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
Finerenone, sotagliflozin exert heart failure benefits despite renal dysfunction
New analyses of trial results for the cardiorenal agents finerenone and sotagliflozin continued the pattern showing that they exert consistent heart failure benefits in patients who span a broad spectrum of renal function, further disproving the notion that more severe stages of chronic kidney disease preclude aggressive medical management.
Analysis of combined data from two pivotal trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia), which together enrolled more than 13,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, showed in greater detail that .
That spectrum included patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m2 and patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria, as well as those with normal urinary albumin levels, Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
And in a separate, unrelated report, combined data from the two pivotal trials, with a total of nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, for sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a novel and still unapproved agent that inhibits both the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1 and 2 enzymes, showed a consistent effect significantly reducing cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure outpatient events in patients with eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m2, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
These two reports follow a third, presented just a week earlier during Kidney Week, that showed the benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) for preventing heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remained consistent even in patients with an eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2 in results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. Similar findings for empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial came out nearly a year ago.
A message to clinicians from these reports is, “don’t wait for patients to develop heart failure” to start these drugs, according to Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management for the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “It’s time to start using these drugs upstream to have fewer patients with heart failure downstream,” she said in an interview.
Finerenone works differently than spironolactone
The new finerenone analysis included 5,734 patients enrolled in the FIDELIO-DKD trial, and 7,437 in the FIGARO-DKD trial, two very similar trials that differed by transposing the primary endpoint of one to the secondary endpoint of the other, and vice versa. The combined analysis is known as FIDELITY.
Expanding on a report that he first gave at the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in August 2021, Dr. Filippatos provided a few additional details on the analysis that showed a consistent effect of finerenone on preventing hospitalizations for heart failure, and on preventing a combined endpoint of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death regardless of the severity of chronic kidney disease down to 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Statistical analysis showed no hint of an interaction between finerenone’s effect on these outcomes in patients with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater and those with reduced renal function. Analyses also showed no interaction based on urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, be it more or less than 300 mg/g, reported Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of the heart failure unit at Attikon University Hospital in Athens.
“We use MRAs [such as spironolactone] in heart failure patients, but it’s difficult to use because of the risk of patients developing hyperkalemia,” noted Dr. Itchhaporia, who added that reluctance to use spironolactone is especially high for patients with depressed renal function, which could exacerbate a hyperkalemic effect. Evidence shows that finerenone poses a substantially reduced risk for raising serum potassium levels, making finerenone a more attractive agent to use in patients with CKD who have an elevated risk for heart failure events as well as an increased risk for hyperkalemia, like those enrolled in the two finerenone trials, she said.
Sotagliflozin uniquely inhibits SGLT1 and SGLT2
The new sotagliflozin analyses reported by Dr. Bhatt combined data for more than 11,800 patients randomized into either of two trials, SCORED, which randomized more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and SOLOIST, which randomized more than 1,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.
A prespecified analysis for the combined data from both studies looked at the impact of sotagliflozin treatment on the combined outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an urgent outpatient visit because of heart failure based on kidney function at baseline. The analysis showed that sotagliflozin was at least as effective in the 8% of study patients who at baseline had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m2 as it was in patients with more preserved renal function.
Benefit from sotagliflozin treatment “was consistent across the full range of eGFR,” said Dr. Bhatt, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Results from a second analysis that he reported also showed a consistent effect of sotagliflozin on reducing hemoglobin A1c levels in the enrolled patients, even those with the lowest levels of renal function, an effect not previously seen with the related class of SGLT2 inhibitors (which includes empagliflozin, canagliflozin [Invokana], and dapagliflozin [Farxiga]). Dr. Bhatt suggested that, while SGLT2 inhibitors act entirely in the kidneys and hence their effect on glycemic control is blunted by renal dysfunction, sotagliflozin also inhibits the SGLT1 enzyme, which functions in the gut to transport glucose out of the digestive tract and into the blood, a glycemic control pathway that’s independent of renal function.
FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). SCORED and SOLOIST were sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon, the companies developing sotagliflozin (Zynquista). EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced were sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Filippatos has had financial relationships with Bayer and Boehringer-Ingelheim, as well as with Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies, and he has been an adviser to Boehringer-Ingelheim and several other companies.
New analyses of trial results for the cardiorenal agents finerenone and sotagliflozin continued the pattern showing that they exert consistent heart failure benefits in patients who span a broad spectrum of renal function, further disproving the notion that more severe stages of chronic kidney disease preclude aggressive medical management.
Analysis of combined data from two pivotal trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia), which together enrolled more than 13,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, showed in greater detail that .
That spectrum included patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m2 and patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria, as well as those with normal urinary albumin levels, Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
And in a separate, unrelated report, combined data from the two pivotal trials, with a total of nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, for sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a novel and still unapproved agent that inhibits both the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1 and 2 enzymes, showed a consistent effect significantly reducing cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure outpatient events in patients with eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m2, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
These two reports follow a third, presented just a week earlier during Kidney Week, that showed the benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) for preventing heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remained consistent even in patients with an eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2 in results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. Similar findings for empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial came out nearly a year ago.
A message to clinicians from these reports is, “don’t wait for patients to develop heart failure” to start these drugs, according to Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management for the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “It’s time to start using these drugs upstream to have fewer patients with heart failure downstream,” she said in an interview.
Finerenone works differently than spironolactone
The new finerenone analysis included 5,734 patients enrolled in the FIDELIO-DKD trial, and 7,437 in the FIGARO-DKD trial, two very similar trials that differed by transposing the primary endpoint of one to the secondary endpoint of the other, and vice versa. The combined analysis is known as FIDELITY.
Expanding on a report that he first gave at the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in August 2021, Dr. Filippatos provided a few additional details on the analysis that showed a consistent effect of finerenone on preventing hospitalizations for heart failure, and on preventing a combined endpoint of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death regardless of the severity of chronic kidney disease down to 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Statistical analysis showed no hint of an interaction between finerenone’s effect on these outcomes in patients with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater and those with reduced renal function. Analyses also showed no interaction based on urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, be it more or less than 300 mg/g, reported Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of the heart failure unit at Attikon University Hospital in Athens.
“We use MRAs [such as spironolactone] in heart failure patients, but it’s difficult to use because of the risk of patients developing hyperkalemia,” noted Dr. Itchhaporia, who added that reluctance to use spironolactone is especially high for patients with depressed renal function, which could exacerbate a hyperkalemic effect. Evidence shows that finerenone poses a substantially reduced risk for raising serum potassium levels, making finerenone a more attractive agent to use in patients with CKD who have an elevated risk for heart failure events as well as an increased risk for hyperkalemia, like those enrolled in the two finerenone trials, she said.
Sotagliflozin uniquely inhibits SGLT1 and SGLT2
The new sotagliflozin analyses reported by Dr. Bhatt combined data for more than 11,800 patients randomized into either of two trials, SCORED, which randomized more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and SOLOIST, which randomized more than 1,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.
A prespecified analysis for the combined data from both studies looked at the impact of sotagliflozin treatment on the combined outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an urgent outpatient visit because of heart failure based on kidney function at baseline. The analysis showed that sotagliflozin was at least as effective in the 8% of study patients who at baseline had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m2 as it was in patients with more preserved renal function.
Benefit from sotagliflozin treatment “was consistent across the full range of eGFR,” said Dr. Bhatt, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Results from a second analysis that he reported also showed a consistent effect of sotagliflozin on reducing hemoglobin A1c levels in the enrolled patients, even those with the lowest levels of renal function, an effect not previously seen with the related class of SGLT2 inhibitors (which includes empagliflozin, canagliflozin [Invokana], and dapagliflozin [Farxiga]). Dr. Bhatt suggested that, while SGLT2 inhibitors act entirely in the kidneys and hence their effect on glycemic control is blunted by renal dysfunction, sotagliflozin also inhibits the SGLT1 enzyme, which functions in the gut to transport glucose out of the digestive tract and into the blood, a glycemic control pathway that’s independent of renal function.
FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). SCORED and SOLOIST were sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon, the companies developing sotagliflozin (Zynquista). EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced were sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Filippatos has had financial relationships with Bayer and Boehringer-Ingelheim, as well as with Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies, and he has been an adviser to Boehringer-Ingelheim and several other companies.
New analyses of trial results for the cardiorenal agents finerenone and sotagliflozin continued the pattern showing that they exert consistent heart failure benefits in patients who span a broad spectrum of renal function, further disproving the notion that more severe stages of chronic kidney disease preclude aggressive medical management.
Analysis of combined data from two pivotal trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia), which together enrolled more than 13,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, showed in greater detail that .
That spectrum included patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m2 and patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria, as well as those with normal urinary albumin levels, Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
And in a separate, unrelated report, combined data from the two pivotal trials, with a total of nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, for sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a novel and still unapproved agent that inhibits both the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1 and 2 enzymes, showed a consistent effect significantly reducing cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure outpatient events in patients with eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m2, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
These two reports follow a third, presented just a week earlier during Kidney Week, that showed the benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) for preventing heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remained consistent even in patients with an eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m2 in results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. Similar findings for empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial came out nearly a year ago.
A message to clinicians from these reports is, “don’t wait for patients to develop heart failure” to start these drugs, according to Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management for the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “It’s time to start using these drugs upstream to have fewer patients with heart failure downstream,” she said in an interview.
Finerenone works differently than spironolactone
The new finerenone analysis included 5,734 patients enrolled in the FIDELIO-DKD trial, and 7,437 in the FIGARO-DKD trial, two very similar trials that differed by transposing the primary endpoint of one to the secondary endpoint of the other, and vice versa. The combined analysis is known as FIDELITY.
Expanding on a report that he first gave at the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in August 2021, Dr. Filippatos provided a few additional details on the analysis that showed a consistent effect of finerenone on preventing hospitalizations for heart failure, and on preventing a combined endpoint of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death regardless of the severity of chronic kidney disease down to 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Statistical analysis showed no hint of an interaction between finerenone’s effect on these outcomes in patients with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater and those with reduced renal function. Analyses also showed no interaction based on urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, be it more or less than 300 mg/g, reported Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of the heart failure unit at Attikon University Hospital in Athens.
“We use MRAs [such as spironolactone] in heart failure patients, but it’s difficult to use because of the risk of patients developing hyperkalemia,” noted Dr. Itchhaporia, who added that reluctance to use spironolactone is especially high for patients with depressed renal function, which could exacerbate a hyperkalemic effect. Evidence shows that finerenone poses a substantially reduced risk for raising serum potassium levels, making finerenone a more attractive agent to use in patients with CKD who have an elevated risk for heart failure events as well as an increased risk for hyperkalemia, like those enrolled in the two finerenone trials, she said.
Sotagliflozin uniquely inhibits SGLT1 and SGLT2
The new sotagliflozin analyses reported by Dr. Bhatt combined data for more than 11,800 patients randomized into either of two trials, SCORED, which randomized more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and SOLOIST, which randomized more than 1,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.
A prespecified analysis for the combined data from both studies looked at the impact of sotagliflozin treatment on the combined outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an urgent outpatient visit because of heart failure based on kidney function at baseline. The analysis showed that sotagliflozin was at least as effective in the 8% of study patients who at baseline had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m2 as it was in patients with more preserved renal function.
Benefit from sotagliflozin treatment “was consistent across the full range of eGFR,” said Dr. Bhatt, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Results from a second analysis that he reported also showed a consistent effect of sotagliflozin on reducing hemoglobin A1c levels in the enrolled patients, even those with the lowest levels of renal function, an effect not previously seen with the related class of SGLT2 inhibitors (which includes empagliflozin, canagliflozin [Invokana], and dapagliflozin [Farxiga]). Dr. Bhatt suggested that, while SGLT2 inhibitors act entirely in the kidneys and hence their effect on glycemic control is blunted by renal dysfunction, sotagliflozin also inhibits the SGLT1 enzyme, which functions in the gut to transport glucose out of the digestive tract and into the blood, a glycemic control pathway that’s independent of renal function.
FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). SCORED and SOLOIST were sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon, the companies developing sotagliflozin (Zynquista). EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced were sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Filippatos has had financial relationships with Bayer and Boehringer-Ingelheim, as well as with Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies, and he has been an adviser to Boehringer-Ingelheim and several other companies.
FROM AHA 2021
VEST: External sheath for CABG vein grafts shows promise
A novel, stent-shaped device that provides external buttressing to saphenous vein grafts placed during coronary artery bypass surgery was safe, but failed to improve 12-month patency of vein grafts, in a prospective study with 224 patients.
Despite the neutral result, “we are cautiously optimistic” about the prospects for the device to reduce the risk for failure of coronary vein grafts caused by intimal hyperplasia of the internal lining of the vein graft that leads to graft occlusion, said John D. Puskas, MD, lead investigator of the study, who reported the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
In the trial, called VEST, each buttressed vein graft was compared with a similar, unbuttressed graft in the same patient. Perhaps the biggest issue faced by the study was the unexpectedly high 42% rate of vein-graft occlusion or diffuse disease seen in the studied grafts 12 months after placement. This rate included both the vein grafts placed within the external buttressing device and control vein grafts that underwent the same postharvest preparation but weren’t placed within an external sheath, which is formed from woven cobalt chromium wire.
Dr. Puskas attributed this high failure rate to the need to remove all adventitia tissue and fat from the harvested saphenous vein segments before grafting, a step required to allow the vein conduit to fit inside the wire sheath. The potential exists to further optimize this step, he said in an interview.
“I was very surprised by the low 12-month patency rates” in both treatment arms of the study, commented Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
External scaffold to counter blood pressure
The concept behind the external buttressing sheath is that the walls of saphenous vein grafts are not structured to accommodate arterial blood pressure, and over time this pressure produces accelerated atherosclerotic changes and premature occlusion and graft failure. The external support is supposed to impede vein wall dilatation, reduce irregularities of the inner lumen surface, and improve hemodynamics and shear stress.
The VEST trial ran at 14 U.S. and 3 Canadian centers and enrolled 224 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting with planned use of at least two saphenous vein grafts, along with an internal mammary artery graft for the left anterior descending coronary artery. The patients averaged 66 years of age, 21% were women, and 51% had diabetes.
All patients successfully underwent their surgery, with 203 returning after 12 months for their primary follow-up examination by intravascular ultrasound. However, because of the high rate of vein occlusion or development of diffuse intragraft disease, successful intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination of both vein grafts occurred in only 113 patients.
The IVUS examinations showed that the study’s primary endpoint, the intimal hyperplasia area in all 224 patients who received vein grafts, averaged 5.11 mm2 in the grafts placed within the wire sleeve and 5.79 mm2 for control grafts not placed in the wire sheath, a difference that fell short of significance (P = .072). However, in a sensitivity analysis that focused on only the 113 patients who had both vein grafts successfully assayed by IVUS, the average area of intimal hyperplasia was 4.58 mm2 in the grafts within a wire sheath and 5.12 mm2 in the control grafts, a significant difference (P = .043).
The combined rate of major adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months was 7%, including a 2% mortality rate, a 3% stroke rate, and 3% rate of Mis, outcomes that suggested “no safety signals,” said Dr. Puskas, chair of cardiovascular surgery at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s in New York.
Although a large body of evidence has shown the superiority of arterial grafts for long-term graft patency, vein grafts have many advantages that have maintained them as the most widely used conduits worldwide for coronary artery bypass surgery, Dr. Puskas said.
Saphenous vein segments are readily available from patients and easy to harvest; they nicely conform to the coronary arteries that require bypass, rarely leak, are easy to work with, and can successfully hold stitches. Surgeons performing coronary artery bypass are unlikely to abandon vein grafts anytime soon, which makes improving the performance of vein grafts a priority, Dr. Puskas said.
The study was sponsored by Vascular Graft Solutions, the company developing the venous graft external support. Dr. Puskas and Dr. Chikwe had no disclosures related to the study.
A novel, stent-shaped device that provides external buttressing to saphenous vein grafts placed during coronary artery bypass surgery was safe, but failed to improve 12-month patency of vein grafts, in a prospective study with 224 patients.
Despite the neutral result, “we are cautiously optimistic” about the prospects for the device to reduce the risk for failure of coronary vein grafts caused by intimal hyperplasia of the internal lining of the vein graft that leads to graft occlusion, said John D. Puskas, MD, lead investigator of the study, who reported the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
In the trial, called VEST, each buttressed vein graft was compared with a similar, unbuttressed graft in the same patient. Perhaps the biggest issue faced by the study was the unexpectedly high 42% rate of vein-graft occlusion or diffuse disease seen in the studied grafts 12 months after placement. This rate included both the vein grafts placed within the external buttressing device and control vein grafts that underwent the same postharvest preparation but weren’t placed within an external sheath, which is formed from woven cobalt chromium wire.
Dr. Puskas attributed this high failure rate to the need to remove all adventitia tissue and fat from the harvested saphenous vein segments before grafting, a step required to allow the vein conduit to fit inside the wire sheath. The potential exists to further optimize this step, he said in an interview.
“I was very surprised by the low 12-month patency rates” in both treatment arms of the study, commented Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
External scaffold to counter blood pressure
The concept behind the external buttressing sheath is that the walls of saphenous vein grafts are not structured to accommodate arterial blood pressure, and over time this pressure produces accelerated atherosclerotic changes and premature occlusion and graft failure. The external support is supposed to impede vein wall dilatation, reduce irregularities of the inner lumen surface, and improve hemodynamics and shear stress.
The VEST trial ran at 14 U.S. and 3 Canadian centers and enrolled 224 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting with planned use of at least two saphenous vein grafts, along with an internal mammary artery graft for the left anterior descending coronary artery. The patients averaged 66 years of age, 21% were women, and 51% had diabetes.
All patients successfully underwent their surgery, with 203 returning after 12 months for their primary follow-up examination by intravascular ultrasound. However, because of the high rate of vein occlusion or development of diffuse intragraft disease, successful intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination of both vein grafts occurred in only 113 patients.
The IVUS examinations showed that the study’s primary endpoint, the intimal hyperplasia area in all 224 patients who received vein grafts, averaged 5.11 mm2 in the grafts placed within the wire sleeve and 5.79 mm2 for control grafts not placed in the wire sheath, a difference that fell short of significance (P = .072). However, in a sensitivity analysis that focused on only the 113 patients who had both vein grafts successfully assayed by IVUS, the average area of intimal hyperplasia was 4.58 mm2 in the grafts within a wire sheath and 5.12 mm2 in the control grafts, a significant difference (P = .043).
The combined rate of major adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months was 7%, including a 2% mortality rate, a 3% stroke rate, and 3% rate of Mis, outcomes that suggested “no safety signals,” said Dr. Puskas, chair of cardiovascular surgery at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s in New York.
Although a large body of evidence has shown the superiority of arterial grafts for long-term graft patency, vein grafts have many advantages that have maintained them as the most widely used conduits worldwide for coronary artery bypass surgery, Dr. Puskas said.
Saphenous vein segments are readily available from patients and easy to harvest; they nicely conform to the coronary arteries that require bypass, rarely leak, are easy to work with, and can successfully hold stitches. Surgeons performing coronary artery bypass are unlikely to abandon vein grafts anytime soon, which makes improving the performance of vein grafts a priority, Dr. Puskas said.
The study was sponsored by Vascular Graft Solutions, the company developing the venous graft external support. Dr. Puskas and Dr. Chikwe had no disclosures related to the study.
A novel, stent-shaped device that provides external buttressing to saphenous vein grafts placed during coronary artery bypass surgery was safe, but failed to improve 12-month patency of vein grafts, in a prospective study with 224 patients.
Despite the neutral result, “we are cautiously optimistic” about the prospects for the device to reduce the risk for failure of coronary vein grafts caused by intimal hyperplasia of the internal lining of the vein graft that leads to graft occlusion, said John D. Puskas, MD, lead investigator of the study, who reported the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
In the trial, called VEST, each buttressed vein graft was compared with a similar, unbuttressed graft in the same patient. Perhaps the biggest issue faced by the study was the unexpectedly high 42% rate of vein-graft occlusion or diffuse disease seen in the studied grafts 12 months after placement. This rate included both the vein grafts placed within the external buttressing device and control vein grafts that underwent the same postharvest preparation but weren’t placed within an external sheath, which is formed from woven cobalt chromium wire.
Dr. Puskas attributed this high failure rate to the need to remove all adventitia tissue and fat from the harvested saphenous vein segments before grafting, a step required to allow the vein conduit to fit inside the wire sheath. The potential exists to further optimize this step, he said in an interview.
“I was very surprised by the low 12-month patency rates” in both treatment arms of the study, commented Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
External scaffold to counter blood pressure
The concept behind the external buttressing sheath is that the walls of saphenous vein grafts are not structured to accommodate arterial blood pressure, and over time this pressure produces accelerated atherosclerotic changes and premature occlusion and graft failure. The external support is supposed to impede vein wall dilatation, reduce irregularities of the inner lumen surface, and improve hemodynamics and shear stress.
The VEST trial ran at 14 U.S. and 3 Canadian centers and enrolled 224 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting with planned use of at least two saphenous vein grafts, along with an internal mammary artery graft for the left anterior descending coronary artery. The patients averaged 66 years of age, 21% were women, and 51% had diabetes.
All patients successfully underwent their surgery, with 203 returning after 12 months for their primary follow-up examination by intravascular ultrasound. However, because of the high rate of vein occlusion or development of diffuse intragraft disease, successful intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination of both vein grafts occurred in only 113 patients.
The IVUS examinations showed that the study’s primary endpoint, the intimal hyperplasia area in all 224 patients who received vein grafts, averaged 5.11 mm2 in the grafts placed within the wire sleeve and 5.79 mm2 for control grafts not placed in the wire sheath, a difference that fell short of significance (P = .072). However, in a sensitivity analysis that focused on only the 113 patients who had both vein grafts successfully assayed by IVUS, the average area of intimal hyperplasia was 4.58 mm2 in the grafts within a wire sheath and 5.12 mm2 in the control grafts, a significant difference (P = .043).
The combined rate of major adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months was 7%, including a 2% mortality rate, a 3% stroke rate, and 3% rate of Mis, outcomes that suggested “no safety signals,” said Dr. Puskas, chair of cardiovascular surgery at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s in New York.
Although a large body of evidence has shown the superiority of arterial grafts for long-term graft patency, vein grafts have many advantages that have maintained them as the most widely used conduits worldwide for coronary artery bypass surgery, Dr. Puskas said.
Saphenous vein segments are readily available from patients and easy to harvest; they nicely conform to the coronary arteries that require bypass, rarely leak, are easy to work with, and can successfully hold stitches. Surgeons performing coronary artery bypass are unlikely to abandon vein grafts anytime soon, which makes improving the performance of vein grafts a priority, Dr. Puskas said.
The study was sponsored by Vascular Graft Solutions, the company developing the venous graft external support. Dr. Puskas and Dr. Chikwe had no disclosures related to the study.
FROM AHA 2021
SURPASS-4: ‘Twincretin’ tirzepatide surpasses insulin glargine in pivotal trial
, which compared the investigational agent to insulin glargine for treatment of type 2 diabetes. The study comprised 1,995 randomized patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular disease risk.
Positive results for tirzepatide from SURPASS-4, the fifth and final registration trial for the drug, as well as in the other four studies, tee up the agent for a planned approval submission to the Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2021.
SURPASS-4 differed from the four other pivotal trials not only in its comparator agent, but also by being the longest of the five and the only one that, by design, enrolled exclusively patients with either established cardiovascular disease or high risk for the disease.
The new results “provide initial support for glycemic control [by tirzepatide] being sustained for more than 1 year,” wrote Stefano Del Prato, MD, and associates in their published report in The Lancet.
Despite the trial’s primary endpoint of change in hemoglobin A1c after 52 weeks on treatment, the study continued for another year and had a median time on treatment of 85 weeks, with 7% of enrolled patients remaining on treatment for the maximum on-treatment follow-up of 104 weeks.
Potent glycemic control
The primary endpoint showed that treatment with tirzepatide produced an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.99% among 328 patients treated with a 10 mg weekly subcutaneous dosage compared with the 1,000 patients who received insulin glargine (Basaglar, Lantus, Toujeo), and an average 1.14% incremental reduction in A1c among 338 patients on a 15-mg dosage once weekly, reported Dr. Del Prato, professor and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa (Italy).
This met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of tirzepatide to insulin glargine for reduction of A1c, the study’s primary objective, and also met the study’s prespecified definition of superiority, both statistically significant results. The study also tested a weekly tirzepatide dosage of 5 mg that was significantly superior to insulin glargine for glycemic control.
“The magnitude of A1c reduction and the proportions of patients reaching glycemic targets appear to be larger than in similar studies in which GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide–1] receptor agonists have been compared with glargine,” the investigators wrote in their report.
The A1c effect of tirzepatide seen across all five SURPASS trials “surpasses what we’ve seen with other [glycemia control] drugs, with the possible exception of insulin,” said Jan W. Eriksson, MD, PhD, professor of clinical diabetes and metabolism at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
The results also showed several other clinically meaningful benefits from tirzepatide treatment. A composite outcome of reduction of A1c to less than 7% with no weight gain and no clinically significant documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia occurred in 74%-88% of patients in the three tirzepatide arms compared with 13% of patients treated with insulin glargine. After 52 weeks on treatment, body weight fell by an average of 8%, 11%, and 13% from baseline in the three tirzepatide treatment arms in a dose-dependent way, while weight rose by an average of 2% among those who received insulin glargine. Weight reduction of at least 10% occurred in 36%-66% of patients treated with tirzepatide, compared with 2% on treatment with insulin glargine.
SURPASS-4 was not run as a blinded study because of differences in administration of the comparator agents.
Safety appears similar to GLP-1 receptor agonists
The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURPASS-4, as it was in all of the other four trials in the SURPASS series, was consistent with previously reported safety of agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, said Dr. Del Prato. It was an expected finding as tirzepatide combines activity as a GLP-1 receptor agonist with activity as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist in a single molecule.
The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, and vomiting. Most of these effects were mild or moderate, and they occurred most often during dose escalation of tirzepatide in the first 24 weeks on treatment.
The GIP receptor agonist effect of tirzepatide may diminish the nausea experienced by patients as a result of the drug’s GLP-1 receptor agonist action, Dr. Eriksson, designated discussant for the SURPASS trials, said during a session Sept. 30 at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).
Clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia occurred in 8% of all patients on tirzepatide, with no apparent dose relationship, about half the rate of the patients treated with insulin glargine. Notably, the hypoglycemia episodes among patients treated with tirzepatide clustered almost entirely in the subgroup of patients who also took a sulfonylurea agent during the study. (SURPASS-4 allowed enrolled patients to be on their background antidiabetes regimen throughout the study, and at baseline 95% were taking metformin, 54% were on a sulfonylurea, and about a quarter were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor.)
“I would advise not using tirzepatide with insulin or with a sulfonylurea,” Dr. Eriksson said. Aside from this risk for hypoglycemia when tirzepatide is used concurrently with certain other antidiabetes drugs, the SURPASS trials have shown “no other important safety signals,” Dr. Eriksson added.
Cardiovascular safety
All enrolled patients had either known coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral arterial disease or were at high risk for having one or more of these conditions because they were at least 50 years old with a history of either chronic kidney disease with depressed glomerular filtration or heart failure.
During complete follow-up, the composite rate of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina was numerically less in the patients who received tirzepatide, 5%, than in those on insulin glargine, 6%, a 26% relative risk reduction that did not achieve significance. The rate of total mortality was 3% in the tirzepatide group and 4% among those on glargine, a 30% relative risk reduction that was not significant.
The cardiovascular disease outcomes “suggest that tirzepatide is safe from a cardiovascular perspective,” Dr. Del Prato said when he presented the SURPASS-4 results during the virtual annual meeting of the EASD. However, a much larger cardiovascular outcomes trial of tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, with more than 12,000 randomized patients and using a GLP-1 receptor agonist as the comparator, is now in progress, with a report on the findings expected in 2025.
Overall, results from all five SURPASS trials of tirzepatide have shown that the drug is “effective and safe in people with type 2 diabetes, providing stringent glycemic control and additional metabolic benefits including weight reduction and an improvement in other cardiometabolic markers,” said Melanie J. Davies, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England.
Looking forward to when tirzepatide will be available for routine use, Dr. Eriksson positioned it near-term as part of a dual or triple regimen, especially for patients with type 2 diabetes who are obese or have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, renal impairment, high cardiovascular disease risk, or high risk for clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia.
A role for tirzepatide as a first-line agent is currently “more speculative,” he added, with more data needed on cardiovascular outcomes, long-term safety, and cost effectiveness.
The existing evidence base for tirzepatide shows “very promising efficacy” for weight loss and glucose lowering with “reassuring safety and tolerability,” and is a “very important addition to current options,” although the long-term safety of chronic tirzepatide treatment remains unproven, he said.
Dr. Eriksson called the drug’s glycemic control “strong and durable” based on the entire SURPASS program, with a “major” weight loss effect. He also suggested that while the adverse effect profile of tirzepatide appears similar to the GLP-1 receptor agonists, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events may be lower with tirzepatide.
SURPASS-4 and the other SURPASS trials were funded by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide. Dr. Del Prato has ties with Lilly, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Davies has ties with Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Takeda. Dr. Eriksson has ties with AstraZeneca, Ilya Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novo Nordisk.
, which compared the investigational agent to insulin glargine for treatment of type 2 diabetes. The study comprised 1,995 randomized patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular disease risk.
Positive results for tirzepatide from SURPASS-4, the fifth and final registration trial for the drug, as well as in the other four studies, tee up the agent for a planned approval submission to the Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2021.
SURPASS-4 differed from the four other pivotal trials not only in its comparator agent, but also by being the longest of the five and the only one that, by design, enrolled exclusively patients with either established cardiovascular disease or high risk for the disease.
The new results “provide initial support for glycemic control [by tirzepatide] being sustained for more than 1 year,” wrote Stefano Del Prato, MD, and associates in their published report in The Lancet.
Despite the trial’s primary endpoint of change in hemoglobin A1c after 52 weeks on treatment, the study continued for another year and had a median time on treatment of 85 weeks, with 7% of enrolled patients remaining on treatment for the maximum on-treatment follow-up of 104 weeks.
Potent glycemic control
The primary endpoint showed that treatment with tirzepatide produced an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.99% among 328 patients treated with a 10 mg weekly subcutaneous dosage compared with the 1,000 patients who received insulin glargine (Basaglar, Lantus, Toujeo), and an average 1.14% incremental reduction in A1c among 338 patients on a 15-mg dosage once weekly, reported Dr. Del Prato, professor and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa (Italy).
This met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of tirzepatide to insulin glargine for reduction of A1c, the study’s primary objective, and also met the study’s prespecified definition of superiority, both statistically significant results. The study also tested a weekly tirzepatide dosage of 5 mg that was significantly superior to insulin glargine for glycemic control.
“The magnitude of A1c reduction and the proportions of patients reaching glycemic targets appear to be larger than in similar studies in which GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide–1] receptor agonists have been compared with glargine,” the investigators wrote in their report.
The A1c effect of tirzepatide seen across all five SURPASS trials “surpasses what we’ve seen with other [glycemia control] drugs, with the possible exception of insulin,” said Jan W. Eriksson, MD, PhD, professor of clinical diabetes and metabolism at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
The results also showed several other clinically meaningful benefits from tirzepatide treatment. A composite outcome of reduction of A1c to less than 7% with no weight gain and no clinically significant documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia occurred in 74%-88% of patients in the three tirzepatide arms compared with 13% of patients treated with insulin glargine. After 52 weeks on treatment, body weight fell by an average of 8%, 11%, and 13% from baseline in the three tirzepatide treatment arms in a dose-dependent way, while weight rose by an average of 2% among those who received insulin glargine. Weight reduction of at least 10% occurred in 36%-66% of patients treated with tirzepatide, compared with 2% on treatment with insulin glargine.
SURPASS-4 was not run as a blinded study because of differences in administration of the comparator agents.
Safety appears similar to GLP-1 receptor agonists
The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURPASS-4, as it was in all of the other four trials in the SURPASS series, was consistent with previously reported safety of agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, said Dr. Del Prato. It was an expected finding as tirzepatide combines activity as a GLP-1 receptor agonist with activity as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist in a single molecule.
The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, and vomiting. Most of these effects were mild or moderate, and they occurred most often during dose escalation of tirzepatide in the first 24 weeks on treatment.
The GIP receptor agonist effect of tirzepatide may diminish the nausea experienced by patients as a result of the drug’s GLP-1 receptor agonist action, Dr. Eriksson, designated discussant for the SURPASS trials, said during a session Sept. 30 at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).
Clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia occurred in 8% of all patients on tirzepatide, with no apparent dose relationship, about half the rate of the patients treated with insulin glargine. Notably, the hypoglycemia episodes among patients treated with tirzepatide clustered almost entirely in the subgroup of patients who also took a sulfonylurea agent during the study. (SURPASS-4 allowed enrolled patients to be on their background antidiabetes regimen throughout the study, and at baseline 95% were taking metformin, 54% were on a sulfonylurea, and about a quarter were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor.)
“I would advise not using tirzepatide with insulin or with a sulfonylurea,” Dr. Eriksson said. Aside from this risk for hypoglycemia when tirzepatide is used concurrently with certain other antidiabetes drugs, the SURPASS trials have shown “no other important safety signals,” Dr. Eriksson added.
Cardiovascular safety
All enrolled patients had either known coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral arterial disease or were at high risk for having one or more of these conditions because they were at least 50 years old with a history of either chronic kidney disease with depressed glomerular filtration or heart failure.
During complete follow-up, the composite rate of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina was numerically less in the patients who received tirzepatide, 5%, than in those on insulin glargine, 6%, a 26% relative risk reduction that did not achieve significance. The rate of total mortality was 3% in the tirzepatide group and 4% among those on glargine, a 30% relative risk reduction that was not significant.
The cardiovascular disease outcomes “suggest that tirzepatide is safe from a cardiovascular perspective,” Dr. Del Prato said when he presented the SURPASS-4 results during the virtual annual meeting of the EASD. However, a much larger cardiovascular outcomes trial of tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, with more than 12,000 randomized patients and using a GLP-1 receptor agonist as the comparator, is now in progress, with a report on the findings expected in 2025.
Overall, results from all five SURPASS trials of tirzepatide have shown that the drug is “effective and safe in people with type 2 diabetes, providing stringent glycemic control and additional metabolic benefits including weight reduction and an improvement in other cardiometabolic markers,” said Melanie J. Davies, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England.
Looking forward to when tirzepatide will be available for routine use, Dr. Eriksson positioned it near-term as part of a dual or triple regimen, especially for patients with type 2 diabetes who are obese or have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, renal impairment, high cardiovascular disease risk, or high risk for clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia.
A role for tirzepatide as a first-line agent is currently “more speculative,” he added, with more data needed on cardiovascular outcomes, long-term safety, and cost effectiveness.
The existing evidence base for tirzepatide shows “very promising efficacy” for weight loss and glucose lowering with “reassuring safety and tolerability,” and is a “very important addition to current options,” although the long-term safety of chronic tirzepatide treatment remains unproven, he said.
Dr. Eriksson called the drug’s glycemic control “strong and durable” based on the entire SURPASS program, with a “major” weight loss effect. He also suggested that while the adverse effect profile of tirzepatide appears similar to the GLP-1 receptor agonists, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events may be lower with tirzepatide.
SURPASS-4 and the other SURPASS trials were funded by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide. Dr. Del Prato has ties with Lilly, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Davies has ties with Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Takeda. Dr. Eriksson has ties with AstraZeneca, Ilya Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novo Nordisk.
, which compared the investigational agent to insulin glargine for treatment of type 2 diabetes. The study comprised 1,995 randomized patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular disease risk.
Positive results for tirzepatide from SURPASS-4, the fifth and final registration trial for the drug, as well as in the other four studies, tee up the agent for a planned approval submission to the Food and Drug Administration by the end of 2021.
SURPASS-4 differed from the four other pivotal trials not only in its comparator agent, but also by being the longest of the five and the only one that, by design, enrolled exclusively patients with either established cardiovascular disease or high risk for the disease.
The new results “provide initial support for glycemic control [by tirzepatide] being sustained for more than 1 year,” wrote Stefano Del Prato, MD, and associates in their published report in The Lancet.
Despite the trial’s primary endpoint of change in hemoglobin A1c after 52 weeks on treatment, the study continued for another year and had a median time on treatment of 85 weeks, with 7% of enrolled patients remaining on treatment for the maximum on-treatment follow-up of 104 weeks.
Potent glycemic control
The primary endpoint showed that treatment with tirzepatide produced an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.99% among 328 patients treated with a 10 mg weekly subcutaneous dosage compared with the 1,000 patients who received insulin glargine (Basaglar, Lantus, Toujeo), and an average 1.14% incremental reduction in A1c among 338 patients on a 15-mg dosage once weekly, reported Dr. Del Prato, professor and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa (Italy).
This met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of tirzepatide to insulin glargine for reduction of A1c, the study’s primary objective, and also met the study’s prespecified definition of superiority, both statistically significant results. The study also tested a weekly tirzepatide dosage of 5 mg that was significantly superior to insulin glargine for glycemic control.
“The magnitude of A1c reduction and the proportions of patients reaching glycemic targets appear to be larger than in similar studies in which GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide–1] receptor agonists have been compared with glargine,” the investigators wrote in their report.
The A1c effect of tirzepatide seen across all five SURPASS trials “surpasses what we’ve seen with other [glycemia control] drugs, with the possible exception of insulin,” said Jan W. Eriksson, MD, PhD, professor of clinical diabetes and metabolism at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
The results also showed several other clinically meaningful benefits from tirzepatide treatment. A composite outcome of reduction of A1c to less than 7% with no weight gain and no clinically significant documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycemia occurred in 74%-88% of patients in the three tirzepatide arms compared with 13% of patients treated with insulin glargine. After 52 weeks on treatment, body weight fell by an average of 8%, 11%, and 13% from baseline in the three tirzepatide treatment arms in a dose-dependent way, while weight rose by an average of 2% among those who received insulin glargine. Weight reduction of at least 10% occurred in 36%-66% of patients treated with tirzepatide, compared with 2% on treatment with insulin glargine.
SURPASS-4 was not run as a blinded study because of differences in administration of the comparator agents.
Safety appears similar to GLP-1 receptor agonists
The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURPASS-4, as it was in all of the other four trials in the SURPASS series, was consistent with previously reported safety of agents in the GLP-1 receptor agonist class, said Dr. Del Prato. It was an expected finding as tirzepatide combines activity as a GLP-1 receptor agonist with activity as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist in a single molecule.
The most common adverse effects were gastrointestinal, including diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, and vomiting. Most of these effects were mild or moderate, and they occurred most often during dose escalation of tirzepatide in the first 24 weeks on treatment.
The GIP receptor agonist effect of tirzepatide may diminish the nausea experienced by patients as a result of the drug’s GLP-1 receptor agonist action, Dr. Eriksson, designated discussant for the SURPASS trials, said during a session Sept. 30 at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).
Clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia occurred in 8% of all patients on tirzepatide, with no apparent dose relationship, about half the rate of the patients treated with insulin glargine. Notably, the hypoglycemia episodes among patients treated with tirzepatide clustered almost entirely in the subgroup of patients who also took a sulfonylurea agent during the study. (SURPASS-4 allowed enrolled patients to be on their background antidiabetes regimen throughout the study, and at baseline 95% were taking metformin, 54% were on a sulfonylurea, and about a quarter were on a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor.)
“I would advise not using tirzepatide with insulin or with a sulfonylurea,” Dr. Eriksson said. Aside from this risk for hypoglycemia when tirzepatide is used concurrently with certain other antidiabetes drugs, the SURPASS trials have shown “no other important safety signals,” Dr. Eriksson added.
Cardiovascular safety
All enrolled patients had either known coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral arterial disease or were at high risk for having one or more of these conditions because they were at least 50 years old with a history of either chronic kidney disease with depressed glomerular filtration or heart failure.
During complete follow-up, the composite rate of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina was numerically less in the patients who received tirzepatide, 5%, than in those on insulin glargine, 6%, a 26% relative risk reduction that did not achieve significance. The rate of total mortality was 3% in the tirzepatide group and 4% among those on glargine, a 30% relative risk reduction that was not significant.
The cardiovascular disease outcomes “suggest that tirzepatide is safe from a cardiovascular perspective,” Dr. Del Prato said when he presented the SURPASS-4 results during the virtual annual meeting of the EASD. However, a much larger cardiovascular outcomes trial of tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, with more than 12,000 randomized patients and using a GLP-1 receptor agonist as the comparator, is now in progress, with a report on the findings expected in 2025.
Overall, results from all five SURPASS trials of tirzepatide have shown that the drug is “effective and safe in people with type 2 diabetes, providing stringent glycemic control and additional metabolic benefits including weight reduction and an improvement in other cardiometabolic markers,” said Melanie J. Davies, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England.
Looking forward to when tirzepatide will be available for routine use, Dr. Eriksson positioned it near-term as part of a dual or triple regimen, especially for patients with type 2 diabetes who are obese or have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, renal impairment, high cardiovascular disease risk, or high risk for clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia.
A role for tirzepatide as a first-line agent is currently “more speculative,” he added, with more data needed on cardiovascular outcomes, long-term safety, and cost effectiveness.
The existing evidence base for tirzepatide shows “very promising efficacy” for weight loss and glucose lowering with “reassuring safety and tolerability,” and is a “very important addition to current options,” although the long-term safety of chronic tirzepatide treatment remains unproven, he said.
Dr. Eriksson called the drug’s glycemic control “strong and durable” based on the entire SURPASS program, with a “major” weight loss effect. He also suggested that while the adverse effect profile of tirzepatide appears similar to the GLP-1 receptor agonists, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events may be lower with tirzepatide.
SURPASS-4 and the other SURPASS trials were funded by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide. Dr. Del Prato has ties with Lilly, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Davies has ties with Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Takeda. Dr. Eriksson has ties with AstraZeneca, Ilya Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Novo Nordisk.
FROM THE LANCET
Researchers parse which patients with T2D need SGLT2 inhibition
Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.
“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,
The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
‘Cost must be considered’
“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”
“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.
“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
Banking on biomarkers
Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.
More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.
The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.
“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”
It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.
A Texas two-step process
“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.
“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.
Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.
Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m2, while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.
In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.
Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.
“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.
The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy
Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.
A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”
“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.
Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”
“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”
The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”
“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Clinicians don’t like risk scores
Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?
“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.
“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”
Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.
“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.
Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.
Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.
“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,
The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
‘Cost must be considered’
“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”
“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.
“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
Banking on biomarkers
Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.
More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.
The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.
“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”
It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.
A Texas two-step process
“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.
“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.
Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.
Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m2, while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.
In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.
Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.
“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.
The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy
Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.
A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”
“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.
Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”
“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”
The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”
“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Clinicians don’t like risk scores
Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?
“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.
“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”
Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.
“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.
Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.
Agents that form the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class – including canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have show remarkably consistent cardiovascular efficacy and safety for treating patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and higher-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.
But despite an essential role now established for drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, progressive renal dysfunction, or – most recently – patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the scope may be less clear when using these agents in patients with type 2 diabetes because they fall across a broad spectrum of risk for cardiorenal disease.
“What makes patients with type 2 diabetes distinct from other patients in whom SGLT2 inhibitors have been studied, such as patients with heart failure, is that they have a much wider spectrum of risk. Low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes were not included in the SGLT2 inhibitor trials. Defining risk in patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to inform prioritization” for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, explained David D. Berg, MD, who has led one effort to develop risk scores that can risk-stratify patients with type 2 diabetes based on their vulnerability to incident heart failure and hospitalization for these episodes,
The hefty cost for these drugs, with retail prices that run over $6,000 annually for the most widely used and most potent agents in the class, has spurred researchers to try to find cost-effective ways to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who stand to benefit most from taking an SGLT2 inhibitor.
‘Cost must be considered’
“Cost must be considered, and at this point it’s probably more responsible on a societal level to advise using SGLT2 inhibitors mainly in patients [with type 2 diabetes] with compelling indications,” said Silvio Inzucchi, MD, professor and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn. Dr. Inzucchi added, however, that “I can easily foresee a day when these agents are considered foundational therapy for all patients with type 2 diabetes, after they go generic and cost is not a major issue. I’m starting to lean toward this very simplified approach, but the costs are prohibitive at this time.”
“If the SGLT2 inhibitors were available at a low cost, I’d argue that they should be used in all patients with type 2 diabetes who have no contraindications or tolerability issues; but we live in a world where they are not yet low cost,” agreed Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.
“We can’t give SGLT2 inhibitors to everyone with type 2 diabetes right now because that would be too costly; these agents are so expensive. You start by targeting the patients with the highest risk” for incident heart failure, said Ambarish Pandey, MD, a cardiologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
The spotlight the SGLT2 inhibitor class has received, based on its unexpectedly potent efficacy in cutting rates of acute heart failure episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes, has also sharply raised the profile of this complication of type 2 diabetes, an outcome that until recently many clinicians had largely ignored, overshadowed by a focus on adverse outcomes from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease such as MIs and strokes.
“Results from the SGLT2 inhibitor trials have reignited interest in the relationship between type 2 diabetes and heart failure and have started to shift the mindset of clinicians toward thinking about reducing both atherothrombotic risk and heart failure risk in patients with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“Prior to the SGLT2 inhibitor trials, heart failure was on the radar of diabetes clinicians only as something to watch for as a potential side effect of certain glucose-lowering therapies. Now that there are therapies that can lower heart failure hospitalization, it’s made us think more about heart failure, how common it is in patients with type 2 diabetes, and what can we do to lower this risk,” commented Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, a diabetes specialist at the University of Toronto.
Banking on biomarkers
Risk scores for assessing the likelihood of people developing incident heart failure date back more than a decade. More recent efforts have focused on patients with type 2 diabetes, starting with scores that relied entirely on clinical markers of risk such as prior heart failure, established coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. Reports of two of these validated scores appeared in 2019, one from a team led by Dr. Berg and associates in 2019, and a second score developed by Dr. Pandey and associates.
More recently, both research teams behind these two scores validated newer versions that further refined assessment of patients with diabetes by including biomarkers of incipient heart failure, such as N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The UT Southwestern group’s biomarker-based score relies on levels of NT-proBNP as well as on levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and C-reactive protein, plus ECG-based assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy to assess risk for incident heart failure. Developers reported in 2021 that this biomarker score could account for 74% (C-statistic) of the 5-year risk for heart failure among patients with diabetes.
The biomarker-based score devised by Dr. Berg and associates, relies on NT-proBNP, hsTnT, and a history of heart failure to predict the risk for a future hospitalization for heart failure. They reported in Diabetes Care that in validation testing this score accounted for 84% of the risk.
“I’m hopeful that both our original clinically-based risk score and our new biomarker-based score will be endorsed by professional society guidelines. The intent of the biomarker-based score is not to replace the clinical one,” Dr. Berg stressed in an interview. But he acknowledged that it uses biomarker values that currently are not routinely collected in U.S. practice. Biomarkers like NT-proBNP “are highly associated with future heart failure risk, but are not yet routinely assessed,” he said. Because of this, “widespread adoption of the [biomarker] risk tool will require some education.”
It may also require some sort of preliminary screening to determine the appropriateness of using it in a specific patient because of the relative expense of a test for NT-proBNP.
A Texas two-step process
“We can’t perform a [NT-proBNP] test on every patient with type 2 diabetes because cost is a huge barrier,” with a U.K. price of roughly £28 (about $40) per test, commented Naveed Sattar, MD, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow. “NT-proBNP is the best biomarker by far to predict risk” for heart failure,” but “it’s too expensive. It’s not going to happen in everyone,” he said in an interview. He suggested taking a two-step approach to identify patients to test for NT-proBNP based on clinical measures like blood pressure, weight and height, lipid levels and renal function and the presence of suggestive symptoms like dyspnea, fatigue, and peripheral edema, an argument he recently spelled out in detail in an editorial he coauthored.
“More work is needed to define which patients would usefully have cardiac biomarkers measured,” Dr. Sattar wrote with his associate.
Two-step is the approach used in routine practice by clinicians at UT Southwestern Medical Center. “We screen all patients with type 2 diabetes and no diagnosed heart failure who are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor” using their 2019 screening tool, called the WATCH-DM Risk score, said Dr. Pandey. Patients flagged at high risk by their clinical score receive an SGLT2 inhibitor (presuming no contraindications). The remaining patients with low or intermediate risk may then undergo biomarker-based assessment to find additional patients who warrant SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he said in an interview.
Often, a record of the most important biomarker, NT-proBNP, is already in the patient’s record and less than a year old, in which case clinicians use that value. An NT-proBNP level of at least 125 pg/mL indicates increased risk in people with a body mass index of less than 30 kg/m2, while for those with higher body mass indexes clinicians at Southwestern apply a threshold for higher risk of at least 100 pg/mL.
In addition to starting those patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, the Southwestern protocol calls for intensified efforts at weight loss and improved fitness to further lower incident heart failure risk, and they are also considering targeting treatment with a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist to these patients as well. They have a research protocol in place, called WATCH-DM, that will prospectively assess the efficacy of this strategy.
Despite the cost, others also believe that the time is right for biomarker-based tests to boost access to the benefits that treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can give patients with type 2 diabetes.
“In theory it’s reasonable” to use a risk score like the recent one reported by Dr. Berg and coauthors, said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, an endocrinologist and director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “We need to pay attention to heart failure as an outcome and use risk stratification” to decide which patients with type 2 diabetes but without established cardiovascular disease warrant treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, she said in an interview. “Given the data, we need more concrete recommendations” from medical societies on how to reasonably use biomarkers and imaging to identify patients with type 2 diabetes who are at increased risk for heart failure and hence would benefit from treatment. “This should be of high interest to guidelines committees,” she added.
The earlier version of Dr. Berg’s score, based exclusively on clinical observations and conventional measures like estimated glomerular filtration rate and urinary creatinine to albumin ratio, had overlap with established criteria for starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as the presence of chronic kidney disease, she noted. “A biomarker-based score may provide the additional level of discrimination needed to characterize risk and potential benefit.”
Asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy
Dr. Aroda and several coauthors recently published a review that describes a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes who might get picked up by intensified screening for heart failure risk: those with asymptomatic diabetic cardiomyopathy, a clinical state that they said represents patients with stage B heart failure based on the new Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. Until recently, these patients with type 2 diabetes and asymptomatic cardiomyopathy have mostly gone unrecognized.
A recent report from Dr. Pandey and associates reviewed records from 2,900 U.S. patients with diabetes and no symptoms who had been included in any of three cohort studies and found echocardiographic evidence of early-stage cardiomyopathy in as many as two-thirds. In an editorial about this report, Dr. Aroda and coauthors called these patients a potential “window of opportunity for prevention and treatment of heart failure.”
“There is evidence of structural cardiac changes that progress through the stages of heart failure,” and starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor during an earlier stage can potentially slow or prevent this progression and thereby limit future functional decline, Dr. Aroda said.
Dr. Sattar agreed. Type 2 diabetes appears to help cause “fluid derangements” and abnormal hemodynamics that produces cardiac stress, changes in heart structure, and adverse remodeling of the heart, a process that “some call cardiomyopathy,” which is exacerbated by other pathologic forces that are also often present in these patients such as obesity and hypertension. SGLT2 inhibitors can help these patients by producing “reverse remodeling of the heart.”
“This process was neglected because for many years our focus was on ischemic heart disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It was there in plain sight, but we were missing it,” explained Dr. Sattar. Having agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class “has allowed us to better understand this mechanism.”
The SGLT2 inhibitors are “absolutely the driving reason” why the diabetes–heart failure link has become so important, said Dr. Inzucchi. Having drugs that reduce heart failure risk provided clinicians with a tool that has “changed our mindset.”
“Heart failure prevention has been largely neglected in patients with type 2 diabetes. Reprioritizing heart failure prevention to first and foremost among patients with type 2 diabetes is long overdue,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Clinicians don’t like risk scores
Will systematic screening for heart failure risk in selected patients with type 2 diabetes take hold, and with it expanded and better-targeted use of SGLT2 inhibitors?
“I hope so,” said Dr. Kosiborod, but one challenge is that “for the most part clinicians don’t like using risk scores.” Only a few have ever been widely incorporated into practice; mostly they become tools for research. Plus, SGLT2 inhibitor uptake has in general been slow to catch on, which Dr. Kosiborod blames primarily on clinical inertia, a pervasive issue that has also hampered optimal use of drugs as commonplace as statins, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin-receptor blockers.
“Given the avalanche of positive data, uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors will continue to improve and accelerate; but unfortunately, unless something dramatic happens we’ll likely see their continued underuse for several more years,” he predicted. “Designing better systems of care that prioritize prevention are absolutely needed to improve implementation of effective therapies, including SGLT2 inhibitors.”
Despite their underuse the SGLT2 inhibitor class has, in just 6 years since results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out and launched the current treatment era, transformed thinking about the risk that heart failure poses to patients with type 2 diabetes and the need to manage this risk.
“I thank the SGLT2 inhibitors for raising awareness of heart failure risk in patients with diabetes,” and for giving clinicians a new way to mitigate this risk, said Dr. Cheng.
Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, and received research grant support to his institution from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Dr. Cheng has received personal fees from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been an adviser and consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies; has received research grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received other research support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Pandey has been an adviser to Roche Diagnostics; has received nonfinancial support from Pfizer and Merck; and has received research support from Gilead Sciences, Myovista, and Applied Therapeutics. Dr. Sattar has received consulting honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics, and Novartis. Dr. Aroda has been a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies; has a spouse employed with Janssen; and has received research support (institutional contracts) from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies.
FROM DIABETES CARE
To tackle obesity, up fitness and activity or lose weight?
The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”
One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.
“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.
One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)
However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.
“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’
“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.
“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”
The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.
“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
No simple, single solutions
Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.
“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”
Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.
“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.
He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.
“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
Not the first time
This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”
Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.
“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.
More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”
And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.
“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”
Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.
The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”
The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.
Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”
One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.
“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.
One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)
However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.
“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’
“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.
“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”
The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.
“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
No simple, single solutions
Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.
“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”
Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.
“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.
He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.
“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
Not the first time
This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”
Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.
“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.
More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”
And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.
“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”
Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.
The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”
The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.
Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”
One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.
“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.
One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)
However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.
“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’
“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.
“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”
The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.
“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
No simple, single solutions
Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.
“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”
Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.
“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.
He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.
“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
Not the first time
This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”
Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.
“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.
More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”
And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.
“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”
Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.
The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”
The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.
Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dropping weight beneficial but some effects of obesity persist
It’s hard for people to completely escape a history of obesity, even when they later achieve a healthy weight.
American adults who once had obesity but later achieved and maintained a healthy body mass index (BMI) normalized some, but not all, of the excess clinical risk associated with obesity in a review of data collected from about 20,000 people during a series of eight NHANES surveys.
Maia P. Smith, MD, reported the findings at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.
“For some conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, the recovery [following a sharp drop in BMI] appears to be total, while for other conditions, like diabetes, the recovery is probabilistic. Some recover, but some don’t,” explained Dr. Smith in an interview.
“Weight loss reverses all, or essentially all, of the damage done by obesity in some people, but does not cause full reversal of the harm and does not fully resolve [type 2] diabetes in many others,” added Dr. Smith, an epidemiologist in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at St. George’s University, Grenada.
“The fact that ... analyses comparing formerly obese people to normal weight populations demonstrated improvement in population mean levels of hypertension and dyslipidemia is remarkable,” commented Rebecca T. Emeny, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who was not involved with Dr. Smith’s study.
“The observation that the individuals who were able to maintain normal weight after past obesity were still at greater risk for diabetes compared with the normal weight group speaks to the recent discussion of obesity as a metabolic disorder rather than a problem of calories in and calories out,” said Dr. Emeny in an interview.
She cited a recent article that proposed a carbohydrate-insulin model for obesity in place of an energy-balance model. This, however, is still somewhat contentious.
Dr. Emeny also cautioned that “the results of this study compare populations. The design and analysis do not allow for interpretation of individual risk resulting from changes in weight.”
Those who formerly had obesity can reverse hypertension, dyslipidemia
The study by Dr. Smith and associates used data collected in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is performed every 2 years by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They used data from eight consecutive surveys starting in 1999-2000 and continuing through 2013-2014, yielding data from nearly 40,000 adults who were at least 20 years old.
In addition to the 326 people who formerly had obesity at some time previously during their life (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) but now had a healthy BMI, and 6,235 who were consistently at a healthy BMI, they also included 13,710 people who currently had obesity. They dropped the remaining survey participants who did not fit into one of these three categories.
The participants who formerly had obesity averaged 54 years old, compared with a mean age of 48 years among those with current obesity and 41 years among those who currently had a healthy BMI (who had never had obesity). The results showed no differences by sex, but those who formerly had obesity had a much higher smoking prevalence.
The people who reported a healthy BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2) after previously having obesity had current prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were, respectively, 8% and 13% higher than the prevalence rates among adults who consistently maintained a healthy BMI – differences that were not significant.
In contrast, people who had current BMIs that indicated obesity had prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were each a significant threefold higher than those with a healthy BMI.
The 326 respondents who formerly had obesity but now were at a healthy BMI had a threefold higher prevalence of diabetes than did the 6,235 who consistently had maintained a healthy BMI. This was substantially less than the over sevenfold higher prevalence of diabetes among those who currently had obesity compared with those who always had a healthy BMI.
All these analyses were adjusted for the potential confounders of age, sex, smoking history, and ethnicity.
‘Quitting’ obesity better than current obesity
The finding that reaching a healthy BMI after a period of obesity could reverse some but not all risks associated with obesity is reminiscent of the effects of smoking, noted Dr. Smith.
“Never is better than ever, but quitting,” or dropping weight to reach a healthy BMI, “is better than current,” she concluded.
But Dr. Emeny said this interpretation, “while motivating and catchy, places emphasis on individual responsibility and choice rather than on social circumstances.”
Social effects “must be considered when evaluating population-level disparities in obesity-related cardiometabolic risk,” cautioned Dr. Emeny.
“’Quitting’ obesity is much more complicated than individual choice or ability.”
Dr. Smith also conceded that her analyses did not correct for the possible confounding effects that changes in diet or physical activity may have had on the observations.
“Neither diet nor physical activity has a well-known summary measure that we could have included as an adjuster,” she explained.
Dr. Smith and Dr. Emeny have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s hard for people to completely escape a history of obesity, even when they later achieve a healthy weight.
American adults who once had obesity but later achieved and maintained a healthy body mass index (BMI) normalized some, but not all, of the excess clinical risk associated with obesity in a review of data collected from about 20,000 people during a series of eight NHANES surveys.
Maia P. Smith, MD, reported the findings at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.
“For some conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, the recovery [following a sharp drop in BMI] appears to be total, while for other conditions, like diabetes, the recovery is probabilistic. Some recover, but some don’t,” explained Dr. Smith in an interview.
“Weight loss reverses all, or essentially all, of the damage done by obesity in some people, but does not cause full reversal of the harm and does not fully resolve [type 2] diabetes in many others,” added Dr. Smith, an epidemiologist in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at St. George’s University, Grenada.
“The fact that ... analyses comparing formerly obese people to normal weight populations demonstrated improvement in population mean levels of hypertension and dyslipidemia is remarkable,” commented Rebecca T. Emeny, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who was not involved with Dr. Smith’s study.
“The observation that the individuals who were able to maintain normal weight after past obesity were still at greater risk for diabetes compared with the normal weight group speaks to the recent discussion of obesity as a metabolic disorder rather than a problem of calories in and calories out,” said Dr. Emeny in an interview.
She cited a recent article that proposed a carbohydrate-insulin model for obesity in place of an energy-balance model. This, however, is still somewhat contentious.
Dr. Emeny also cautioned that “the results of this study compare populations. The design and analysis do not allow for interpretation of individual risk resulting from changes in weight.”
Those who formerly had obesity can reverse hypertension, dyslipidemia
The study by Dr. Smith and associates used data collected in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is performed every 2 years by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They used data from eight consecutive surveys starting in 1999-2000 and continuing through 2013-2014, yielding data from nearly 40,000 adults who were at least 20 years old.
In addition to the 326 people who formerly had obesity at some time previously during their life (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) but now had a healthy BMI, and 6,235 who were consistently at a healthy BMI, they also included 13,710 people who currently had obesity. They dropped the remaining survey participants who did not fit into one of these three categories.
The participants who formerly had obesity averaged 54 years old, compared with a mean age of 48 years among those with current obesity and 41 years among those who currently had a healthy BMI (who had never had obesity). The results showed no differences by sex, but those who formerly had obesity had a much higher smoking prevalence.
The people who reported a healthy BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2) after previously having obesity had current prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were, respectively, 8% and 13% higher than the prevalence rates among adults who consistently maintained a healthy BMI – differences that were not significant.
In contrast, people who had current BMIs that indicated obesity had prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were each a significant threefold higher than those with a healthy BMI.
The 326 respondents who formerly had obesity but now were at a healthy BMI had a threefold higher prevalence of diabetes than did the 6,235 who consistently had maintained a healthy BMI. This was substantially less than the over sevenfold higher prevalence of diabetes among those who currently had obesity compared with those who always had a healthy BMI.
All these analyses were adjusted for the potential confounders of age, sex, smoking history, and ethnicity.
‘Quitting’ obesity better than current obesity
The finding that reaching a healthy BMI after a period of obesity could reverse some but not all risks associated with obesity is reminiscent of the effects of smoking, noted Dr. Smith.
“Never is better than ever, but quitting,” or dropping weight to reach a healthy BMI, “is better than current,” she concluded.
But Dr. Emeny said this interpretation, “while motivating and catchy, places emphasis on individual responsibility and choice rather than on social circumstances.”
Social effects “must be considered when evaluating population-level disparities in obesity-related cardiometabolic risk,” cautioned Dr. Emeny.
“’Quitting’ obesity is much more complicated than individual choice or ability.”
Dr. Smith also conceded that her analyses did not correct for the possible confounding effects that changes in diet or physical activity may have had on the observations.
“Neither diet nor physical activity has a well-known summary measure that we could have included as an adjuster,” she explained.
Dr. Smith and Dr. Emeny have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s hard for people to completely escape a history of obesity, even when they later achieve a healthy weight.
American adults who once had obesity but later achieved and maintained a healthy body mass index (BMI) normalized some, but not all, of the excess clinical risk associated with obesity in a review of data collected from about 20,000 people during a series of eight NHANES surveys.
Maia P. Smith, MD, reported the findings at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.
“For some conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, the recovery [following a sharp drop in BMI] appears to be total, while for other conditions, like diabetes, the recovery is probabilistic. Some recover, but some don’t,” explained Dr. Smith in an interview.
“Weight loss reverses all, or essentially all, of the damage done by obesity in some people, but does not cause full reversal of the harm and does not fully resolve [type 2] diabetes in many others,” added Dr. Smith, an epidemiologist in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at St. George’s University, Grenada.
“The fact that ... analyses comparing formerly obese people to normal weight populations demonstrated improvement in population mean levels of hypertension and dyslipidemia is remarkable,” commented Rebecca T. Emeny, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who was not involved with Dr. Smith’s study.
“The observation that the individuals who were able to maintain normal weight after past obesity were still at greater risk for diabetes compared with the normal weight group speaks to the recent discussion of obesity as a metabolic disorder rather than a problem of calories in and calories out,” said Dr. Emeny in an interview.
She cited a recent article that proposed a carbohydrate-insulin model for obesity in place of an energy-balance model. This, however, is still somewhat contentious.
Dr. Emeny also cautioned that “the results of this study compare populations. The design and analysis do not allow for interpretation of individual risk resulting from changes in weight.”
Those who formerly had obesity can reverse hypertension, dyslipidemia
The study by Dr. Smith and associates used data collected in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is performed every 2 years by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They used data from eight consecutive surveys starting in 1999-2000 and continuing through 2013-2014, yielding data from nearly 40,000 adults who were at least 20 years old.
In addition to the 326 people who formerly had obesity at some time previously during their life (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) but now had a healthy BMI, and 6,235 who were consistently at a healthy BMI, they also included 13,710 people who currently had obesity. They dropped the remaining survey participants who did not fit into one of these three categories.
The participants who formerly had obesity averaged 54 years old, compared with a mean age of 48 years among those with current obesity and 41 years among those who currently had a healthy BMI (who had never had obesity). The results showed no differences by sex, but those who formerly had obesity had a much higher smoking prevalence.
The people who reported a healthy BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2) after previously having obesity had current prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were, respectively, 8% and 13% higher than the prevalence rates among adults who consistently maintained a healthy BMI – differences that were not significant.
In contrast, people who had current BMIs that indicated obesity had prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were each a significant threefold higher than those with a healthy BMI.
The 326 respondents who formerly had obesity but now were at a healthy BMI had a threefold higher prevalence of diabetes than did the 6,235 who consistently had maintained a healthy BMI. This was substantially less than the over sevenfold higher prevalence of diabetes among those who currently had obesity compared with those who always had a healthy BMI.
All these analyses were adjusted for the potential confounders of age, sex, smoking history, and ethnicity.
‘Quitting’ obesity better than current obesity
The finding that reaching a healthy BMI after a period of obesity could reverse some but not all risks associated with obesity is reminiscent of the effects of smoking, noted Dr. Smith.
“Never is better than ever, but quitting,” or dropping weight to reach a healthy BMI, “is better than current,” she concluded.
But Dr. Emeny said this interpretation, “while motivating and catchy, places emphasis on individual responsibility and choice rather than on social circumstances.”
Social effects “must be considered when evaluating population-level disparities in obesity-related cardiometabolic risk,” cautioned Dr. Emeny.
“’Quitting’ obesity is much more complicated than individual choice or ability.”
Dr. Smith also conceded that her analyses did not correct for the possible confounding effects that changes in diet or physical activity may have had on the observations.
“Neither diet nor physical activity has a well-known summary measure that we could have included as an adjuster,” she explained.
Dr. Smith and Dr. Emeny have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from easd 2021
Men die more often than women after bariatric surgery
Men had a much higher rate of death following bariatric surgery performed in Austria during 2010-2018, compared with women in a retrospective analysis of nearly 20,000 patients based on health insurance records.
The reason may be that men undergoing bariatric surgery have “worse overall health at the time of surgery” than women, Hannes Beiglböck, MD, suggested at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The results also showed that “men tend to be older [at time of surgery] and that might have the biggest impact on outcomes after bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Beiglböck, a researcher in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the Medical University of Vienna.
The findings confirm those of prior studies in various worldwide locations, he noted; that is, men undergoing bariatric surgery tend to be older than women and have more comorbidities and perioperative mortality.
Dr. Beiglböck also highlighted earlier reports that indicate “profound” sex-specific differences in why patients undergo bariatric surgery, with men often driven by a medical condition and women motivated by appearance.
Hence, for men, it may be important to focus on preoperative counseling to try to get them to think about bariatric surgery earlier, “which may improve their postsurgical mortality rate,” he observed.
Nearly threefold higher mortality among men
Dr. Beiglböck and associates used medical claims data filed with the Austrian health system, which includes nearly all residents. In 2010-2018, 19,901 Austrian patients underwent bariatric surgery, and researchers tracked their outcomes for a median of 5.4 years, through April 2020.
During the 9-year period, 74% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery were women, again, a finding consistent with prior reports from other countries.
The 5,220 men were an average of 41.8 years old, with 65% undergoing gastric bypass and 30% gastric banding. The 14,681 women were an average of 40.1 years old, with 70% undergoing gastric bypass and 22% gastric banding.
During follow-up, 367 patients (1.8%) died. Among men, the overall mortality rate was 2.6-fold higher, compared with women (1.3% vs. 3.4%) and average mortality per year was 2.8-fold higher (0.64% vs. 0.24%).
The rate of death on the day of surgery among men also substantially exceeded that of women (0.29% vs. 0.05%), as did death within 30 days of surgery (0.48% vs. 0.08%). All of these between-sex differences were significant.
Baseline prevalence of four categories of comorbidities and how these differed by sex among patients who died during follow-up was also examined. Underlying cardiovascular disease was prevalent in 299 patients (81% of the deceased group), 200 (54%) had a psychiatric disorder, 138 (38%) had diabetes, and 132 (36%) had a malignancy.
The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders was roughly the same in men and women. Men had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, and a higher proportion of women had a malignancy.
Consistent with U.S. studies
A U.S. report in 2015 documented a higher prevalence of comorbidities and more severe illness among men undergoing bariatric surgery, compared with women, noted session chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
“I think the [Austrian] data presented have relevance to the U.S. population,” Dr. Semnani-Azad said in an interview.
“The main limitation of these univariate analyses is they don’t account for potential confounding variables that could affect the association, such as lifestyle variables, age, and family history. There is always potential for other variables” to influence apparent sex-specific associations, she commented. Another limitation is the small total number of deaths analyzed, at 367.
“These results are a good starting point for future studies. More work is needed to better understand the impact of comorbidities and sex on postsurgical mortality,” Dr. Semnani-Azad concluded.
Dr. Beiglböck and Dr. Semnani-Azad have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Men had a much higher rate of death following bariatric surgery performed in Austria during 2010-2018, compared with women in a retrospective analysis of nearly 20,000 patients based on health insurance records.
The reason may be that men undergoing bariatric surgery have “worse overall health at the time of surgery” than women, Hannes Beiglböck, MD, suggested at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The results also showed that “men tend to be older [at time of surgery] and that might have the biggest impact on outcomes after bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Beiglböck, a researcher in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the Medical University of Vienna.
The findings confirm those of prior studies in various worldwide locations, he noted; that is, men undergoing bariatric surgery tend to be older than women and have more comorbidities and perioperative mortality.
Dr. Beiglböck also highlighted earlier reports that indicate “profound” sex-specific differences in why patients undergo bariatric surgery, with men often driven by a medical condition and women motivated by appearance.
Hence, for men, it may be important to focus on preoperative counseling to try to get them to think about bariatric surgery earlier, “which may improve their postsurgical mortality rate,” he observed.
Nearly threefold higher mortality among men
Dr. Beiglböck and associates used medical claims data filed with the Austrian health system, which includes nearly all residents. In 2010-2018, 19,901 Austrian patients underwent bariatric surgery, and researchers tracked their outcomes for a median of 5.4 years, through April 2020.
During the 9-year period, 74% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery were women, again, a finding consistent with prior reports from other countries.
The 5,220 men were an average of 41.8 years old, with 65% undergoing gastric bypass and 30% gastric banding. The 14,681 women were an average of 40.1 years old, with 70% undergoing gastric bypass and 22% gastric banding.
During follow-up, 367 patients (1.8%) died. Among men, the overall mortality rate was 2.6-fold higher, compared with women (1.3% vs. 3.4%) and average mortality per year was 2.8-fold higher (0.64% vs. 0.24%).
The rate of death on the day of surgery among men also substantially exceeded that of women (0.29% vs. 0.05%), as did death within 30 days of surgery (0.48% vs. 0.08%). All of these between-sex differences were significant.
Baseline prevalence of four categories of comorbidities and how these differed by sex among patients who died during follow-up was also examined. Underlying cardiovascular disease was prevalent in 299 patients (81% of the deceased group), 200 (54%) had a psychiatric disorder, 138 (38%) had diabetes, and 132 (36%) had a malignancy.
The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders was roughly the same in men and women. Men had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, and a higher proportion of women had a malignancy.
Consistent with U.S. studies
A U.S. report in 2015 documented a higher prevalence of comorbidities and more severe illness among men undergoing bariatric surgery, compared with women, noted session chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
“I think the [Austrian] data presented have relevance to the U.S. population,” Dr. Semnani-Azad said in an interview.
“The main limitation of these univariate analyses is they don’t account for potential confounding variables that could affect the association, such as lifestyle variables, age, and family history. There is always potential for other variables” to influence apparent sex-specific associations, she commented. Another limitation is the small total number of deaths analyzed, at 367.
“These results are a good starting point for future studies. More work is needed to better understand the impact of comorbidities and sex on postsurgical mortality,” Dr. Semnani-Azad concluded.
Dr. Beiglböck and Dr. Semnani-Azad have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Men had a much higher rate of death following bariatric surgery performed in Austria during 2010-2018, compared with women in a retrospective analysis of nearly 20,000 patients based on health insurance records.
The reason may be that men undergoing bariatric surgery have “worse overall health at the time of surgery” than women, Hannes Beiglböck, MD, suggested at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The results also showed that “men tend to be older [at time of surgery] and that might have the biggest impact on outcomes after bariatric surgery,” said Dr. Beiglböck, a researcher in the division of endocrinology and metabolism at the Medical University of Vienna.
The findings confirm those of prior studies in various worldwide locations, he noted; that is, men undergoing bariatric surgery tend to be older than women and have more comorbidities and perioperative mortality.
Dr. Beiglböck also highlighted earlier reports that indicate “profound” sex-specific differences in why patients undergo bariatric surgery, with men often driven by a medical condition and women motivated by appearance.
Hence, for men, it may be important to focus on preoperative counseling to try to get them to think about bariatric surgery earlier, “which may improve their postsurgical mortality rate,” he observed.
Nearly threefold higher mortality among men
Dr. Beiglböck and associates used medical claims data filed with the Austrian health system, which includes nearly all residents. In 2010-2018, 19,901 Austrian patients underwent bariatric surgery, and researchers tracked their outcomes for a median of 5.4 years, through April 2020.
During the 9-year period, 74% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery were women, again, a finding consistent with prior reports from other countries.
The 5,220 men were an average of 41.8 years old, with 65% undergoing gastric bypass and 30% gastric banding. The 14,681 women were an average of 40.1 years old, with 70% undergoing gastric bypass and 22% gastric banding.
During follow-up, 367 patients (1.8%) died. Among men, the overall mortality rate was 2.6-fold higher, compared with women (1.3% vs. 3.4%) and average mortality per year was 2.8-fold higher (0.64% vs. 0.24%).
The rate of death on the day of surgery among men also substantially exceeded that of women (0.29% vs. 0.05%), as did death within 30 days of surgery (0.48% vs. 0.08%). All of these between-sex differences were significant.
Baseline prevalence of four categories of comorbidities and how these differed by sex among patients who died during follow-up was also examined. Underlying cardiovascular disease was prevalent in 299 patients (81% of the deceased group), 200 (54%) had a psychiatric disorder, 138 (38%) had diabetes, and 132 (36%) had a malignancy.
The prevalence of cardiovascular disease and psychiatric disorders was roughly the same in men and women. Men had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, and a higher proportion of women had a malignancy.
Consistent with U.S. studies
A U.S. report in 2015 documented a higher prevalence of comorbidities and more severe illness among men undergoing bariatric surgery, compared with women, noted session chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.
“I think the [Austrian] data presented have relevance to the U.S. population,” Dr. Semnani-Azad said in an interview.
“The main limitation of these univariate analyses is they don’t account for potential confounding variables that could affect the association, such as lifestyle variables, age, and family history. There is always potential for other variables” to influence apparent sex-specific associations, she commented. Another limitation is the small total number of deaths analyzed, at 367.
“These results are a good starting point for future studies. More work is needed to better understand the impact of comorbidities and sex on postsurgical mortality,” Dr. Semnani-Azad concluded.
Dr. Beiglböck and Dr. Semnani-Azad have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2021
Primary goal in T2D should be weight loss, diabetologists say
Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.
“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”
Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.
Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.
“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.
The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.
“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).
Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”
“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.
15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal
Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.
At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.
The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.
Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.
The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.
“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.
New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.
Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.
Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.
“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”
Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.
Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.
“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.
The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.
“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).
Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”
“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.
15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal
Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.
At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.
The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.
Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.
The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.
“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.
New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.
Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.
Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.
“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”
Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.
Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.
“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.
The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.
Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.
“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).
Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”
“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.
For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.
15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal
Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.
At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.
The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.
Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.
The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.
“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.
New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.
Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.
FROM EASD 2021
Women with type 2 diabetes get fewer cardioprotective drugs than do men
At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”
“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.
Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.
The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.
“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.
REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.
But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline
The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.
Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.
“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
A role for geography, or selection bias?
The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.
“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.
There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.
Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”
The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”
REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”
“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.
Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.
The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.
“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.
REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.
But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline
The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.
Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.
“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
A role for geography, or selection bias?
The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.
“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.
There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.
Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”
The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”
REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”
“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.
Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.
The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.
“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.
REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.
But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline
The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.
Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.
“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
A role for geography, or selection bias?
The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.
“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.
There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.
Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”
The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”
REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
EMPEROR-Preserved: Empagliflozin’s HFpEF efficacy catalyzes a heart failure redefinition
Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.
EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
‘Forget about ejection fraction’
“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.
“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.
“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.
The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments
“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”
Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.
The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.
The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “
“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.
“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”
“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF
The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.
They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.
Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).
Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.
Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.
The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.
“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.
The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.
Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.
EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
‘Forget about ejection fraction’
“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.
“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.
“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.
The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments
“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”
Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.
The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.
The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “
“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.
“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”
“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF
The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.
They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.
Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).
Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.
Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.
The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.
“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.
The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.
Groundbreaking results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did more than establish for the first time that a drug, empagliflozin, has clearly proven efficacy for treating patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The results also helped catalyze a paradigm shift in how heart failure thought leaders think about the role of ejection fraction for making important distinctions among patients with heart failure.
EMPEROR-Preserved may also be the final nail in the coffin for defining patients with heart failure as having HFpEF or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
This new consensus essentially throws out left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as the key metric for matching patients to heart failure treatments. Experts have instead begun suggesting a more unified treatment approach for all heart failure patients regardless of their EF.
‘Forget about ejection fraction’
“We encourage you to forget about ejection fraction,” declared Milton Packer, MD, during discussion at a session of the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America. “We certainly encourage you to forget about an ejection fraction of less than 40%” as having special significance,” added Dr. Packer, a lead investigator for both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (which researchers combined in a unified analysis with a total of 9,718 patients with heart failure called EMPEROR-Pooled), and a heart failure researcher at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
“The 40% ejection fraction divide is artificial. It was created in 2003 as part of a trial design, but it has no physiological significance,” Dr. Packer explained. A much better way to distinguish systolic and diastolic heart failure is by strain assessment rather than by ejection fraction. “Strain is a measure of myocardial shortening, a measure of what the heart does. Ejection fraction is a measure of volume,” said Dr. Packer. “Sign me up to get rid of ejection fraction,” he added.
“Ejection fraction is not as valuable as we thought for distinguishing the therapeutic benefit” of heart failure drugs, agreed Marvin A. Konstam, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University and chief physician executive of the CardioVascular Center of Tufts Medical Center, both in Boston, who spoke during a different session at the meeting.
“It would easier if we didn’t spend time parsing this number,” ejection fraction, commented Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. “Wouldn’t it be easier if we said that every patient with heart failure needs to receive one agent from each of the four [pillar] drug classes, and put them in a polypill” at reduced dosages, he proposed, envisioning one potential consequence of jettisoning ejection fraction.
The four pillar drug classes, recently identified as essential for patients with HFrEF but until now not endorsed for patients with HFpEF, are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, such as empagliflozin (Jardiance); an angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor compound such as sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto); beta-blockers; and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.
An opportunity for ‘simpler and easier’ treatments
“This is an opportunity to disrupt the way we’ve been doing things and think about something that is simpler and easier,” said Dr. Yancy, who chaired some of the panels serially formed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology to write guidelines for treating heart failure. “An approach that would be easier to implement without worrying about staggering the start of each drug class and an incessant focus on titrating individual elements and taking 6 months to get to a certain place.”
Results from EMPEROR-Preserved and the combined EMPEROR-Pooled analysis triggered these paradigm-shifting sentiments by showing clear evidence that treatment with empagliflozin exerts consistent benefit – and is consistently safe – for patients with heart failure across a spectrum of EFs, from less than 25% to 64%, though its performance in patients with HFpEF and EFs of 65% or greater in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial remains unclear.
The consequence is that clinicians should feel comfortable prescribing empagliflozin to most patients with heart failure without regard to EF, even patients with EF values in the mid-60% range.
The EMPEROR-Preserved results showed a clear signal of attenuated benefit among patients with an EF of 65% or greater “on a population basis,” stressed Dr. Packer. “But on an individual basis, ejection fraction is not that reproducible, so measuring ejection fraction will not help you determine whom to treat or not treat. “
“There is significant variability” measuring EF using the most common modality, echocardiography, noted Javed Butler, MD, an EMPEROR coinvestigator who also spoke at the meeting session. A person with a measured EF of 65% could actually have a value that may be as low as 58% or as high as about 72%, noted Dr. Butler, who is professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi, Jackson. The upshot is that any patient diagnosed with heart failure should receive an SGLT2 inhibitor “irrespective of their ejection fraction,” Dr. Butler advised.
“Ejection fraction is very crude, and probably not sufficient to identify a phenotype,” for treatment, said Dr. Yancy. “The real takeaway may be that we need to revisit what we call HFrEF, and then let that be the new standard for treatment.”
“Is [an EF of] 60% the new 40%?” asked Dr. Packer, implying that the answer was yes.
Results from several trials suggest redefining HFrEF
The idea that patients without traditionally defined HFrEF – an EF of 40% or less – could also benefit from other classes of heart failure drugs has been gestating for a while, and then rose to a new level with the August 2021 report of results from EMPEROR-Preserved. Two years ago, in September 2019, Dr. Butler, Dr. Packer, and a third colleague advanced the notion of redefining HFrEF by raising the ejection fraction ceiling in a published commentary.
They cited the experience with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the CHARM-Preserved trial, which showed a strong signal of benefit in the subgroup of patients with EFs of 41%-49%, but not in those with an EF of 50% or higher. This finding prompted Dr. Konstam to express doubts about relying on EF to define heart failure subgroups in trials and guide management in a commentary published more than 3 years ago.
Another crack in the traditional EF framework came from analysis of results from the TOPCAT trial that tested spironolactone as a treatment for patients with HFpEF, according to the 2019 opinion published by Dr. Butler and Dr. Packer. Once again a post hoc analysis, this time using data from TOPCAT, suggested a benefit from the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone in patients with heart failure and an EF of 45%-49% (45% was the minimum EF for enrollment into the study).
Recently, data from a third trial that tested sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, PARAGON-HF, showed benefit among patients with EFs below the study median of 57%. This finding led the Food and Drug Administration in February 2021 to amend its initial approval for sacubitril/valsartan by removing a specific EF ceiling from the drug’s indication and instead saying that patient’s receiving the drug should have a “below normal” EF.
Writing in a recent commentary, Dr. Yancy called the FDA’s action on sacubitril/valsartan “reasonable,” and that the subgroup assessment of data from the PARAGON-HF trial creates a “new, reasonably evidence-based therapy for HFpEF.” He also predicted that guideline-writing panels will “likely align with a permissive statement of indication” for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF, especially those with EFs of less than 57%.
The idea of using an SGLT2 inhibitor like empagliflozin on all heart failure patients, and also adding agents like sacubitril/valsartan and spironolactone in patients with HFpEF and EFs in the mid-50% range or lower may take some time to catch on, but it already has one influential advocate.
“If a patient has HFpEF with an EF of less than 55%, use quadruple-class therapy,” summed up Dr. Butler during the HFSA session, while also suggesting prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor to essentially all patients with heart failure regardless of their EF.
The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced trials and the EMPEROR-Pooled analysis were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Packer has had financial relationships with BI and Lilly and numerous other companies. Dr. Konstam has served on data monitoring committees for trials funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and by Amgen, Luitpold, and Pfizer, and has been a consultant to Arena, LivaNova, Merck, SC Pharma, and Takeda. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and numerous other companies.
FROM HFSA 2021