-older group showed a steeper, 32% decline in incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy – than in the other studied age groups: a 24% decline in those 65-74 years old, a 29% cut in those 55-64 years old, and a 13% drop in patients younger than 55 years old.
In addition, patients aged 75 years or greater were just as likely as the overall group to show at least a 5-point improvement in their KCCQ Total Symptom Score on dapagliflozin, as well as about the same reduced rate of deterioration compared with placebo as tracked with the KCCQ.
Patients “got as much benefit in terms of symptoms as well as morbidity and mortality,” Dr. McMurray concluded. Concurrently with the meeting report the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044133).
“These data are of critical importance, as improving patient-reported outcomes in heart failure, especially in highly symptomatic patients, is an important goal in drug development,” G. Michael Felker, MD, wrote in an editorial accompanying the two published analyses (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044578). These new analyses also highlight another attractive feature of dapagliflozin and, apparently, the entire class of SGLT2 inhibitors: They “ ‘play well with others’ when it comes to overlapping intolerances that often limit (either in reality or in perception) optimization of GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy]. Although SGLT2 inhibitor therapy may lead to volume depletion and require adjustment of diuretics, the SGLT2 inhibitors generally lack some of the other dose-limiting adverse effects (such as renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and hypotension) that can make aggressive up-titration of GDMT problematic, particularly in older patients or those with more advanced disease,“ wrote Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “We stand at the beginning of a new era of ‘quadruple therapy’ for HFrEF with beta-blockers, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors,” he concluded.
A version of this article also appears on Medscape.com
PHILADELPHIA – The substantial benefits from adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial applied to patients regardless of their age or baseline health status, a pair of new post hoc analyses suggest.
These findings emerged a day after a report that more fully delineated dapagliflozin’s consistent safety and efficacy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of whether they also had type 2 diabetes. One of the new, post hoc analyses reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions suggested that even the most elderly enrolled patients, 75 years and older, had a similar cut in mortality and acute heart failure exacerbations, compared with younger patients. A second post hoc analysis indicated that patients with severe heart failure symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with mild baseline symptoms, measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).
The primary results from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, first reported in August 2019, showed that among more than 4,700 patients with HFrEF randomized to receive the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on top of standard HFrEF medications or placebo, those who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant, 26% decrease in their incidence of the primary study endpoint over a median 18 months, regardless of diabetes status (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
“These benefits were entirely consistent across the range of ages studied,” extending from patients younger than 55 years to those older than 75 years, John McMurray, MD, said at the meeting. “In many parts of the world, particularly North America and Western Europe, we have an increasingly elderly population. Many patients with heart failure are much older than in clinical trials,” he said.
“The thing of concern is whether elderly patients get as much benefit and tolerate treatment as well as younger patients,” said Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow.
“Dapagliflozin worked across all ages, including some very elderly patients enrolled in the trial,” said Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and transplant program at St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis. “Many trials have not looked at age like this. I hope this is a new way to analyze trials to produce more information that can help patients,” she said in an interview.
Quality-of-life outcomes
The other new, post hoc analysis showed that patients with severe HF symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with milder baseline symptoms and less impaired function, measured by the KCCQ. Dapagliflozin treatment “improved cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure to a similar extent across the entire range of KCCQ at baseline,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, said in a separate talk at the meeting. In addition, dapagliflozin treatment increased the rate of small, moderate, and large clinically meaningful improvements in patients’ KCCQ scores across all key domains of the metric, which scores symptom frequency and severity, physical and social limitations, and quality of life, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.
After the first 8 months of treatment in the DAPA-HF trial, 58% of the 2,373 patients who received dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful improvement in their total KCCQ symptom score of at least 5 points, compared with a 51% rate in the 2,371 patients in the control arm, a statistically significant difference. This meant that the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin was 14 patients to produce one additional patient with at least a 5-point KCCQ improvement compared with controls, a “very small” number needed to treat, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
Addition of the KCCQ to the panel of assessments that patients underwent during DAPA-HF reflected an evolved approach to measuring efficacy outcomes in clinical trials by including patient-reported outcomes. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance for heart failure drug development that explicitly called for efficacy endpoints in pivotal studies that measure how patients feel and function, and stating that these endpoints can be the basis for new drug approvals.
“To many patients, how they feel matters as much if not more than how long they live,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. The goals of heart failure treatments are not only to extend survival and reduced hospitalizations, but also to improve symptoms, function, and quality of life, he said.
“There is a lot of interest now in having outcomes in heart failure trials that are more meaningful to patients, like feeling better and being able to do more,” noted Dr. Walsh.
The DAPA-HF results also showed that patients had similar rates of reduction in death, heart failure hospitalization, or urgent clinical visits, regardless of how severely they were affected by their heart failure when they began dapagliflozin treatment. The researchers ran an analysis that divided the entire trial population into tertiles based on their KCCQ score on entering the study. Patients in the most severely-affected tertile had a 30% cut in their rate of death or acute heart failure exacerbation on dapagliflozin compared with placebo, while patients in the tertile with the mildest symptoms at baseline had a 38% reduction in their primary outcome incidence compared with controls who received placebo. Concurrently with Dr. Kosiborod’s report, the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044138).
Outcomes by age
Not surprisingly in DAPA-HF, the older patients were, the sicker, Dr. McMurray observed. Of the study’s 1,149 patients (24% of the study cohort) who were at least 75 years old, 62% had chronic kidney disease, compared with a 14% prevalence among the 636 patients younger than age 55. The 75-and-older group showed a steeper, 32% decline in incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy – than in the other studied age groups: a 24% decline in those 65-74 years old, a 29% cut in those 55-64 years old, and a 13% drop in patients younger than 55 years old.
In addition, patients aged 75 years or greater were just as likely as the overall group to show at least a 5-point improvement in their KCCQ Total Symptom Score on dapagliflozin, as well as about the same reduced rate of deterioration compared with placebo as tracked with the KCCQ.
Patients “got as much benefit in terms of symptoms as well as morbidity and mortality,” Dr. McMurray concluded. Concurrently with the meeting report the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044133).
“These data are of critical importance, as improving patient-reported outcomes in heart failure, especially in highly symptomatic patients, is an important goal in drug development,” G. Michael Felker, MD, wrote in an editorial accompanying the two published analyses (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044578). These new analyses also highlight another attractive feature of dapagliflozin and, apparently, the entire class of SGLT2 inhibitors: They “ ‘play well with others’ when it comes to overlapping intolerances that often limit (either in reality or in perception) optimization of GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy]. Although SGLT2 inhibitor therapy may lead to volume depletion and require adjustment of diuretics, the SGLT2 inhibitors generally lack some of the other dose-limiting adverse effects (such as renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and hypotension) that can make aggressive up-titration of GDMT problematic, particularly in older patients or those with more advanced disease,“ wrote Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “We stand at the beginning of a new era of ‘quadruple therapy’ for HFrEF with beta-blockers, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors,” he concluded.
A version of this article also appears on Medscape.com
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Colchicine cut post-MI CVD events
PHILADELPHIA – The proof of concept shown by the CANTOS study in 2017 that an anti-inflammatory drug could cut the incidence of cardiovascular events has now been replicated in a study with more than 4,700 post-MI patients who received the much more affordable oral anti-inflammatory drug colchicine.
Daily treatment with a single, 0.5-mg/day colchicine tablet cut cardiovascular disease events by a statistically significant 23%, compared with placebo patients during nearly 20 months on treatment when colchicine was added on top of a regimen that included aspirin, a second antiplatelet drug, a statin, and in many patients a beta-blocking drug, Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Adding colchicine to the treatment of patients within 30 days of having a MI led to an absolute reduction in the study’s primary endpoint of 1.6% during a median 19.6 months on treatment. In a secondary analysis that looked at total cardiovascular events and not just first events, adding colchicine to background therapy was associated with a relative 34% decline, said Dr. Tardif, professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and director of the Research Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute. In addition to his report at the meeting, the results also appeared concurrently in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1912388).
The dramatic efficacy and overall safety shown by colchicine in COLCOT (Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) appeared to replicate the benefit seen with the relatively expensive monoclonal antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) in CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), where a canakinumab injection every 3 months led to a 15% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo, during a median 3.7 years of follow-up in a study with just over 10,000 post-MI patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).
“One of the limitations of CANTOS was that canakinumab is a very expensive, injectable drug. We followed in the footsteps of CANTOS with a less expensive, oral drug,” Dr. Tardif explained during a press briefing. “Colchicine is a known, potent anti-inflammatory drug,” and as of November 2019, the average U.S. cost of a 30-day supply of 0.6-mg capsules was $147. The colchicine formulation used in COLCOT delivered a 0.5-mg daily dose to patients, a formulation that’s not currently on the U.S. market.
“Having a safe drug that’s easily available; it will be hard to hold this one back,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chairman of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “What the guidelines will need to wrestle with is there are five drugs” already recommended to use after an MI; “is colchicine number six?” The existing guideline-directed drugs for post-MI patients include aspirin, a second antiplatelet agent, a statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, Dr. Lloyd-Jones noted. The incremental benefit from adding colchicine to background regimen was “modest, but statistically significant,” he said, and “importantly, this was not an industry-sponsored trial.” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that he has recently heard from a patient of his in the Chicago area who takes colchicine for gout that the monthly cost for the drug has risen to as high as $270. By comparison, the price in Montreal is less than $9/month, Dr. Tardif said.
COLCOT enrolled 4,745 patients at a median of about 13.5 days following an acute MI at 167 centers in 12 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was the combination of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization in a time-to-event analysis. The combined endpoint occurred in 5.5% of the patients on colchicine and 7.1% of those on placebo during a median of nearly 20 months on treatment. The adverse effects data showed generally similarly rates among patients on colchicine and in the control group, including their rates of gastrointestinal effects. The one exception was the rate of serious pneumonias, which were more than double in the colchicine recipients, a statistically significant difference.
COLCOT received no commercial support. Dr. Tardif has received honoraria from Amarin, DalCor, Sanofi, and Servier; he has an ownership interest in DalCor; and he has received research funding from Amarin, AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, Ionis, RegenxBio, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Tardif J-C et al. AHA 2019, Abstract.
The landmark results from COLCOT confirm that managing inflammation reduces cardiovascular risk, and the results successfully repurpose colchicine, a broadly available and relatively safe branded generic drug for a new application. Colchicine was also generally well tolerated for measured adverse effects, but we do not know whether unmeasured adverse effects may cause discontinuations that would limit long-term adherence. Clinicians should exercise caution using colchicine in patients with chronic kidney disease because of its renal clearance, and the 0.5-mg daily dosage used in COLCOT does not exactly align with the 0.6-mg colchicine formulation that’s available on the U.S. market.
The adverse effect profile of colchicine showed a concerning, statistically significant increased rate of serious pneumonia infections, which occurred at a 0.9% rate among patients on colchicine and a 0.4% rate among patients on placebo. But the patients on colchicine showed no excess of fatal infections or episodes of septic shock. This increase in the rate of serious pneumonias may be the price paid for using an anti-inflammatory drug in these patients.
A similar, earlier study of methotrexate designed to follow on the CANTOS findings with a less expensive and easier to administer drug failed to show significant benefit. CIRT (Cardiovascular inflammation reduction trial) enrolled 4,786 patients with either a prior MI or multivessel coronary disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and the CIRT results highlight that not all anti-inflammatory drugs work the same way or have similar effects on cardiovascular disease. The COLCOT findings need replication, and three large studies now in progress are also assessing colchicine in patients with cardiovascular disease. Cardiologists will need to learn how to use colchicine, but the COLCOT results are promising and show an overall low level of adverse effects.
The COLCOT findings followed a prior report from a study without a placebo control that showed a rather dramatic, 67% reduction in cardiovascular events with colchicine treatment in 532 patients with stable coronary disease (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 29;61[4]:404-10).
Aruna D. Pradhan, MD , is a medical epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She has received research funding from Kowa. She made these comments as designated discussant for the COLCOT report.
The landmark results from COLCOT confirm that managing inflammation reduces cardiovascular risk, and the results successfully repurpose colchicine, a broadly available and relatively safe branded generic drug for a new application. Colchicine was also generally well tolerated for measured adverse effects, but we do not know whether unmeasured adverse effects may cause discontinuations that would limit long-term adherence. Clinicians should exercise caution using colchicine in patients with chronic kidney disease because of its renal clearance, and the 0.5-mg daily dosage used in COLCOT does not exactly align with the 0.6-mg colchicine formulation that’s available on the U.S. market.
The adverse effect profile of colchicine showed a concerning, statistically significant increased rate of serious pneumonia infections, which occurred at a 0.9% rate among patients on colchicine and a 0.4% rate among patients on placebo. But the patients on colchicine showed no excess of fatal infections or episodes of septic shock. This increase in the rate of serious pneumonias may be the price paid for using an anti-inflammatory drug in these patients.
A similar, earlier study of methotrexate designed to follow on the CANTOS findings with a less expensive and easier to administer drug failed to show significant benefit. CIRT (Cardiovascular inflammation reduction trial) enrolled 4,786 patients with either a prior MI or multivessel coronary disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and the CIRT results highlight that not all anti-inflammatory drugs work the same way or have similar effects on cardiovascular disease. The COLCOT findings need replication, and three large studies now in progress are also assessing colchicine in patients with cardiovascular disease. Cardiologists will need to learn how to use colchicine, but the COLCOT results are promising and show an overall low level of adverse effects.
The COLCOT findings followed a prior report from a study without a placebo control that showed a rather dramatic, 67% reduction in cardiovascular events with colchicine treatment in 532 patients with stable coronary disease (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 29;61[4]:404-10).
Aruna D. Pradhan, MD , is a medical epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She has received research funding from Kowa. She made these comments as designated discussant for the COLCOT report.
The landmark results from COLCOT confirm that managing inflammation reduces cardiovascular risk, and the results successfully repurpose colchicine, a broadly available and relatively safe branded generic drug for a new application. Colchicine was also generally well tolerated for measured adverse effects, but we do not know whether unmeasured adverse effects may cause discontinuations that would limit long-term adherence. Clinicians should exercise caution using colchicine in patients with chronic kidney disease because of its renal clearance, and the 0.5-mg daily dosage used in COLCOT does not exactly align with the 0.6-mg colchicine formulation that’s available on the U.S. market.
The adverse effect profile of colchicine showed a concerning, statistically significant increased rate of serious pneumonia infections, which occurred at a 0.9% rate among patients on colchicine and a 0.4% rate among patients on placebo. But the patients on colchicine showed no excess of fatal infections or episodes of septic shock. This increase in the rate of serious pneumonias may be the price paid for using an anti-inflammatory drug in these patients.
A similar, earlier study of methotrexate designed to follow on the CANTOS findings with a less expensive and easier to administer drug failed to show significant benefit. CIRT (Cardiovascular inflammation reduction trial) enrolled 4,786 patients with either a prior MI or multivessel coronary disease plus diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and the CIRT results highlight that not all anti-inflammatory drugs work the same way or have similar effects on cardiovascular disease. The COLCOT findings need replication, and three large studies now in progress are also assessing colchicine in patients with cardiovascular disease. Cardiologists will need to learn how to use colchicine, but the COLCOT results are promising and show an overall low level of adverse effects.
The COLCOT findings followed a prior report from a study without a placebo control that showed a rather dramatic, 67% reduction in cardiovascular events with colchicine treatment in 532 patients with stable coronary disease (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 29;61[4]:404-10).
Aruna D. Pradhan, MD , is a medical epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. She has received research funding from Kowa. She made these comments as designated discussant for the COLCOT report.
PHILADELPHIA – The proof of concept shown by the CANTOS study in 2017 that an anti-inflammatory drug could cut the incidence of cardiovascular events has now been replicated in a study with more than 4,700 post-MI patients who received the much more affordable oral anti-inflammatory drug colchicine.
Daily treatment with a single, 0.5-mg/day colchicine tablet cut cardiovascular disease events by a statistically significant 23%, compared with placebo patients during nearly 20 months on treatment when colchicine was added on top of a regimen that included aspirin, a second antiplatelet drug, a statin, and in many patients a beta-blocking drug, Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Adding colchicine to the treatment of patients within 30 days of having a MI led to an absolute reduction in the study’s primary endpoint of 1.6% during a median 19.6 months on treatment. In a secondary analysis that looked at total cardiovascular events and not just first events, adding colchicine to background therapy was associated with a relative 34% decline, said Dr. Tardif, professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and director of the Research Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute. In addition to his report at the meeting, the results also appeared concurrently in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1912388).
The dramatic efficacy and overall safety shown by colchicine in COLCOT (Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) appeared to replicate the benefit seen with the relatively expensive monoclonal antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) in CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), where a canakinumab injection every 3 months led to a 15% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo, during a median 3.7 years of follow-up in a study with just over 10,000 post-MI patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).
“One of the limitations of CANTOS was that canakinumab is a very expensive, injectable drug. We followed in the footsteps of CANTOS with a less expensive, oral drug,” Dr. Tardif explained during a press briefing. “Colchicine is a known, potent anti-inflammatory drug,” and as of November 2019, the average U.S. cost of a 30-day supply of 0.6-mg capsules was $147. The colchicine formulation used in COLCOT delivered a 0.5-mg daily dose to patients, a formulation that’s not currently on the U.S. market.
“Having a safe drug that’s easily available; it will be hard to hold this one back,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chairman of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “What the guidelines will need to wrestle with is there are five drugs” already recommended to use after an MI; “is colchicine number six?” The existing guideline-directed drugs for post-MI patients include aspirin, a second antiplatelet agent, a statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, Dr. Lloyd-Jones noted. The incremental benefit from adding colchicine to background regimen was “modest, but statistically significant,” he said, and “importantly, this was not an industry-sponsored trial.” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that he has recently heard from a patient of his in the Chicago area who takes colchicine for gout that the monthly cost for the drug has risen to as high as $270. By comparison, the price in Montreal is less than $9/month, Dr. Tardif said.
COLCOT enrolled 4,745 patients at a median of about 13.5 days following an acute MI at 167 centers in 12 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was the combination of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization in a time-to-event analysis. The combined endpoint occurred in 5.5% of the patients on colchicine and 7.1% of those on placebo during a median of nearly 20 months on treatment. The adverse effects data showed generally similarly rates among patients on colchicine and in the control group, including their rates of gastrointestinal effects. The one exception was the rate of serious pneumonias, which were more than double in the colchicine recipients, a statistically significant difference.
COLCOT received no commercial support. Dr. Tardif has received honoraria from Amarin, DalCor, Sanofi, and Servier; he has an ownership interest in DalCor; and he has received research funding from Amarin, AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, Ionis, RegenxBio, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Tardif J-C et al. AHA 2019, Abstract.
PHILADELPHIA – The proof of concept shown by the CANTOS study in 2017 that an anti-inflammatory drug could cut the incidence of cardiovascular events has now been replicated in a study with more than 4,700 post-MI patients who received the much more affordable oral anti-inflammatory drug colchicine.
Daily treatment with a single, 0.5-mg/day colchicine tablet cut cardiovascular disease events by a statistically significant 23%, compared with placebo patients during nearly 20 months on treatment when colchicine was added on top of a regimen that included aspirin, a second antiplatelet drug, a statin, and in many patients a beta-blocking drug, Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Adding colchicine to the treatment of patients within 30 days of having a MI led to an absolute reduction in the study’s primary endpoint of 1.6% during a median 19.6 months on treatment. In a secondary analysis that looked at total cardiovascular events and not just first events, adding colchicine to background therapy was associated with a relative 34% decline, said Dr. Tardif, professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and director of the Research Centre at the Montreal Heart Institute. In addition to his report at the meeting, the results also appeared concurrently in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1912388).
The dramatic efficacy and overall safety shown by colchicine in COLCOT (Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial) appeared to replicate the benefit seen with the relatively expensive monoclonal antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) in CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), where a canakinumab injection every 3 months led to a 15% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular events, compared with placebo, during a median 3.7 years of follow-up in a study with just over 10,000 post-MI patients (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).
“One of the limitations of CANTOS was that canakinumab is a very expensive, injectable drug. We followed in the footsteps of CANTOS with a less expensive, oral drug,” Dr. Tardif explained during a press briefing. “Colchicine is a known, potent anti-inflammatory drug,” and as of November 2019, the average U.S. cost of a 30-day supply of 0.6-mg capsules was $147. The colchicine formulation used in COLCOT delivered a 0.5-mg daily dose to patients, a formulation that’s not currently on the U.S. market.
“Having a safe drug that’s easily available; it will be hard to hold this one back,” commented Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, professor and chairman of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “What the guidelines will need to wrestle with is there are five drugs” already recommended to use after an MI; “is colchicine number six?” The existing guideline-directed drugs for post-MI patients include aspirin, a second antiplatelet agent, a statin, a beta-blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, Dr. Lloyd-Jones noted. The incremental benefit from adding colchicine to background regimen was “modest, but statistically significant,” he said, and “importantly, this was not an industry-sponsored trial.” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that he has recently heard from a patient of his in the Chicago area who takes colchicine for gout that the monthly cost for the drug has risen to as high as $270. By comparison, the price in Montreal is less than $9/month, Dr. Tardif said.
COLCOT enrolled 4,745 patients at a median of about 13.5 days following an acute MI at 167 centers in 12 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was the combination of death from cardiovascular causes, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina leading to coronary revascularization in a time-to-event analysis. The combined endpoint occurred in 5.5% of the patients on colchicine and 7.1% of those on placebo during a median of nearly 20 months on treatment. The adverse effects data showed generally similarly rates among patients on colchicine and in the control group, including their rates of gastrointestinal effects. The one exception was the rate of serious pneumonias, which were more than double in the colchicine recipients, a statistically significant difference.
COLCOT received no commercial support. Dr. Tardif has received honoraria from Amarin, DalCor, Sanofi, and Servier; he has an ownership interest in DalCor; and he has received research funding from Amarin, AstraZeneca, DalCor, Esperion, Ionis, RegenxBio, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr. Lloyd-Jones had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Tardif J-C et al. AHA 2019, Abstract.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Women with obesity need not boost calories during pregnancy
LAS VEGAS – Contrary to current U.S. dietary recommendations for pregnancy, women with obesity should not increase their energy intake during pregnancy to achieve the current recommended level of gestational weight gain, based on findings from an intensive assessment of 54 women with obesity during weeks 13-37 of pregnancy.
To achieve the gestational weight gain of 11-20 pounds (5-9.1 kg) recommended by the Institute of Medicine, women with obesity ‒ those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater ‒ had an average energy intake during the second and third trimesters of 125 kcal/day less than their energy expenditure, Leanne M. Redman, PhD, said at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
However, women in the study who had inadequate gestational weight gain had a daily calorie deficit that was only slightly larger, an average of 262 kcal/day below their energy expenditure. As a consequence, Dr. Redman believes the take-home message from her findings is that pregnant women with obesity should maintain their prepregnancy energy intake, though she also strongly recommended improvements in diet quality.
“Chasing a 100-kcal/day deficit in intake is extremely problematic,” Dr. Redman admitted, so she suggested that women with obesity be advised simply to not increase their calorie intake during pregnancy.
“The message is: Focus on improving diet quality rather than increasing calories,” she said in an interview. Pregnant women with obesity “do not need to increase calorie intake. They need to improve their diet quality,” with increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, said Dr. Redman, a professor and director of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Women’s Health Laboratory at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge.
The results she reported represent “the first time” researchers have examined energy expenditure and weight-gain trajectories in women with obesity throughout the second and third trimesters. Until now, dietary energy recommendations for women with obesity during pregnancy were based on observations made in women without obesity.
Those observations led the Institute of Medicine to call for a recommended pregnancy weight gain of 11-20 pounds in women with obesity, as well as gains of 25-35 pounds in women with a normal body mass index of 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 (Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines; May 2009). In that 2009 document, the IOM committee said that, in general, pregnant women should add 340 kcal/day to their prepregnancy intake during the second trimester and add 452 kcal/day during the third trimester without regard to their prepregnancy body mass index, a recommendation that clinicians continued to promote in subsequent years (Med Clin North Amer. 2016;100[6]:1199-215), and that was generally affirmed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2013 and reaffirmed in 2018.*
The new evidence collected by Dr. Redman and associates “challenges current practice and argues that women with obesity should not be advised to consume additional energy during pregnancy as currently recommended,” they wrote in an article with their findings published a few days before Dr. Redman gave her talk (J Clin Invest. 2019;129[11]:4682-90).
The MomEE (Determinants of Gestational Weight Gain in Obese Pregnant Women) study enrolled 72 women with obesity during the first trimester of pregnancy and collected complete data through the end of the third trimester from 54 women. The researchers collected data on weight, body fat mass, and energy expenditure at multiple times during the second and third trimesters and calculated energy intake.
Based on body weights at the end of the third trimester, the researchers divided the 54 women into three subgroups: 10 women (19%) with inadequate weight gain by the IOM recommendations, 8 (15%) who had the IOM’s recommended weight gain of 11-20 pounds, and 36 women (67%; total is greater than 100% because of rounding) with excess weight gain, and within each group, they calculated the average level of energy intake relative to energy expenditure.
In addition to the daily calorie deficits associated with women who maintained recommended or inadequate weight, the researchers also found that women with excess weight gain averaged 186 more kcal/day than required to meet their daily energy expenditure.
The analyses showed that the increased energy demand of pregnancy and the fetus is compensated for by mobilization of the maternal fat mass in women with obesity, and that an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure is the main driver of weight gain during pregnancy. The results also highlighted how often pregnant women with obesity fail to follow a diet that results in the recommended weight gain of 11-20 pounds. In the MomEE cohort, two-thirds of enrolled women had excess weight gain.
The finding that women had the recommended weight gain on a diet that cut their daily calorie intake by about 100 kcal/day during the last two trimesters highlighted the nutritional challenge faced by women with obesity who are pregnant. “About three-quarters of women in the study had poor diet quality. There is an opportunity to improve diet with more fruits and vegetables to increase fullness, and [to reduce] energy-dense foods,” Dr. Redman said.
She is planning to collaborate on a study that will test the efficacy and safety of providing pregnant women with extreme obesity (class II-III) with defined meals to provide better control of energy intake and nutritional quality. Dr. Redman said she also hoped that the new findings she reported would be taken into account by the advisory committee assembled by the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, which are currently preparing a revision of U.S. dietary guidelines for release in 2020.
The National Institutes of Health and the Clinical Research Cores at Pennington Biomedical Research Center funded the study. Dr. Redman had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Redman LM et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract T-OR-2079.
*This article was updated 2/7/2020.
The results reported by Dr. Redman from the MomEE study showed that women with obesity need not ingest surplus calories to gain weight during pregnancy. The findings indicate that pregnant women efficiently convert a portion of their accumulated fat mass to fat-free mass in the form of the fetus, uterus, blood volume, and other tissue. A deficit of about approximately 100 kcal/day effectively kept weight gain within the 11- to 20-pound target recommended by the Institute of Medicine in 2009.
But the weight gains recommended for women with obesity may be too high. The desire of the writers of the IOM recommendation to avoid negative perinatal outcomes for infants may instead lead to negative maternal outcomes, such as preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, and need for cesarean birth. Gestational weight gains below what the IOM recommended for women with obesity may be able to serve present-day standards and work better for these pregnant women by reducing their morbidity risk. Future studies should take into careful account overall nutrient values rather than just calorie intake, as well as physical activity.
The MomEE results showed that a striking two-thirds of women with obesity gained an excess of weight during pregnancy, beyond the 2009 recommendations. This finding highlights the need to identify strategies that can prevent excessive weight gain. Furthermore, results from several studies and systematic reviews suggest that the IOM recommendation for weight gain during pregnancy is too high for women with obesity, especially those with class II-III obesity, with a body mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater. In my opinion, an appropriate weight-gain target to replace the current, blanket recommendation of 11-20 pounds gained for all women with obesity is a target of 5-15 pounds gained for women with class I obesity, less than 10 pounds for class II obesity, and no change in prepregnancy weight for women with class III obesity.
Sarah S. Comstock, PhD, is a nutrition researcher at Michigan State University, East Lansing. She is an inventor named on three patents that involve nutrition. She made these comments in an editorial that accompanied the MomEE report (J Clin Invest. 2019;129[11]:4567-9).
The results reported by Dr. Redman from the MomEE study showed that women with obesity need not ingest surplus calories to gain weight during pregnancy. The findings indicate that pregnant women efficiently convert a portion of their accumulated fat mass to fat-free mass in the form of the fetus, uterus, blood volume, and other tissue. A deficit of about approximately 100 kcal/day effectively kept weight gain within the 11- to 20-pound target recommended by the Institute of Medicine in 2009.
But the weight gains recommended for women with obesity may be too high. The desire of the writers of the IOM recommendation to avoid negative perinatal outcomes for infants may instead lead to negative maternal outcomes, such as preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, and need for cesarean birth. Gestational weight gains below what the IOM recommended for women with obesity may be able to serve present-day standards and work better for these pregnant women by reducing their morbidity risk. Future studies should take into careful account overall nutrient values rather than just calorie intake, as well as physical activity.
The MomEE results showed that a striking two-thirds of women with obesity gained an excess of weight during pregnancy, beyond the 2009 recommendations. This finding highlights the need to identify strategies that can prevent excessive weight gain. Furthermore, results from several studies and systematic reviews suggest that the IOM recommendation for weight gain during pregnancy is too high for women with obesity, especially those with class II-III obesity, with a body mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater. In my opinion, an appropriate weight-gain target to replace the current, blanket recommendation of 11-20 pounds gained for all women with obesity is a target of 5-15 pounds gained for women with class I obesity, less than 10 pounds for class II obesity, and no change in prepregnancy weight for women with class III obesity.
Sarah S. Comstock, PhD, is a nutrition researcher at Michigan State University, East Lansing. She is an inventor named on three patents that involve nutrition. She made these comments in an editorial that accompanied the MomEE report (J Clin Invest. 2019;129[11]:4567-9).
The results reported by Dr. Redman from the MomEE study showed that women with obesity need not ingest surplus calories to gain weight during pregnancy. The findings indicate that pregnant women efficiently convert a portion of their accumulated fat mass to fat-free mass in the form of the fetus, uterus, blood volume, and other tissue. A deficit of about approximately 100 kcal/day effectively kept weight gain within the 11- to 20-pound target recommended by the Institute of Medicine in 2009.
But the weight gains recommended for women with obesity may be too high. The desire of the writers of the IOM recommendation to avoid negative perinatal outcomes for infants may instead lead to negative maternal outcomes, such as preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, and need for cesarean birth. Gestational weight gains below what the IOM recommended for women with obesity may be able to serve present-day standards and work better for these pregnant women by reducing their morbidity risk. Future studies should take into careful account overall nutrient values rather than just calorie intake, as well as physical activity.
The MomEE results showed that a striking two-thirds of women with obesity gained an excess of weight during pregnancy, beyond the 2009 recommendations. This finding highlights the need to identify strategies that can prevent excessive weight gain. Furthermore, results from several studies and systematic reviews suggest that the IOM recommendation for weight gain during pregnancy is too high for women with obesity, especially those with class II-III obesity, with a body mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater. In my opinion, an appropriate weight-gain target to replace the current, blanket recommendation of 11-20 pounds gained for all women with obesity is a target of 5-15 pounds gained for women with class I obesity, less than 10 pounds for class II obesity, and no change in prepregnancy weight for women with class III obesity.
Sarah S. Comstock, PhD, is a nutrition researcher at Michigan State University, East Lansing. She is an inventor named on three patents that involve nutrition. She made these comments in an editorial that accompanied the MomEE report (J Clin Invest. 2019;129[11]:4567-9).
LAS VEGAS – Contrary to current U.S. dietary recommendations for pregnancy, women with obesity should not increase their energy intake during pregnancy to achieve the current recommended level of gestational weight gain, based on findings from an intensive assessment of 54 women with obesity during weeks 13-37 of pregnancy.
To achieve the gestational weight gain of 11-20 pounds (5-9.1 kg) recommended by the Institute of Medicine, women with obesity ‒ those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater ‒ had an average energy intake during the second and third trimesters of 125 kcal/day less than their energy expenditure, Leanne M. Redman, PhD, said at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
However, women in the study who had inadequate gestational weight gain had a daily calorie deficit that was only slightly larger, an average of 262 kcal/day below their energy expenditure. As a consequence, Dr. Redman believes the take-home message from her findings is that pregnant women with obesity should maintain their prepregnancy energy intake, though she also strongly recommended improvements in diet quality.
“Chasing a 100-kcal/day deficit in intake is extremely problematic,” Dr. Redman admitted, so she suggested that women with obesity be advised simply to not increase their calorie intake during pregnancy.
“The message is: Focus on improving diet quality rather than increasing calories,” she said in an interview. Pregnant women with obesity “do not need to increase calorie intake. They need to improve their diet quality,” with increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, said Dr. Redman, a professor and director of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Women’s Health Laboratory at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge.
The results she reported represent “the first time” researchers have examined energy expenditure and weight-gain trajectories in women with obesity throughout the second and third trimesters. Until now, dietary energy recommendations for women with obesity during pregnancy were based on observations made in women without obesity.
Those observations led the Institute of Medicine to call for a recommended pregnancy weight gain of 11-20 pounds in women with obesity, as well as gains of 25-35 pounds in women with a normal body mass index of 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 (Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines; May 2009). In that 2009 document, the IOM committee said that, in general, pregnant women should add 340 kcal/day to their prepregnancy intake during the second trimester and add 452 kcal/day during the third trimester without regard to their prepregnancy body mass index, a recommendation that clinicians continued to promote in subsequent years (Med Clin North Amer. 2016;100[6]:1199-215), and that was generally affirmed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2013 and reaffirmed in 2018.*
The new evidence collected by Dr. Redman and associates “challenges current practice and argues that women with obesity should not be advised to consume additional energy during pregnancy as currently recommended,” they wrote in an article with their findings published a few days before Dr. Redman gave her talk (J Clin Invest. 2019;129[11]:4682-90).
The MomEE (Determinants of Gestational Weight Gain in Obese Pregnant Women) study enrolled 72 women with obesity during the first trimester of pregnancy and collected complete data through the end of the third trimester from 54 women. The researchers collected data on weight, body fat mass, and energy expenditure at multiple times during the second and third trimesters and calculated energy intake.
Based on body weights at the end of the third trimester, the researchers divided the 54 women into three subgroups: 10 women (19%) with inadequate weight gain by the IOM recommendations, 8 (15%) who had the IOM’s recommended weight gain of 11-20 pounds, and 36 women (67%; total is greater than 100% because of rounding) with excess weight gain, and within each group, they calculated the average level of energy intake relative to energy expenditure.
In addition to the daily calorie deficits associated with women who maintained recommended or inadequate weight, the researchers also found that women with excess weight gain averaged 186 more kcal/day than required to meet their daily energy expenditure.
The analyses showed that the increased energy demand of pregnancy and the fetus is compensated for by mobilization of the maternal fat mass in women with obesity, and that an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure is the main driver of weight gain during pregnancy. The results also highlighted how often pregnant women with obesity fail to follow a diet that results in the recommended weight gain of 11-20 pounds. In the MomEE cohort, two-thirds of enrolled women had excess weight gain.
The finding that women had the recommended weight gain on a diet that cut their daily calorie intake by about 100 kcal/day during the last two trimesters highlighted the nutritional challenge faced by women with obesity who are pregnant. “About three-quarters of women in the study had poor diet quality. There is an opportunity to improve diet with more fruits and vegetables to increase fullness, and [to reduce] energy-dense foods,” Dr. Redman said.
She is planning to collaborate on a study that will test the efficacy and safety of providing pregnant women with extreme obesity (class II-III) with defined meals to provide better control of energy intake and nutritional quality. Dr. Redman said she also hoped that the new findings she reported would be taken into account by the advisory committee assembled by the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, which are currently preparing a revision of U.S. dietary guidelines for release in 2020.
The National Institutes of Health and the Clinical Research Cores at Pennington Biomedical Research Center funded the study. Dr. Redman had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Redman LM et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract T-OR-2079.
*This article was updated 2/7/2020.
LAS VEGAS – Contrary to current U.S. dietary recommendations for pregnancy, women with obesity should not increase their energy intake during pregnancy to achieve the current recommended level of gestational weight gain, based on findings from an intensive assessment of 54 women with obesity during weeks 13-37 of pregnancy.
To achieve the gestational weight gain of 11-20 pounds (5-9.1 kg) recommended by the Institute of Medicine, women with obesity ‒ those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater ‒ had an average energy intake during the second and third trimesters of 125 kcal/day less than their energy expenditure, Leanne M. Redman, PhD, said at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
However, women in the study who had inadequate gestational weight gain had a daily calorie deficit that was only slightly larger, an average of 262 kcal/day below their energy expenditure. As a consequence, Dr. Redman believes the take-home message from her findings is that pregnant women with obesity should maintain their prepregnancy energy intake, though she also strongly recommended improvements in diet quality.
“Chasing a 100-kcal/day deficit in intake is extremely problematic,” Dr. Redman admitted, so she suggested that women with obesity be advised simply to not increase their calorie intake during pregnancy.
“The message is: Focus on improving diet quality rather than increasing calories,” she said in an interview. Pregnant women with obesity “do not need to increase calorie intake. They need to improve their diet quality,” with increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, said Dr. Redman, a professor and director of the Reproductive Endocrinology and Women’s Health Laboratory at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge.
The results she reported represent “the first time” researchers have examined energy expenditure and weight-gain trajectories in women with obesity throughout the second and third trimesters. Until now, dietary energy recommendations for women with obesity during pregnancy were based on observations made in women without obesity.
Those observations led the Institute of Medicine to call for a recommended pregnancy weight gain of 11-20 pounds in women with obesity, as well as gains of 25-35 pounds in women with a normal body mass index of 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 (Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines; May 2009). In that 2009 document, the IOM committee said that, in general, pregnant women should add 340 kcal/day to their prepregnancy intake during the second trimester and add 452 kcal/day during the third trimester without regard to their prepregnancy body mass index, a recommendation that clinicians continued to promote in subsequent years (Med Clin North Amer. 2016;100[6]:1199-215), and that was generally affirmed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2013 and reaffirmed in 2018.*
The new evidence collected by Dr. Redman and associates “challenges current practice and argues that women with obesity should not be advised to consume additional energy during pregnancy as currently recommended,” they wrote in an article with their findings published a few days before Dr. Redman gave her talk (J Clin Invest. 2019;129[11]:4682-90).
The MomEE (Determinants of Gestational Weight Gain in Obese Pregnant Women) study enrolled 72 women with obesity during the first trimester of pregnancy and collected complete data through the end of the third trimester from 54 women. The researchers collected data on weight, body fat mass, and energy expenditure at multiple times during the second and third trimesters and calculated energy intake.
Based on body weights at the end of the third trimester, the researchers divided the 54 women into three subgroups: 10 women (19%) with inadequate weight gain by the IOM recommendations, 8 (15%) who had the IOM’s recommended weight gain of 11-20 pounds, and 36 women (67%; total is greater than 100% because of rounding) with excess weight gain, and within each group, they calculated the average level of energy intake relative to energy expenditure.
In addition to the daily calorie deficits associated with women who maintained recommended or inadequate weight, the researchers also found that women with excess weight gain averaged 186 more kcal/day than required to meet their daily energy expenditure.
The analyses showed that the increased energy demand of pregnancy and the fetus is compensated for by mobilization of the maternal fat mass in women with obesity, and that an imbalance between energy intake and expenditure is the main driver of weight gain during pregnancy. The results also highlighted how often pregnant women with obesity fail to follow a diet that results in the recommended weight gain of 11-20 pounds. In the MomEE cohort, two-thirds of enrolled women had excess weight gain.
The finding that women had the recommended weight gain on a diet that cut their daily calorie intake by about 100 kcal/day during the last two trimesters highlighted the nutritional challenge faced by women with obesity who are pregnant. “About three-quarters of women in the study had poor diet quality. There is an opportunity to improve diet with more fruits and vegetables to increase fullness, and [to reduce] energy-dense foods,” Dr. Redman said.
She is planning to collaborate on a study that will test the efficacy and safety of providing pregnant women with extreme obesity (class II-III) with defined meals to provide better control of energy intake and nutritional quality. Dr. Redman said she also hoped that the new findings she reported would be taken into account by the advisory committee assembled by the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, which are currently preparing a revision of U.S. dietary guidelines for release in 2020.
The National Institutes of Health and the Clinical Research Cores at Pennington Biomedical Research Center funded the study. Dr. Redman had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Redman LM et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract T-OR-2079.
*This article was updated 2/7/2020.
REPORTING FROM OBESITY WEEK 2019
Evidence builds for AFib ablation’s efficacy in heart failure
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
Roughly a third of patients with heart failure also have atrial fibrillation, a comorbid combination notorious for working synergistically to worsen a patient’s quality of life and life expectancy.
During the past year, radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with both conditions has gathered steam as a way to intervene in at least selected patients, driven by study results that featured attention-grabbing reductions in death and cardiovascular hospitalizations.
The evidence favoring catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure, particularly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ramped up in 2019, spurred largely by a subgroup analysis from the CABANA trial, the largest randomized comparison by far of AFib ablation with antiarrhythmic drug treatment with 2,204 patients.
The past few months also featured release of two meta-analyses that took the CABANA results into account plus findings from about a dozen earlier randomized studies. Both meta-analyses, as well as the heart failure analysis from CABANA, all point in one direction, as stated in the conclusion of one of the meta-analyses: “In patients with AFib, catheter ablation is associated with all-cause mortality benefit, compared with medical therapy, that is driven by patients with AFib and HFrEF. Catheter ablation is safe and reduces cardiovascular hospitalizations and recurrences of atrial arrhythmias” both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AFib,” wrote Stavros Stavrakis, MD, and his associates in their systematic review of 18 randomized, controlled trials of catheter ablation of AFib in a total of 4,464 patients with or without heart failure (Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;12[9]: e007414).
Despite these new data and analyses, clinicians seem to have very mixed reactions. Some call for an upgraded recommendation by professional societies that would support more aggressive use of AFib ablation in heart failure patients, and the anecdotal impressions of people who manage these patients are that ablation procedures have recently increased. But others advise caution, and note that in their opinion the efficacy data remain preliminary; the procedure has safety, logistical, and economic concerns; and questions remain about the ability of all active ablation programs to consistently deliver the results seen in published trials.
The meta-analysis led by Dr. Stavrakis showed that catheter ablation of AFib cut all-cause mortality during follow-up by a statistically significant 31%, compared with medical therapy, in all patients regardless of their heart failure status. But in patients with HFrEF, the reduction was 48%, along with a 38% cut in cardiovascular hospitalizations. In contrast, patients without heart failure who underwent AFib ablation showed no significant change in their all-cause mortality, compared with medical management of these patients.
“Based both on our meta-analysis and the CABANA data, patients with AFib most likely to benefit from ablation are patients younger than 65 and those with heart failure,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Heart Rhythm Institute of the University of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City.
The second meta-analysis, which initially appeared in July, analyzed data from 11 randomized trials of catheter ablations compared with anti-arrhythmic medical therapy for rate or rhythm control with in a total of 3,598 patients who all had heart failure, again including the patients enrolled in the CABANA study. The results showed a significant 49% relative drop in all cause mortality with ablation compared with medical treatment, and a statistically significant 56% cut in hospitalizations, as well as a significant, nearly 7% average, absolute improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, plus benefits for preventing arrhythmia recurrence and improving quality of life (Eur Heart J. 2019 Jul 11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz443).
“The magnitude of the effect seen in the meta-analysis, a 49% reduction in total mortality and a 56% reduction in hospitalizations, is rather staggering, and is larger than typically quoted for other medical interventions or device therapy in heart failure. The treatment effect was uniform among studies, and entirely compatible with the changes in left ventricular function, exercise capacity, and heart failure symptoms. Therefore, although more data are desirable, there are already arguably sufficient data to understand a great deal regarding the impact of a fib ablation,” commented Ross J. Hunter, MRCP, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Barts Heart Centre in London, and his associates in an editorial about this meta-analysis (Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 22. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz704).
The heart failure analysis of CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs. Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) itself also showed striking findings when first reported at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society last May. In presentations he made at this meeting, Douglas L. Packer, MD, CABANA’s lead investigator, reported details of a prespecified subgroup analysis of the 778 patients enrolled in CABANA who had heart failure at baseline, slightly more than a third of the total study enrollment. This was more than double the number of patients identified as specifically having heart failure at entry in the initial publication of CABANA’s findings (JAMA. 2019 Mar 15;321[134]:1261-74). Comparison of the 378 patients with heart failure and randomized to undergo ablation with the 400 with heart failure randomized to medical treatment showed a 36% reduction in the study’s primary, composite endpoint relative to the control group in an intention-to-treat analysis, and a 43% relative cut in all-cause mortality during follow-up, Dr. Packer reported at the May meeting. (As of early November 2019, these results had not yet appeared in a published article.) In contrast, in the 1,422 CABANA patients randomized who did not have heart failure, ablation produced results for these endpoints that were similar to and not statistically different from the outcomes in patients treated medically, said Dr. Packer, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The CABANA results added to what had been previously reported from two other landmark studies that documented incremental efficacy of AFib ablation compared with medical treatment in patients with heart failure: The AATAC (Ablation vs Amiodarone for Treatment of AFib in Patients With Congestive HF and an Implanted Device) study, which randomized 203 patients (Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133[17]:1637-44), and CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Therapy in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Atrial Fibrillation) trial, which randomized 363 patients (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). These three studies contributed the most patients and outcomes to the two recent meta-analyses.
“The CASTLE-AF and AATAC trials both showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with ablation in patients with heart failure and AFib. The meta-analysis [by Dr. Stavrakis and his associates] and CABANA subgroup analysis further support use of catheter ablation to improve the outcomes in these patients,” noted Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and a CABANA coinvestigator.
“The CABANA trial was very important because it confirmed the safety of catheter ablation, and more importantly suggested that patients with heart failure may benefit the most [from AFib ablation]. The evidence is very strong to advocate ablation as first-line therapy for selected patients with heart failure. Perhaps the optimal patients are those with [New York Heart Association] class I-III or ambulatory class IV heart failure who are on optimized, guideline-directed medical therapy. We have enough data to make this a class I recommendation. The question that remains is whether this is a cost effective strategy. Because it lowers rehospitalization and death, I suspect it is,” said Luigi Di Biase, MD, lead investigator of AATAC, and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York.
Opinions differ on AFib ablation’s role
Despite this expansive assessment of the current status of AFib ablation for patients with heart failure from Dr. Di Biase and shared by others, another camp of cardiologists currently sees ablation as having more limited current utility, as recommended earlier this year by a guideline-update panel representing the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The guideline update included this new recommendation for how to use AFib ablation in heart failure patients: “AF catheter ablation may be reasonable in selected patients with symptomatic AFib and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction to potentially lower mortality rate and reduce hospitalization for heart failure,” a class IIb recommendation. (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74[1]:104-32). The guideline’s text cited the findings from AATAC and CASTLE-AF, but qualified both studies as “relatively small” and with “highly selected patient populations.” The guideline also incorporated the CABANA results into its considerations (although they may not have had the full analysis in heart failure patients available during their deliberations), but cited the study’s main limitation: CABANA failed to show a statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint in its primary, intention-to-treat analysis, which meant that by the strict statistical criteria that trialists apply to study findings, all other endpoints analyzed using CABANA’s are merely “hypothesis generating” and not definitive.
Questions about the extent of patient selection required to see a clear clinical-endpoint benefit from AFib ablation in heart failure patients, as well as the flawed validity of the CABANA results for making unqualified practice recommendation are the main arguments advanced by experts who caution against broader and more routine ablations.
“The findings from the heart failure subgroup of CABANA are hypothesis generating rather than definitive. Even with the recent meta-analysis, uncertainty remains regarding the ability of catheter ablation to improve outcomes beyond reducing AFib-related symptoms,” commented Gregg Fonarow, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“CASTLE-HF had fewer than 100 deaths combined in both arms, which means very unstable results. We don’t know a lot of detail about the heart failure patients in CABANA, and overall we do not have much data from patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF],” said Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure physician and professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson. Dr. Butler also voiced his concerns (shared by other heart failure specialists) about the safety of ablation in heart failure patients, noting that “many patients require multiple ablations; many burns result in scarring and can worsen atrial function. In short, ablation of AFib is probably good for selected patients, but to have a class 1 recommendation, we need much larger trials with well-phenotyped heart failure patients,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
“The totality of data still captures a relatively small number of patients. CASTLE-HF took 8 years to enroll fewer than 400 patients, and the results showed some heterogeneity. Study patients were a decade younger than average HFrEF patients in the community, and thus the effectiveness and safety of catheter ablation in people with more comorbidity and frailty remains in question. Certain HFrEF patients may be less likely to benefit, such as those with amyloid cardiomyopathy. And with the increasing availability of other treatments for HFrEF such as sacubitril/valsartan, dapagliflozin, and MitraClip, it is less clear how catheter ablation would [benefit patients] on top of what is now current best therapy,” said Larry Allen, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora.
“With these limitations and the fact that catheter ablation is not a simple procedure, a large randomized, controlled trial of ablation, compared with no ablation, in a wide range of HFrEF patients on contemporary therapy would be welcome,” Dr. Allen said. “Given the prevalence of heart failure and AFib and the potential positive and negative implications of catheter ablation running such a trial seems critical for patients and for society.”
“For ablation of AFib in heart failure to become a class I recommendation there will need to be results from larger randomized studies,” summed up Dr. Stavrakis. The meta-analysis that he coauthored noted that “the benefits of catheter ablation for AFib in HFrEF patients have been consistently shown for over a decade now; however, the uptake of this procedure by clinicians in practice has been slow.”
Despite this history of reticence and ongoing caution about ablation, some cardiology experts see the indications for AFib ablation in heart failure steadily creeping forward, buoyed by a safety record that has more benign than ablation’s reputation suggests.
The CABANA results showed that “ablation is remarkably safe in the hands of experienced clinicians, with risks comparable to anti-arrhythmic drugs,” said Peter R. Kowey, MD, a specialist in treating AFib and professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who made this assessment during a talk at an AFib meeting in early 2019. Dr. Kowey’s take on what the CABANA safety data showed contrasts with the impression of other cardiologists who are wary of perceived dangers from ablation.
“Ablation comes with a lot of morbidity and mortality. It’s not that the idea of ablation is wrong, but the ability to do it without a lot of adverse effects. ... We’re not quite there yet,” said Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine and chief of the cardiovascular division at Washington University in St. Louis.
“If I had a patient with HFrEF and AFib who was really sick, I’m not so sure I’d send them for ablation, which is not a simple procedure. The patients we tend to send for ablation are selected. Ablation is a big undertaking in patients who are already sick, and it’s expensive. I don’t think the data we have now will change the consensus view, but every heart failure physician is sending some patients for AFib ablation. People are turning to AFib ablation earlier than before. I think the consensus is that ablation is for symptoms or poor rate control, not for better outcomes,” said Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure specialist and chief science and medical officer of the American Heart Association in Dallas.
However, this caution about safety and skepticism over efficacy may be dissipating as experience with ablation accumulates.
“CASTLE-AF and other data, including evidence for the apparent isolation of beta-blocker benefit to patients in sinus rhythm, have made me much more proactive about considering catheter ablation in my HFrEF patients. I think many other cardiologists have a similar view,” said Dr. Allen in an interview.
“A lot [of heart failure] patients are [being] referred for ablation, depending on the practice, setting, the local availability of electrophysiologists, and patient interest in ablation,” said Dr. Butler.
“We have no absolutely compelling data, but the data we have all point in the same direction. Like most, I am becoming convinced that AFib ablation in heart failure patients is a very valuable method for managing patients, but I can’t point to one study that was conclusive. Results from lots of studies show that it is likely, and when you add them all together it looks indisputable,” commented A. John Camm, MD, an atrial fibrillation specialist and professor of clinical cardiology at St. George’s University in London. “The findings put a responsibility on cardiologists to assess patients with heart failure for AFib. But there are nothing like enough resources to deal with all the patients who have heart failure who also have AFib.”
A rough estimate of just the U.S. volume of patients with heart failure and AFib is likely in the ball park of 2 million people (a third of the estimated 6 million American currently living with heart failure), and with the prevalence of each of these disorders rising precipitously (more than 5 million Americans have AFib) the confluence of the two should also show a steady increase. “It will take a major change in our concept of heart failure management to really address this. Potentially it would mean a large increase in the number of RF ablations of AFib, but the resources for that are not now present,” Dr. Camm said in an interview.
The attractions of catheter ablation also stand in contrast to the limitations of alternative treatments. Ablation is effective in a majority of patients for reducing AFib burden, both the frequency and duration of AFib episodes, and safety issues are mostly limited to the procedural and immediate postprocedural periods. The drugs available for trying to control AFib are beta-blockers, which provide rate control and can help prevent AFib onset, and rhythm-controlling anti-arrhythmic drugs like amiodarone, which have substantial limitations in both their ability to prevent arrhythmia recurrences as well as for safety.
“Most of the conventional antiarrhythmic drugs are contraindicated, frequently ineffective, or not well tolerated in patients with HFrEF. Catheter ablation of AFib provides an increasingly important option for rhythm control in these patients without using antiarrhythmic drugs,” Dr. Di Biase and his associates wrote in a recent review of AFib ablation in heart failure patients (Eur Heart J. 2019 Feb 21;40[8]:663-71).
“The guidelines that are controversial still make amiodarone a class I drug even though it’s been associated with serious side effects and has been shown in several heart failure trials to increase mortality. I can’t believe that ablation is a class IIb recommendation while a drug like amiodarone is a class I recommendation,” Dr. Di Biase said.
And although beta-blockers are a mainstay of heart failure treatment, once AFib becomes established they are less useful for maintaining sinus rhythm. “Beta-blockers provide effective rate control, but they can’t convert patients to sinus rhythm [once AFib begins], and there is no convincing evidence that patients on beta-blockers stay in sinus rhythm longer. You can’t just say: the patient is on a beta-blocker so I’ve done my best,” noted Dr. Jessup.
CABANA received funding from Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Stavrakis, Dr, Jessup, and Dr. Di Biase. Dr. Hunter has received research funding, educational grants, and speakers fees from Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Packer had received honoraria from Biotronik and MediaSphere Medical and research support from several companies. Dr. Piccini has been a consultant to Allergan, Biotronik, Medtronic, Phillips, and Sanofi Aventis, he has received research funding from Abbott, ARCA biopharma, Boston Scientific, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson, and he had a financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Novartis. Dr. Kowey has been a consultant to several companies. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, and Novartis, and an adviser to miRagen. Dr. Camm has been a consultant to several companies.
This is part one of a two-part article.
FDA panel supports Vascepa expanded indication for CVD reduction
Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.
REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.
But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.
Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.
Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.
Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.
Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.
However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.
Clinician reaction
Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.
The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.
“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”
Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.
But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.
Cost-effectiveness
An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.
Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.
Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.
“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.
Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.
Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.
REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.
But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.
Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.
Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.
Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.
Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.
However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.
Clinician reaction
Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.
The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.
“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”
Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.
But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.
Cost-effectiveness
An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.
Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.
Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.
“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.
Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.
Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.
Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.
The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.
REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).
Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.
But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.
Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.
Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.
Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.
Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.
However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.
Clinician reaction
Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.
The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.
“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”
Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.
But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.
Cost-effectiveness
An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.
Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.
Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.
“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.
Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.
ATTEST: AFib ablation slows progression to persistence
PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.
The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.
ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.
The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).
The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.
Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.
ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.
The ATTEST design and results are important because the study’s findings provide a good complement to the previously reported outcomes from the CASTLE-AF study, which randomized 363 patients with mostly persistent AFib (and heart failure) to catheter ablation of the AFib or medical management. The CASTLE-HF results showed that ablation was much more effective for reducing death from any cause and heart failure hospitalizations (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). In other words, catheter ablation was the superior treatment for persistent AFib, the type of AFib diagnosed in about two-thirds of the patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.
Thorsten Lewalter, MD, an arrhythmia specialist and professor at Peter Osypka Heart Center in Munich, made these comments in an interview. He has received personal fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.
The ATTEST design and results are important because the study’s findings provide a good complement to the previously reported outcomes from the CASTLE-AF study, which randomized 363 patients with mostly persistent AFib (and heart failure) to catheter ablation of the AFib or medical management. The CASTLE-HF results showed that ablation was much more effective for reducing death from any cause and heart failure hospitalizations (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). In other words, catheter ablation was the superior treatment for persistent AFib, the type of AFib diagnosed in about two-thirds of the patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.
Thorsten Lewalter, MD, an arrhythmia specialist and professor at Peter Osypka Heart Center in Munich, made these comments in an interview. He has received personal fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.
The ATTEST design and results are important because the study’s findings provide a good complement to the previously reported outcomes from the CASTLE-AF study, which randomized 363 patients with mostly persistent AFib (and heart failure) to catheter ablation of the AFib or medical management. The CASTLE-HF results showed that ablation was much more effective for reducing death from any cause and heart failure hospitalizations (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27). In other words, catheter ablation was the superior treatment for persistent AFib, the type of AFib diagnosed in about two-thirds of the patients enrolled in CASTLE-AF.
Thorsten Lewalter, MD, an arrhythmia specialist and professor at Peter Osypka Heart Center in Munich, made these comments in an interview. He has received personal fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.
PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.
The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.
ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.
The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).
The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.
Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.
ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.
PARIS – Radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is not only a more definitive rhythm control treatment than antiarrhythmic drugs, but it’s also much more effective at slowing progression of AFib from paroxysmal to persistent, according to results from a randomized trial in 255 patients.
The multicenter study, ATTEST, randomized patients with paroxysmal AFib to radiofrequency catheter ablation or medical management and found that, during up to 3 years of follow-up, ablation cut the incidence of progression to persistent AFib by 89%, compared with medically managed patients, a statistically significant difference that documented a previously unappreciated benefit of catheter ablation: the ability to slow AFib progression, Karl-Heinz Kuck, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“This was never looked at before.” Assessing progression to persistent AFib is “a new endpoint for ablation” and an important one because progression from paroxysmal to persistent AFib has been associated with increased mortality, increased strokes, and increased hospitalizations,” said Dr. Kuck, a professor and cardiologist at the Asklepios Clinic St. Georg in Hamburg, Germany. If the findings are confirmed, “it may introduce a new indication for catheter ablation” in patients with paroxysmal AFib, Dr. Kuck said in an interview.
ATTEST (Atrial Fibrillation Progression Trial) enrolled patients at 30 sites worldwide who were at least 60 years old, had been diagnosed with paroxysmal AFib for at least 2 years, had at least two AFib episodes within 6 months of enrollment, and had not fully responded to one or two rhythm- or rate-control drugs. The 255 patients enrolled averaged 68 years of age, 58% were women, their median duration of AFib was slightly greater than 4 years, and on average patients had six to seven episodes during the prior 6 months. Enrollment into the study stopped sooner than planned because of slow recruitment, which topped out at 79% of the goal. Enrolled patients underwent weekly screening by transtelephonic monitoring for an AFib episode of at least 30 seconds during 3-9 months after entry, and then they had monthly screening. Patients positive for AFib on screening underwent a week of daily transtelephonic monitoring to determine whether their AFib persisted. The study’s primary endpoint was development of an AFib episode that lasted at least 7 days or for at least 2 days followed by cardioversion, which the investigators defined as persistent AFib.
The results showed that after 1 year development of persistent AFib occurred in 1% of the 128 patients assigned to receive ablation (102 actually underwent ablation) and in 7% of 127 patients assigned to drug management, with 123 patients who followed the treatment protocol. After 2 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of progression to persistent AFib was 2% after ablation and 12% with medical treatment, and after 3 years, the respective rates of progression were 2% and 18%. The between-group differences were statistically significant at all three follow-up intervals, Dr. Kuck reported. Analysis of only patients who followed their assigned protocol showed similar results, as did an analysis that used the definition of persistent AFib advanced by the Heart Rhythm Society in 2017 (Heart Rhythm. 2017 Oct;14[10]:e275-e444).
The advantage of ablation for deferring progression was consistent in all subgroups analyzed, with no signal of interaction by age, sex, or other subgroup definitions. The rate of serious adverse events was “low,” occurring in 12% of the ablated patients and in 5% of controls. The need for two or more ablations was also “low,” Dr Kuck said, with 17% of patients requiring a second procedure. The results additionally showed that ablation also led to a lower rate of any AFib recurrence, regardless of whether or not it met the definition of persistent AFib. Any AFib recurrence occurred in 57% of the ablated patients and in 85% of those managed medically during 3 years of follow-up, a statistically significant difference.
Although the mechanism by which ablation slowed AFib progression is not known, Dr. Kuck suggested that it may relate to a reduction in the frequency and duration of AFib recurrences. “I believe that AFib burden is the key. If AFib episodes last a few days, then the likelihood of progressing to episodes that last 7 days is much higher than when an episode only lasts a few minutes,” he explained. “We’re opening a new perspective that looks beyond managing AFib symptoms” using ablation.
ATTEST was funded by Biosense Webster, a company that markets catheter ablation devices. Dr. Kuck has been a consultant to Biosense Webster, as well as to Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC 2019 CONGRESS
Bariatric surgery as safe in adolescents as it is in adults
LAS VEGAS – Bariatric surgery in adolescents was about as safe as it was in adults in the largest U.S. database assembled so far for the procedure in this younger age group.
The data from 1,983 patients aged 10-19 years who underwent bariatric surgery at an accredited U.S. center also showed, not unexpectedly, that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was significantly safer during the perioperative and immediate postoperative periods, compared with the other main surgical option, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.
The incidence of serious adverse events that occurred in adolescents either during surgery or in the 30 days after surgery was 2.9% in the 1,552 patients (78%) who underwent sleeve gastrectomy and 6.5% in the 431 (22%) patients who underwent gastric bypass, Keith J. King, MD, said at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Despite this safety disparity, “the decision to undergo sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass should be individualized to account for other factors, such as excess weight loss and long-term success,” said Dr. King, a bariatric surgeon at St. Luke’s Hospital, Allentown, Pa. But he acknowledged that having these recent safety data from a relatively large number of adolescents will help families that are trying to decide on treatment for their child.
The data came from records kept by the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, begun in 2012 by the American College of Surgeons and the American Society for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, and a registry for every bariatric surgical procedure done at an accredited U.S. program. The database encompassed 840 surgical programs in 2019.
The incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications in the adolescent patients during the first 30 days after surgery was not statistically significant for any measured safety parameter, compared with 353,726 adults (at least 20 years old) enrolled in the same database during 2015-2017, except for the average duration of surgery, which was 8 minutes shorter in adolescents, Dr. King reported. The data showed that adolescents and adults had roughly similar rates of serious adverse events, organ space infections, and need for reoperation, intervention, or hospital readmission. The way in which clinicians applied bariatric surgery to adolescents also seemed similar to their use of the surgery in adults. The average body mass index of adult patients was about 45 kg/m2, and about 48 kg/m2 in adolescents, and in both age groups, nearly 80% of patients were women or girls.
In contrast, the comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass surgery in adolescents showed several statistically significant differences in safety and procedural characteristics. In addition to a more than twofold difference in the incidence of serious adverse events that favored the sleeve, the data also showed a twofold difference in the need for reoperation, 1% with the sleeve and 2% with bypass; and a threefold difference in the need for at least one intervention during 30-day follow-up, 1% in the sleeve recipients and 3% in those treated with gastric bypass. Patients required at least one hospital readmission within 30 days in 3% of the sleeve cases and in 6% of the bypass cases. Average hospital length of stay was 2 days in both groups.
An efficacy review from a different, large, U.S. database that included 544 adolescents who underwent bariatric surgery during 2005-2015 showed that at 3 years after surgery, average reductions in body mass index were 29% for patients who underwent gastric bypass and 25% in those treated with sleeve gastrectomy (Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14[9]:1374-86).
The study received no commercial support. Dr. King had no disclosures.
SOURCE: El Chaar M et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract A138.
The comparison of safety outcomes between sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appears to favor using sleeves. In obese adolescents the most common complications we see are nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea, and prior reports have documented that both often improve following sleeve gastrectomy. That fact, plus these new safety findings, may help push the field toward greater sleeve use in adolescents, although the data also show that sleeve gastrectomy is already used in nearly four-fifths of adolescent cases.
Corrigan McBride, MD, is a professor of surgery and director of bariatric surgery at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The comparison of safety outcomes between sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appears to favor using sleeves. In obese adolescents the most common complications we see are nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea, and prior reports have documented that both often improve following sleeve gastrectomy. That fact, plus these new safety findings, may help push the field toward greater sleeve use in adolescents, although the data also show that sleeve gastrectomy is already used in nearly four-fifths of adolescent cases.
Corrigan McBride, MD, is a professor of surgery and director of bariatric surgery at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
The comparison of safety outcomes between sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass appears to favor using sleeves. In obese adolescents the most common complications we see are nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and obstructive sleep apnea, and prior reports have documented that both often improve following sleeve gastrectomy. That fact, plus these new safety findings, may help push the field toward greater sleeve use in adolescents, although the data also show that sleeve gastrectomy is already used in nearly four-fifths of adolescent cases.
Corrigan McBride, MD, is a professor of surgery and director of bariatric surgery at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. She had no disclosures. She made these comments in an interview.
LAS VEGAS – Bariatric surgery in adolescents was about as safe as it was in adults in the largest U.S. database assembled so far for the procedure in this younger age group.
The data from 1,983 patients aged 10-19 years who underwent bariatric surgery at an accredited U.S. center also showed, not unexpectedly, that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was significantly safer during the perioperative and immediate postoperative periods, compared with the other main surgical option, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.
The incidence of serious adverse events that occurred in adolescents either during surgery or in the 30 days after surgery was 2.9% in the 1,552 patients (78%) who underwent sleeve gastrectomy and 6.5% in the 431 (22%) patients who underwent gastric bypass, Keith J. King, MD, said at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Despite this safety disparity, “the decision to undergo sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass should be individualized to account for other factors, such as excess weight loss and long-term success,” said Dr. King, a bariatric surgeon at St. Luke’s Hospital, Allentown, Pa. But he acknowledged that having these recent safety data from a relatively large number of adolescents will help families that are trying to decide on treatment for their child.
The data came from records kept by the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, begun in 2012 by the American College of Surgeons and the American Society for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, and a registry for every bariatric surgical procedure done at an accredited U.S. program. The database encompassed 840 surgical programs in 2019.
The incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications in the adolescent patients during the first 30 days after surgery was not statistically significant for any measured safety parameter, compared with 353,726 adults (at least 20 years old) enrolled in the same database during 2015-2017, except for the average duration of surgery, which was 8 minutes shorter in adolescents, Dr. King reported. The data showed that adolescents and adults had roughly similar rates of serious adverse events, organ space infections, and need for reoperation, intervention, or hospital readmission. The way in which clinicians applied bariatric surgery to adolescents also seemed similar to their use of the surgery in adults. The average body mass index of adult patients was about 45 kg/m2, and about 48 kg/m2 in adolescents, and in both age groups, nearly 80% of patients were women or girls.
In contrast, the comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass surgery in adolescents showed several statistically significant differences in safety and procedural characteristics. In addition to a more than twofold difference in the incidence of serious adverse events that favored the sleeve, the data also showed a twofold difference in the need for reoperation, 1% with the sleeve and 2% with bypass; and a threefold difference in the need for at least one intervention during 30-day follow-up, 1% in the sleeve recipients and 3% in those treated with gastric bypass. Patients required at least one hospital readmission within 30 days in 3% of the sleeve cases and in 6% of the bypass cases. Average hospital length of stay was 2 days in both groups.
An efficacy review from a different, large, U.S. database that included 544 adolescents who underwent bariatric surgery during 2005-2015 showed that at 3 years after surgery, average reductions in body mass index were 29% for patients who underwent gastric bypass and 25% in those treated with sleeve gastrectomy (Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14[9]:1374-86).
The study received no commercial support. Dr. King had no disclosures.
SOURCE: El Chaar M et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract A138.
LAS VEGAS – Bariatric surgery in adolescents was about as safe as it was in adults in the largest U.S. database assembled so far for the procedure in this younger age group.
The data from 1,983 patients aged 10-19 years who underwent bariatric surgery at an accredited U.S. center also showed, not unexpectedly, that laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy was significantly safer during the perioperative and immediate postoperative periods, compared with the other main surgical option, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.
The incidence of serious adverse events that occurred in adolescents either during surgery or in the 30 days after surgery was 2.9% in the 1,552 patients (78%) who underwent sleeve gastrectomy and 6.5% in the 431 (22%) patients who underwent gastric bypass, Keith J. King, MD, said at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Despite this safety disparity, “the decision to undergo sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass should be individualized to account for other factors, such as excess weight loss and long-term success,” said Dr. King, a bariatric surgeon at St. Luke’s Hospital, Allentown, Pa. But he acknowledged that having these recent safety data from a relatively large number of adolescents will help families that are trying to decide on treatment for their child.
The data came from records kept by the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, begun in 2012 by the American College of Surgeons and the American Society for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery, and a registry for every bariatric surgical procedure done at an accredited U.S. program. The database encompassed 840 surgical programs in 2019.
The incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications in the adolescent patients during the first 30 days after surgery was not statistically significant for any measured safety parameter, compared with 353,726 adults (at least 20 years old) enrolled in the same database during 2015-2017, except for the average duration of surgery, which was 8 minutes shorter in adolescents, Dr. King reported. The data showed that adolescents and adults had roughly similar rates of serious adverse events, organ space infections, and need for reoperation, intervention, or hospital readmission. The way in which clinicians applied bariatric surgery to adolescents also seemed similar to their use of the surgery in adults. The average body mass index of adult patients was about 45 kg/m2, and about 48 kg/m2 in adolescents, and in both age groups, nearly 80% of patients were women or girls.
In contrast, the comparison of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass surgery in adolescents showed several statistically significant differences in safety and procedural characteristics. In addition to a more than twofold difference in the incidence of serious adverse events that favored the sleeve, the data also showed a twofold difference in the need for reoperation, 1% with the sleeve and 2% with bypass; and a threefold difference in the need for at least one intervention during 30-day follow-up, 1% in the sleeve recipients and 3% in those treated with gastric bypass. Patients required at least one hospital readmission within 30 days in 3% of the sleeve cases and in 6% of the bypass cases. Average hospital length of stay was 2 days in both groups.
An efficacy review from a different, large, U.S. database that included 544 adolescents who underwent bariatric surgery during 2005-2015 showed that at 3 years after surgery, average reductions in body mass index were 29% for patients who underwent gastric bypass and 25% in those treated with sleeve gastrectomy (Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018;14[9]:1374-86).
The study received no commercial support. Dr. King had no disclosures.
SOURCE: El Chaar M et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract A138.
REPORTING FROM OBESITY WEEK 2019
Bariatric surgery shows metabolic benefits in lower-BMI patients
LAS VEGAS – It’s time to take bariatric out of bariatric surgery.
“The way forward is to not call it bariatric surgery or weight-loss surgery but surgery to treat diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and other metabolic diseases,” said Oliver A. Varban, MD, at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. “We need to reframe the conversation with patients about what success [with bariatric surgery] looks like. Weight loss can be a side effect of the operation if patients have surgery to resolve their diabetes. It’s not about BMI; it’s about treating metabolic disease.”
Dr. Varban, a bariatric surgeon at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, reported data showing that bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with baseline body mass index (BMI) levels below 35 kg/m2 was as effective at normalizing a range of metabolically associated disorders as it was in more obese patients in an observational study of more than 45,000 patients who underwent surgery in Michigan.
The findings add to an already extensive pool of evidence for loosening current guidelines that restrict bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of 35 kg/m2 or greater, Dr. Varban said. But an influential bariatric surgery consensus statement from the National Institutes of Health that dates from 1991 and remains in place, recommends this surgery only for people with a BMI of at least 35 kg/m2, and this guidance often limits access to the surgery for patients at lower BMI, he noted.
A more inclusive assessment of patients as potential candidates for bariatric surgery should include a range of considerations in addition to weight and height, he explained in an interview. “Even if people have a BMI of less than 30 kg/m2 but have, or are at high risk for developing, metabolic disease, they should also be offered the operation.”
The guidance from the NIH results in a U.S. bariatric surgery population that effectively centers mainly on women with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater and makes procedures like sleeve gastrectomy unavailable to many other types of patients who could benefit from it, Dr. Varban said. In 2018, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery released a position statement that summarized the evidence for the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in people with a BMI of 30-34 kg/m2, and cited the lingering and restrictive impact of the 1991 NIH consensus statement.
The study run by Dr. Varban and his associates used data collected by 43 programs in the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative during 2006-2018 that included 1,073 patients who had a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 on the day they underwent sleeve gastrectomy, and 44,511 patients who had the same procedure and had a BMI of at least 35 kg/m2. The operations were performed by any one of 81 surgeons who worked at the centers during this time.
The patients with lower BMIs were older, with an average age of 51 years, compared with 45 years in the higher-BMI group, and they had higher prevalences of certain metabolic disorders. Diabetes affected 37% of those in the lower-BMI group and 31% of those with higher BMIs; hyperlipidemia affected 57% and 45%, respectively; and gastroesophageal reflux disease affected 56% and 49%, respectively. Obstructive sleep apnea was more common in the group with higher BMIs, at 47%, compared with 41% of those with lower BMIs.
The average BMI in the lower group was 33.7 kg/m2; in the higher group it was 46.7 kg/m2. Dr. Varban did not have data on whether any patients in the lower-BMI group had a BMI below 30 kg/m2. Roughly a third of the patients in the lower-BMI group had a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 at the time of their initial examination, whereas the other two-thirds had a BMI that low only on the day of their surgery.At follow-up 1 year after their surgery, patients who started with lower BMIs had, in general, a very similar pattern of responses as those who started with higher BMIs, with rates of discontinuation of treatments for diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, and gastroesophageal reflux of about 50%-80% and similar in both treatment arms. For example, discontinuation of oral diabetes drugs occurred in 79% and 78% of those with low and high BMIs, respectively, and discontinuation of hypertension medications occurred in 60% and 54%, respectively. Although the average absolute weight loss in the patients with lower BMIs was nearly half that of patients with higher starting BMIs, a much greater percentage of patients in the lower-BMI group achieved a BMI of less than 25 kg/m2, compared with the higher-BMI group (36% vs. 6%, respectively).
Patients from the lower-BMI group also showed high levels of satisfaction with their surgery and its results after 1 year. Questionnaire results from roughly half the patients in each treatment group showed that 90% were very satisfied in the lower-BMI group, compared with 84% of those who began with higher BMIs, with a dissatisfaction rate of 1% and 2%, respectively. The average body-image score at 1 year follow-up was significantly higher in those who started with lower BMIs. The rate of complications was low and similar in the two groups, with a 6% rate in the lower-BMI group and 5% in those with higher BMIs.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Varban receives salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
SOURCE: Varban et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract A105.
This article was updated 11/8/2020.
This is a very important topic and study, and its findings are very positive and reinforcing for more liberal use of bariatric surgery. Results from several prior studies had documented the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in patients with lower body mass index, and its fantastic to now have additional data that show the same outcomes. A major challenge is making patients and more physicians aware of the range of comorbidities that can be effectively managed with bariatric surgery, even in patients with lower body mass index.
Mona Misra, MD, is associate director of the Bariatric Program at Cedars-Sinai Marina Del Rey Hospital in Los Angeles. She had no relevant disclosures. She made these comments as designated discussant for the study.
This is a very important topic and study, and its findings are very positive and reinforcing for more liberal use of bariatric surgery. Results from several prior studies had documented the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in patients with lower body mass index, and its fantastic to now have additional data that show the same outcomes. A major challenge is making patients and more physicians aware of the range of comorbidities that can be effectively managed with bariatric surgery, even in patients with lower body mass index.
Mona Misra, MD, is associate director of the Bariatric Program at Cedars-Sinai Marina Del Rey Hospital in Los Angeles. She had no relevant disclosures. She made these comments as designated discussant for the study.
This is a very important topic and study, and its findings are very positive and reinforcing for more liberal use of bariatric surgery. Results from several prior studies had documented the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in patients with lower body mass index, and its fantastic to now have additional data that show the same outcomes. A major challenge is making patients and more physicians aware of the range of comorbidities that can be effectively managed with bariatric surgery, even in patients with lower body mass index.
Mona Misra, MD, is associate director of the Bariatric Program at Cedars-Sinai Marina Del Rey Hospital in Los Angeles. She had no relevant disclosures. She made these comments as designated discussant for the study.
LAS VEGAS – It’s time to take bariatric out of bariatric surgery.
“The way forward is to not call it bariatric surgery or weight-loss surgery but surgery to treat diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and other metabolic diseases,” said Oliver A. Varban, MD, at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. “We need to reframe the conversation with patients about what success [with bariatric surgery] looks like. Weight loss can be a side effect of the operation if patients have surgery to resolve their diabetes. It’s not about BMI; it’s about treating metabolic disease.”
Dr. Varban, a bariatric surgeon at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, reported data showing that bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with baseline body mass index (BMI) levels below 35 kg/m2 was as effective at normalizing a range of metabolically associated disorders as it was in more obese patients in an observational study of more than 45,000 patients who underwent surgery in Michigan.
The findings add to an already extensive pool of evidence for loosening current guidelines that restrict bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of 35 kg/m2 or greater, Dr. Varban said. But an influential bariatric surgery consensus statement from the National Institutes of Health that dates from 1991 and remains in place, recommends this surgery only for people with a BMI of at least 35 kg/m2, and this guidance often limits access to the surgery for patients at lower BMI, he noted.
A more inclusive assessment of patients as potential candidates for bariatric surgery should include a range of considerations in addition to weight and height, he explained in an interview. “Even if people have a BMI of less than 30 kg/m2 but have, or are at high risk for developing, metabolic disease, they should also be offered the operation.”
The guidance from the NIH results in a U.S. bariatric surgery population that effectively centers mainly on women with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater and makes procedures like sleeve gastrectomy unavailable to many other types of patients who could benefit from it, Dr. Varban said. In 2018, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery released a position statement that summarized the evidence for the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in people with a BMI of 30-34 kg/m2, and cited the lingering and restrictive impact of the 1991 NIH consensus statement.
The study run by Dr. Varban and his associates used data collected by 43 programs in the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative during 2006-2018 that included 1,073 patients who had a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 on the day they underwent sleeve gastrectomy, and 44,511 patients who had the same procedure and had a BMI of at least 35 kg/m2. The operations were performed by any one of 81 surgeons who worked at the centers during this time.
The patients with lower BMIs were older, with an average age of 51 years, compared with 45 years in the higher-BMI group, and they had higher prevalences of certain metabolic disorders. Diabetes affected 37% of those in the lower-BMI group and 31% of those with higher BMIs; hyperlipidemia affected 57% and 45%, respectively; and gastroesophageal reflux disease affected 56% and 49%, respectively. Obstructive sleep apnea was more common in the group with higher BMIs, at 47%, compared with 41% of those with lower BMIs.
The average BMI in the lower group was 33.7 kg/m2; in the higher group it was 46.7 kg/m2. Dr. Varban did not have data on whether any patients in the lower-BMI group had a BMI below 30 kg/m2. Roughly a third of the patients in the lower-BMI group had a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 at the time of their initial examination, whereas the other two-thirds had a BMI that low only on the day of their surgery.At follow-up 1 year after their surgery, patients who started with lower BMIs had, in general, a very similar pattern of responses as those who started with higher BMIs, with rates of discontinuation of treatments for diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, and gastroesophageal reflux of about 50%-80% and similar in both treatment arms. For example, discontinuation of oral diabetes drugs occurred in 79% and 78% of those with low and high BMIs, respectively, and discontinuation of hypertension medications occurred in 60% and 54%, respectively. Although the average absolute weight loss in the patients with lower BMIs was nearly half that of patients with higher starting BMIs, a much greater percentage of patients in the lower-BMI group achieved a BMI of less than 25 kg/m2, compared with the higher-BMI group (36% vs. 6%, respectively).
Patients from the lower-BMI group also showed high levels of satisfaction with their surgery and its results after 1 year. Questionnaire results from roughly half the patients in each treatment group showed that 90% were very satisfied in the lower-BMI group, compared with 84% of those who began with higher BMIs, with a dissatisfaction rate of 1% and 2%, respectively. The average body-image score at 1 year follow-up was significantly higher in those who started with lower BMIs. The rate of complications was low and similar in the two groups, with a 6% rate in the lower-BMI group and 5% in those with higher BMIs.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Varban receives salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
SOURCE: Varban et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract A105.
This article was updated 11/8/2020.
LAS VEGAS – It’s time to take bariatric out of bariatric surgery.
“The way forward is to not call it bariatric surgery or weight-loss surgery but surgery to treat diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and other metabolic diseases,” said Oliver A. Varban, MD, at a meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. “We need to reframe the conversation with patients about what success [with bariatric surgery] looks like. Weight loss can be a side effect of the operation if patients have surgery to resolve their diabetes. It’s not about BMI; it’s about treating metabolic disease.”
Dr. Varban, a bariatric surgeon at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, reported data showing that bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy in patients with baseline body mass index (BMI) levels below 35 kg/m2 was as effective at normalizing a range of metabolically associated disorders as it was in more obese patients in an observational study of more than 45,000 patients who underwent surgery in Michigan.
The findings add to an already extensive pool of evidence for loosening current guidelines that restrict bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of 35 kg/m2 or greater, Dr. Varban said. But an influential bariatric surgery consensus statement from the National Institutes of Health that dates from 1991 and remains in place, recommends this surgery only for people with a BMI of at least 35 kg/m2, and this guidance often limits access to the surgery for patients at lower BMI, he noted.
A more inclusive assessment of patients as potential candidates for bariatric surgery should include a range of considerations in addition to weight and height, he explained in an interview. “Even if people have a BMI of less than 30 kg/m2 but have, or are at high risk for developing, metabolic disease, they should also be offered the operation.”
The guidance from the NIH results in a U.S. bariatric surgery population that effectively centers mainly on women with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater and makes procedures like sleeve gastrectomy unavailable to many other types of patients who could benefit from it, Dr. Varban said. In 2018, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery released a position statement that summarized the evidence for the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery in people with a BMI of 30-34 kg/m2, and cited the lingering and restrictive impact of the 1991 NIH consensus statement.
The study run by Dr. Varban and his associates used data collected by 43 programs in the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative during 2006-2018 that included 1,073 patients who had a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 on the day they underwent sleeve gastrectomy, and 44,511 patients who had the same procedure and had a BMI of at least 35 kg/m2. The operations were performed by any one of 81 surgeons who worked at the centers during this time.
The patients with lower BMIs were older, with an average age of 51 years, compared with 45 years in the higher-BMI group, and they had higher prevalences of certain metabolic disorders. Diabetes affected 37% of those in the lower-BMI group and 31% of those with higher BMIs; hyperlipidemia affected 57% and 45%, respectively; and gastroesophageal reflux disease affected 56% and 49%, respectively. Obstructive sleep apnea was more common in the group with higher BMIs, at 47%, compared with 41% of those with lower BMIs.
The average BMI in the lower group was 33.7 kg/m2; in the higher group it was 46.7 kg/m2. Dr. Varban did not have data on whether any patients in the lower-BMI group had a BMI below 30 kg/m2. Roughly a third of the patients in the lower-BMI group had a BMI of less than 35 kg/m2 at the time of their initial examination, whereas the other two-thirds had a BMI that low only on the day of their surgery.At follow-up 1 year after their surgery, patients who started with lower BMIs had, in general, a very similar pattern of responses as those who started with higher BMIs, with rates of discontinuation of treatments for diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, and gastroesophageal reflux of about 50%-80% and similar in both treatment arms. For example, discontinuation of oral diabetes drugs occurred in 79% and 78% of those with low and high BMIs, respectively, and discontinuation of hypertension medications occurred in 60% and 54%, respectively. Although the average absolute weight loss in the patients with lower BMIs was nearly half that of patients with higher starting BMIs, a much greater percentage of patients in the lower-BMI group achieved a BMI of less than 25 kg/m2, compared with the higher-BMI group (36% vs. 6%, respectively).
Patients from the lower-BMI group also showed high levels of satisfaction with their surgery and its results after 1 year. Questionnaire results from roughly half the patients in each treatment group showed that 90% were very satisfied in the lower-BMI group, compared with 84% of those who began with higher BMIs, with a dissatisfaction rate of 1% and 2%, respectively. The average body-image score at 1 year follow-up was significantly higher in those who started with lower BMIs. The rate of complications was low and similar in the two groups, with a 6% rate in the lower-BMI group and 5% in those with higher BMIs.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Varban receives salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
SOURCE: Varban et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract A105.
This article was updated 11/8/2020.
REPORTING FROM OBESITY WEEK 2019
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Discontinuation of hypertension drugs occurred in 60% of patients with lower BMIs at baseline and 54% of those with higher BMIs.
Study details: Review of prospectively collected data from 45,584 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy in Michigan during 2006-2018.
Disclosures: The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Varban receives salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Dr. Misra had no relevant disclosures.
Source: Varban OA et al. Obesity Week 2019, Abstract A105.