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
‘Stunning’ twincretin beats semaglutide for A1c, weight reduction in T2D
Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.
“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.
SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
Significant differences at each dose level
Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.
One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.
The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.
The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.
The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect
Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .
“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
The important issue of dose
But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.
“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.
Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.
Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.
A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
Low rates of hypoglycemia
Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.
These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.
Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.
SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
Several more tirzepatide trials
Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.
The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.
The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.
Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.
“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.
SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
Significant differences at each dose level
Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.
One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.
The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.
The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.
The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect
Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .
“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
The important issue of dose
But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.
“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.
Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.
Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.
A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
Low rates of hypoglycemia
Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.
These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.
Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.
SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
Several more tirzepatide trials
Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.
The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.
The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.
Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.
“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.
SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
Significant differences at each dose level
Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.
One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.
The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.
The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.
The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect
Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .
“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
The important issue of dose
But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.
“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.
Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.
Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.
A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
Low rates of hypoglycemia
Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.
These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.
Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.
SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
Several more tirzepatide trials
Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.
The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.
The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.
FROM ADA 2021
Medically suspect criterion can determine bariatric surgery coverage
A delaying tactic used by some U.S. health insurers to limit coverage of bariatric surgery does not jibe with the clinical experience at one U.S. center with 461 patients who underwent primary or revisional bariatric surgery.
The tactic applies to patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) of 35-39 kg/m2 who usually also need at least one comorbidity to qualify for insurance coverage for bariatric surgery, and specifically to the subgroup for whom hypertension is the qualifying comorbidity.
Some insurers limit surgery coverage to patients with hypertension who fail to reach their goal blood pressure on agents from three different drug classes, a policy that is “extremely frustrating and dangerous,” said Yannis Raftopoulos, MD, PhD, in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Using number of antihypertensive drugs ‘is not correct’
“Using the number of antihypertensive medications to justify surgery is not correct because blood pressure control is not [always] better when patients take two or three medications, compared with when they are taking one. This harms patients because the more severe their hypertension, the worse their control,” said Dr. Raftopoulos, director of the weight management program at Holyoke (Mass.) Medical Center.
He presented findings from a retrospective study of 461 patients who underwent either sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at his center, including 213 (46%) diagnosed with hypertension at the time of their surgery. Within this group were 68 patients with a BMI of 35-39, which meant that they could get insurance coverage for bariatric surgery only if they also had a relevant comorbidity such as hypertension, diabetes, or severe sleep apnea.
Among these patients, 36 (17% of those with hypertension) had only hypertension as their relevant comorbidity and would not have qualified for bariatric surgery under the strictest criteria applied by some insurers that require patients to remain hypertensive despite treatment with at least three different antihypertensive medications. (These 36 patients underwent bariatric surgery because their insurance coverage did not have this restriction.)
The analyses Dr. Raftopoulos presented also documented the rate of hypertension resolution among patients in the series who had hypertension at baseline and 1-year follow-up results. Among 65 patients on one antihypertensive drug at baseline, 43 (66%) had complete resolution of their hypertension after 1 year, defined as blood pressure of less than 130/90 mm Hg while completely off antihypertensive treatment. In contrast, among 55 patients on two antihypertensive medications at baseline, 28 (51%) had complete resolution after 1 year, and among 24 patients on three or more antihypertensive medications at baseline, 3 (13%) had complete resolution 1 year after bariatric surgery, he reported.
“Patients who were treated with one oral antihypertensive medication preoperatively had a higher likelihood of postoperative hypertension resolution,” concluded Dr. Raftopoulos.
Restricting access to bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of less than 40 based on the preoperative intensity of their antihypertensive treatment “is not supported by our data, and can be potentially harmful,” he declared.
“This study was the result of discussions about this problem with multiple insurers in my area,” he added. “This affects a good number of patients.”
Waiting for hypertension to become less treatable
The results Dr. Raftopoulos presented “are not surprising, because they confirm the hypothesis that earlier intervention in the course of a disease like hypertension is more likely to be successful,” commented Bruce D. Schirmer, MD, a professor of surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and designated discussant for the report.
The policy followed by some health insurers to delay coverage for bariatric surgery until patients fail three medications “forces patients with more treatable hypertension to wait until their disease worsens and becomes less treatable before they can receive appropriate treatment,” he said.
Dr. Schirmer attributed the motivation for this approach to a “despicable” and “reprehensible” reason: “Actuarial calculations that show paying for curative therapy is not cost effective in the short term. The duration of a patient’s policy may not be long enough to yield a positive financial outcome, so it becomes more appropriate to deny optimal care and have patients become sicker from their disease.”
“I applaud the authors for accumulating the data that point out this unfortunate rule of some insurance companies,” Dr. Schirmer added.
The practice is comparable with an insurer requiring that a patient’s cancer must be metastatic before allowing coverage for treatment, commented Ann M. Rogers, MD, professor and director of the Penn State University surgical weight loss program in Hershey, Penn., and a moderator of the session.
Dr. Raftopoulos, Dr. Schirmer, and Dr. Rogers had no disclosures.
A delaying tactic used by some U.S. health insurers to limit coverage of bariatric surgery does not jibe with the clinical experience at one U.S. center with 461 patients who underwent primary or revisional bariatric surgery.
The tactic applies to patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) of 35-39 kg/m2 who usually also need at least one comorbidity to qualify for insurance coverage for bariatric surgery, and specifically to the subgroup for whom hypertension is the qualifying comorbidity.
Some insurers limit surgery coverage to patients with hypertension who fail to reach their goal blood pressure on agents from three different drug classes, a policy that is “extremely frustrating and dangerous,” said Yannis Raftopoulos, MD, PhD, in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Using number of antihypertensive drugs ‘is not correct’
“Using the number of antihypertensive medications to justify surgery is not correct because blood pressure control is not [always] better when patients take two or three medications, compared with when they are taking one. This harms patients because the more severe their hypertension, the worse their control,” said Dr. Raftopoulos, director of the weight management program at Holyoke (Mass.) Medical Center.
He presented findings from a retrospective study of 461 patients who underwent either sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at his center, including 213 (46%) diagnosed with hypertension at the time of their surgery. Within this group were 68 patients with a BMI of 35-39, which meant that they could get insurance coverage for bariatric surgery only if they also had a relevant comorbidity such as hypertension, diabetes, or severe sleep apnea.
Among these patients, 36 (17% of those with hypertension) had only hypertension as their relevant comorbidity and would not have qualified for bariatric surgery under the strictest criteria applied by some insurers that require patients to remain hypertensive despite treatment with at least three different antihypertensive medications. (These 36 patients underwent bariatric surgery because their insurance coverage did not have this restriction.)
The analyses Dr. Raftopoulos presented also documented the rate of hypertension resolution among patients in the series who had hypertension at baseline and 1-year follow-up results. Among 65 patients on one antihypertensive drug at baseline, 43 (66%) had complete resolution of their hypertension after 1 year, defined as blood pressure of less than 130/90 mm Hg while completely off antihypertensive treatment. In contrast, among 55 patients on two antihypertensive medications at baseline, 28 (51%) had complete resolution after 1 year, and among 24 patients on three or more antihypertensive medications at baseline, 3 (13%) had complete resolution 1 year after bariatric surgery, he reported.
“Patients who were treated with one oral antihypertensive medication preoperatively had a higher likelihood of postoperative hypertension resolution,” concluded Dr. Raftopoulos.
Restricting access to bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of less than 40 based on the preoperative intensity of their antihypertensive treatment “is not supported by our data, and can be potentially harmful,” he declared.
“This study was the result of discussions about this problem with multiple insurers in my area,” he added. “This affects a good number of patients.”
Waiting for hypertension to become less treatable
The results Dr. Raftopoulos presented “are not surprising, because they confirm the hypothesis that earlier intervention in the course of a disease like hypertension is more likely to be successful,” commented Bruce D. Schirmer, MD, a professor of surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and designated discussant for the report.
The policy followed by some health insurers to delay coverage for bariatric surgery until patients fail three medications “forces patients with more treatable hypertension to wait until their disease worsens and becomes less treatable before they can receive appropriate treatment,” he said.
Dr. Schirmer attributed the motivation for this approach to a “despicable” and “reprehensible” reason: “Actuarial calculations that show paying for curative therapy is not cost effective in the short term. The duration of a patient’s policy may not be long enough to yield a positive financial outcome, so it becomes more appropriate to deny optimal care and have patients become sicker from their disease.”
“I applaud the authors for accumulating the data that point out this unfortunate rule of some insurance companies,” Dr. Schirmer added.
The practice is comparable with an insurer requiring that a patient’s cancer must be metastatic before allowing coverage for treatment, commented Ann M. Rogers, MD, professor and director of the Penn State University surgical weight loss program in Hershey, Penn., and a moderator of the session.
Dr. Raftopoulos, Dr. Schirmer, and Dr. Rogers had no disclosures.
A delaying tactic used by some U.S. health insurers to limit coverage of bariatric surgery does not jibe with the clinical experience at one U.S. center with 461 patients who underwent primary or revisional bariatric surgery.
The tactic applies to patients with a baseline body mass index (BMI) of 35-39 kg/m2 who usually also need at least one comorbidity to qualify for insurance coverage for bariatric surgery, and specifically to the subgroup for whom hypertension is the qualifying comorbidity.
Some insurers limit surgery coverage to patients with hypertension who fail to reach their goal blood pressure on agents from three different drug classes, a policy that is “extremely frustrating and dangerous,” said Yannis Raftopoulos, MD, PhD, in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Using number of antihypertensive drugs ‘is not correct’
“Using the number of antihypertensive medications to justify surgery is not correct because blood pressure control is not [always] better when patients take two or three medications, compared with when they are taking one. This harms patients because the more severe their hypertension, the worse their control,” said Dr. Raftopoulos, director of the weight management program at Holyoke (Mass.) Medical Center.
He presented findings from a retrospective study of 461 patients who underwent either sleeve gastrectomy or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at his center, including 213 (46%) diagnosed with hypertension at the time of their surgery. Within this group were 68 patients with a BMI of 35-39, which meant that they could get insurance coverage for bariatric surgery only if they also had a relevant comorbidity such as hypertension, diabetes, or severe sleep apnea.
Among these patients, 36 (17% of those with hypertension) had only hypertension as their relevant comorbidity and would not have qualified for bariatric surgery under the strictest criteria applied by some insurers that require patients to remain hypertensive despite treatment with at least three different antihypertensive medications. (These 36 patients underwent bariatric surgery because their insurance coverage did not have this restriction.)
The analyses Dr. Raftopoulos presented also documented the rate of hypertension resolution among patients in the series who had hypertension at baseline and 1-year follow-up results. Among 65 patients on one antihypertensive drug at baseline, 43 (66%) had complete resolution of their hypertension after 1 year, defined as blood pressure of less than 130/90 mm Hg while completely off antihypertensive treatment. In contrast, among 55 patients on two antihypertensive medications at baseline, 28 (51%) had complete resolution after 1 year, and among 24 patients on three or more antihypertensive medications at baseline, 3 (13%) had complete resolution 1 year after bariatric surgery, he reported.
“Patients who were treated with one oral antihypertensive medication preoperatively had a higher likelihood of postoperative hypertension resolution,” concluded Dr. Raftopoulos.
Restricting access to bariatric surgery to patients with a BMI of less than 40 based on the preoperative intensity of their antihypertensive treatment “is not supported by our data, and can be potentially harmful,” he declared.
“This study was the result of discussions about this problem with multiple insurers in my area,” he added. “This affects a good number of patients.”
Waiting for hypertension to become less treatable
The results Dr. Raftopoulos presented “are not surprising, because they confirm the hypothesis that earlier intervention in the course of a disease like hypertension is more likely to be successful,” commented Bruce D. Schirmer, MD, a professor of surgery at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and designated discussant for the report.
The policy followed by some health insurers to delay coverage for bariatric surgery until patients fail three medications “forces patients with more treatable hypertension to wait until their disease worsens and becomes less treatable before they can receive appropriate treatment,” he said.
Dr. Schirmer attributed the motivation for this approach to a “despicable” and “reprehensible” reason: “Actuarial calculations that show paying for curative therapy is not cost effective in the short term. The duration of a patient’s policy may not be long enough to yield a positive financial outcome, so it becomes more appropriate to deny optimal care and have patients become sicker from their disease.”
“I applaud the authors for accumulating the data that point out this unfortunate rule of some insurance companies,” Dr. Schirmer added.
The practice is comparable with an insurer requiring that a patient’s cancer must be metastatic before allowing coverage for treatment, commented Ann M. Rogers, MD, professor and director of the Penn State University surgical weight loss program in Hershey, Penn., and a moderator of the session.
Dr. Raftopoulos, Dr. Schirmer, and Dr. Rogers had no disclosures.
FROM ASMBS 2021
Bariatric surgery cuts insulin needs in type 1 diabetes with severe obesity
While bariatric surgery does nothing to directly improve the disease of patients with type 1 diabetes, it can work indirectly by moderating severe obesity and improving insulin sensitivity to cut the total insulin needs of patients with type 1 diabetes and obesity, based on a single-center, retrospective chart review of 38 U.S. patients.
Two years following their bariatric surgery, these 38 patients with confirmed type 1 diabetes and an average body mass index of 43 kg/m2 before surgery saw their average daily insulin requirement nearly halved, dropping from 118 units/day to 60 units/day, a significant decrease, Brian J. Dessify, DO, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Another measure of this effect showed that the percentage of patients who required more than one drug for treating their hyperglycemia fell from 66% before surgery to 52% 2 years after surgery, a change that was not statistically significant, said Dr. Dessify, a bariatric surgeon at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa.
Appropriate for patients with ‘double diabetes’
These results “provide good evidence for [using] bariatric surgery” in people with both obesity and type 1 diabetes,” he concluded. This includes people with what Dr. Dessify called “double diabetes,” meaning that they do not make endogenous insulin, and are also resistant to the effects of exogenous insulin and hence have features of both type 2 and type 1 diabetes.
“This is a really important study,” commented Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute of the Cleveland Clinic. “For patients with type 1 diabetes, the primary goal of bariatric surgery is weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Patients with type 2 diabetes can be a candidate for bariatric surgery regardless of their weight,” Dr. Aminian said as designated discussant for the report.
“The goal of bariatric surgery in patients with type 1 diabetes is to promote sensitivity to the exogenous insulin they receive,” agreed Julie Kim, MD, a bariatric surgeon at Mount Auburn Hospital in Waltham, Mass., and a second discussant for the report. Patients with double diabetes “are probably a subclass of patients [with type 1 diabetes] who might benefit even more from bariatric surgery.”
Using gastric sleeves to avoid diabetic ketoacidosis
Dr. Aminian also noted that “at the Cleveland Clinic we consider a sleeve gastrectomy the procedure of choice” for patients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes with insulin insufficiency “unless the patient has an absolute contraindication” because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis in these patients “undergoing any surgery, including bariatric surgery.” Patients with insulin insufficiency “require intensive diabetes and insulin management preoperatively to reduce their risk for developing diabetic ketoacidosis,” and using a sleeve rather than bypass generally results in “more reliable absorption of carbohydrates and nutrients” while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Aminian said.
In the series reported by Dr. Dessify, 33 patients underwent gastric bypass and 5 had sleeve gastrectomy. The decision to use bypass usually stemmed from its “marginal” improvement in weight loss, compared with a sleeve procedure, and an overall preference at Geisinger for bypass procedures. Dr. Dessify added that he had not yet run a comprehensive assessment of diabetic ketoacidosis complications among patients in his reported series.
Those 38 patients underwent their bariatric procedure during 2002-2019, constituting fewer than 1% of the 4,549 total bariatric surgeries done at Geisinger during that period. The 38 patients with type 1 diabetes averaged 41 years of age, 33 (87%) were women, and 37 (97%) were White. Dr. Dessify and associates undertook this review “to help provide supporting evidence for using bariatric surgery in people with obesity and type 1 diabetes,” he noted.
Dr. Dessify, Dr. Aminian, and Dr. Kim had no disclosures.
While bariatric surgery does nothing to directly improve the disease of patients with type 1 diabetes, it can work indirectly by moderating severe obesity and improving insulin sensitivity to cut the total insulin needs of patients with type 1 diabetes and obesity, based on a single-center, retrospective chart review of 38 U.S. patients.
Two years following their bariatric surgery, these 38 patients with confirmed type 1 diabetes and an average body mass index of 43 kg/m2 before surgery saw their average daily insulin requirement nearly halved, dropping from 118 units/day to 60 units/day, a significant decrease, Brian J. Dessify, DO, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Another measure of this effect showed that the percentage of patients who required more than one drug for treating their hyperglycemia fell from 66% before surgery to 52% 2 years after surgery, a change that was not statistically significant, said Dr. Dessify, a bariatric surgeon at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa.
Appropriate for patients with ‘double diabetes’
These results “provide good evidence for [using] bariatric surgery” in people with both obesity and type 1 diabetes,” he concluded. This includes people with what Dr. Dessify called “double diabetes,” meaning that they do not make endogenous insulin, and are also resistant to the effects of exogenous insulin and hence have features of both type 2 and type 1 diabetes.
“This is a really important study,” commented Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute of the Cleveland Clinic. “For patients with type 1 diabetes, the primary goal of bariatric surgery is weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Patients with type 2 diabetes can be a candidate for bariatric surgery regardless of their weight,” Dr. Aminian said as designated discussant for the report.
“The goal of bariatric surgery in patients with type 1 diabetes is to promote sensitivity to the exogenous insulin they receive,” agreed Julie Kim, MD, a bariatric surgeon at Mount Auburn Hospital in Waltham, Mass., and a second discussant for the report. Patients with double diabetes “are probably a subclass of patients [with type 1 diabetes] who might benefit even more from bariatric surgery.”
Using gastric sleeves to avoid diabetic ketoacidosis
Dr. Aminian also noted that “at the Cleveland Clinic we consider a sleeve gastrectomy the procedure of choice” for patients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes with insulin insufficiency “unless the patient has an absolute contraindication” because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis in these patients “undergoing any surgery, including bariatric surgery.” Patients with insulin insufficiency “require intensive diabetes and insulin management preoperatively to reduce their risk for developing diabetic ketoacidosis,” and using a sleeve rather than bypass generally results in “more reliable absorption of carbohydrates and nutrients” while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Aminian said.
In the series reported by Dr. Dessify, 33 patients underwent gastric bypass and 5 had sleeve gastrectomy. The decision to use bypass usually stemmed from its “marginal” improvement in weight loss, compared with a sleeve procedure, and an overall preference at Geisinger for bypass procedures. Dr. Dessify added that he had not yet run a comprehensive assessment of diabetic ketoacidosis complications among patients in his reported series.
Those 38 patients underwent their bariatric procedure during 2002-2019, constituting fewer than 1% of the 4,549 total bariatric surgeries done at Geisinger during that period. The 38 patients with type 1 diabetes averaged 41 years of age, 33 (87%) were women, and 37 (97%) were White. Dr. Dessify and associates undertook this review “to help provide supporting evidence for using bariatric surgery in people with obesity and type 1 diabetes,” he noted.
Dr. Dessify, Dr. Aminian, and Dr. Kim had no disclosures.
While bariatric surgery does nothing to directly improve the disease of patients with type 1 diabetes, it can work indirectly by moderating severe obesity and improving insulin sensitivity to cut the total insulin needs of patients with type 1 diabetes and obesity, based on a single-center, retrospective chart review of 38 U.S. patients.
Two years following their bariatric surgery, these 38 patients with confirmed type 1 diabetes and an average body mass index of 43 kg/m2 before surgery saw their average daily insulin requirement nearly halved, dropping from 118 units/day to 60 units/day, a significant decrease, Brian J. Dessify, DO, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Another measure of this effect showed that the percentage of patients who required more than one drug for treating their hyperglycemia fell from 66% before surgery to 52% 2 years after surgery, a change that was not statistically significant, said Dr. Dessify, a bariatric surgeon at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa.
Appropriate for patients with ‘double diabetes’
These results “provide good evidence for [using] bariatric surgery” in people with both obesity and type 1 diabetes,” he concluded. This includes people with what Dr. Dessify called “double diabetes,” meaning that they do not make endogenous insulin, and are also resistant to the effects of exogenous insulin and hence have features of both type 2 and type 1 diabetes.
“This is a really important study,” commented Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute of the Cleveland Clinic. “For patients with type 1 diabetes, the primary goal of bariatric surgery is weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Patients with type 2 diabetes can be a candidate for bariatric surgery regardless of their weight,” Dr. Aminian said as designated discussant for the report.
“The goal of bariatric surgery in patients with type 1 diabetes is to promote sensitivity to the exogenous insulin they receive,” agreed Julie Kim, MD, a bariatric surgeon at Mount Auburn Hospital in Waltham, Mass., and a second discussant for the report. Patients with double diabetes “are probably a subclass of patients [with type 1 diabetes] who might benefit even more from bariatric surgery.”
Using gastric sleeves to avoid diabetic ketoacidosis
Dr. Aminian also noted that “at the Cleveland Clinic we consider a sleeve gastrectomy the procedure of choice” for patients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes with insulin insufficiency “unless the patient has an absolute contraindication” because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis in these patients “undergoing any surgery, including bariatric surgery.” Patients with insulin insufficiency “require intensive diabetes and insulin management preoperatively to reduce their risk for developing diabetic ketoacidosis,” and using a sleeve rather than bypass generally results in “more reliable absorption of carbohydrates and nutrients” while also reducing the risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Aminian said.
In the series reported by Dr. Dessify, 33 patients underwent gastric bypass and 5 had sleeve gastrectomy. The decision to use bypass usually stemmed from its “marginal” improvement in weight loss, compared with a sleeve procedure, and an overall preference at Geisinger for bypass procedures. Dr. Dessify added that he had not yet run a comprehensive assessment of diabetic ketoacidosis complications among patients in his reported series.
Those 38 patients underwent their bariatric procedure during 2002-2019, constituting fewer than 1% of the 4,549 total bariatric surgeries done at Geisinger during that period. The 38 patients with type 1 diabetes averaged 41 years of age, 33 (87%) were women, and 37 (97%) were White. Dr. Dessify and associates undertook this review “to help provide supporting evidence for using bariatric surgery in people with obesity and type 1 diabetes,” he noted.
Dr. Dessify, Dr. Aminian, and Dr. Kim had no disclosures.
FROM ASMBS 2021
Bariatric surgery tied to fewer HFpEF hospitalizations
Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.
In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use
The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.
She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF
The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.
The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.
In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.
Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.
Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.
Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.
In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use
The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.
She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF
The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.
The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.
In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.
Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.
Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.
Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.
In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use
The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.
She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF
The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.
The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.
In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.
Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.
Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASMBS 2021
‘Twincretin’ meets primary endpoints in five pivotal diabetes trials
The investigational, novel, injected once-weekly “twincretin” tirzepatide met its primary efficacy endpoint of significantly cutting hemoglobin A1c as well as its secondary weight-loss endpoint in patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with control patients in top-line results from each of five discrete pivotal trials.
The company developing tirzepatide, Lilly, announced these results in a series of four press releases issued during December 2020–May 2021. Scientific reports on the outcomes from four of these trials are scheduled during the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions being held virtually in late June 2021, with results from the fifth on track for a report during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.
Tirzepatide is a “twincretin” because it combines in a single molecule two different gut-hormone activities. It works as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).
While diabetologists qualified their comments on these results because of the limited scope and format of the five reports to date, they also expressed enthusiasm over what the press releases said.
Results give hope
“It’s quite exciting, but of course we would like to go by the data that’s presented” at upcoming meetings, commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association in Arlington, Va. “The idea of GLP-1 and GIP activities working together has been out there for a while, but without any therapeutic options that leverage this,” he said in an interview.
“The preliminary results give us hope that tirzepatide will be a very effective glucose-lowering agent, perhaps the most effective among all options currently available, including insulin,” commented Ildiko Lingvay, MD, a diabetologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Tirzepatide might have the added benefit of clinically meaningful weight loss,” and “the adverse event profile seems to be in line with what we are accustomed to with the GLP-1 RA class. I look forward to seeing the full results. Tirzepatide promises to be a great addition for type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
A rare head-to-head against semaglutide
The five phase 3, randomized controlled trials described by Lilly in its four press releases all belong to the SURPASS series of studies for this agent. Perhaps the most intriguing of the five were results from SURPASS-2, announced in a release on March 4. This trial randomized 1,879 patients from the United States or any of seven other countries to 40 weeks of open-label treatment with one of three different dosages of tirzepatide administered by injection once weekly, or to the control group that received a weekly 1-mg injection of semaglutide (Ozempic), the highest dosage approved for controlling glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes at the time the study launched.
In SURPASS-2 all three tested dosages of tirzepatide led to a significantly larger reduction, from baseline in A1c, compared with semaglutide, after 40 weeks, according to the Lilly release. Each of the three tirzepatide dosages also led to significantly greater weight loss from baseline, compared with semaglutide, and significantly greater percentages of patients who achieved an A1c of less than 7%, compared with semaglutide.
As an example, the highest tested tirzepatide dosage of 15 mg weekly led to an average A1c reduction from baseline of 2.46% and an average weight loss from baseline of 12.4 kg; 92% of patients achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 51% had their A1c fall below 5.7% which indicates completely normalization of glycemic control. By comparison, the patients randomized to treatment with semaglutide had an average 1.86% reduction in their A1c level from baseline and a 6.2-kg average cut in body weight from baseline; 81% achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 20% reached an A1c of less than 5.7%.
There are caveats
While these findings are notable as a rare example of an industry-sponsored head-to-head comparison of two new agents, the study comes with a few important asterisks.
First, it was open label, a curious limitation given that both agents are delivered by the same delivery method and schedule. “I cannot conclude based on this study that tirzepatide is superior because it was open label,” commented Anastassia Amaro, MD, medical director of Penn Metabolic Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“The gold standard is the double-blind study. An open-label design is a limitation,” agreed Dr. Gabbay.
A second caveat is that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved a higher dosage of semaglutide (2.4 g once/week) for treating overweight or obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those without diabetes but a different weight-related condition such as hypertension of hypercholesterolemia. This means that the tested comparator dosage of 1 mg/week is no longer the maximum that most patients treated with semaglutide for glycemic control can receive.
“The inevitable question” about this comparison study is “what about a higher semaglutide dose,” and how might tirzepatide perform relative to that, said Dr. Gabbay. The recently approved higher dosage of semaglutide “adds an interesting wrinkle.”
Lilly has launched a series of studies testing tirzepatide as a treatment for overweight or obesity in people without diabetes, but the results are not expected until sometime in 2022 or 2023.
And there’s a third caveat: Semaglutide has already shown its value for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial with nearly 3,300 randomized patients followed for 2 years and reported in 2016. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT with more than 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, is underway but its results are not expected until 2024.
Despite these important limitations, a blinded comparison of tirzepatide and higher-dose semaglutide is unlikely, Dr. Amaro predicted. “It’s not worth the expense,” she said in an interview. A more likely scenario will be that, if tirzepatide enters the U.S. market, decisions on whether to treat patients with it or semaglutide will pivot on factors like the cost for treatment to individual patients based on their insurance coverage and tolerability, suggested both Dr. Amaro and Dr. Gabbay. “Physicians will need to develop a sense for tirzepatide: Do patients tolerate it and are they happy using it?” Dr. Amaro said.
Tirzepatide versus insulin, or on top of insulin
The other four trials in patients with type 2 diabetes reported by Lilly in releases included SURPASS-1, which randomized 478 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo as monotherapy; SURPASS-3, which randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or insulin degludec (Tresiba) on top of background treatment with metformin; SURPASS-4, which randomized 2,002 patients with high cardiovascular disease risk to treatment with tirzepatide or insulin glargine (Lantus) on top of background treatment with one to three different oral drugs; and SURPASS-5, which randomized 475 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo on top of background treatment with insulin glargine and optional addition of metformin. Altogether, the five trials randomized nearly 6,300 patients.
The studies that compared tirzepatide against two different types of insulin, and the third that tested tirzepatide on top of insulin glargine, are especially notable. “It’s good to see that the combination [of tirzepatide and insulin glargine] works without causing major adverse events,” said Dr. Amaro.
“These are fair and helpful comparisons. I applaud Lilly for doing the right kind of comparisons,” said Dr. Gabbay.
In total, the five studies “provide evidence that tirzepatide will be effective at all stages of type 2 diabetes and can safely be used in combination with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin,” said Dr. Lingvay. The studies with active comparator agents “allow us to compare tirzepatide’s efficacy against established therapies.”
The SURPASS trials were sponsored by Lilly, which is developing tirzepatide. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lingvay has received research funds, consulting and advisory fees, or other support from Lilly as well as from several other companies including Novo Nordisk, which markets semaglutide (Ozempic) and insulin degludec (Tresiba), and Sanofi, which markets insulin glargine (Lantus). Dr. Amaro has received research funding from Lilly and from Fractyl, and has been a consultant to and received research funding from Novo Nordisk.
The investigational, novel, injected once-weekly “twincretin” tirzepatide met its primary efficacy endpoint of significantly cutting hemoglobin A1c as well as its secondary weight-loss endpoint in patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with control patients in top-line results from each of five discrete pivotal trials.
The company developing tirzepatide, Lilly, announced these results in a series of four press releases issued during December 2020–May 2021. Scientific reports on the outcomes from four of these trials are scheduled during the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions being held virtually in late June 2021, with results from the fifth on track for a report during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.
Tirzepatide is a “twincretin” because it combines in a single molecule two different gut-hormone activities. It works as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).
While diabetologists qualified their comments on these results because of the limited scope and format of the five reports to date, they also expressed enthusiasm over what the press releases said.
Results give hope
“It’s quite exciting, but of course we would like to go by the data that’s presented” at upcoming meetings, commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association in Arlington, Va. “The idea of GLP-1 and GIP activities working together has been out there for a while, but without any therapeutic options that leverage this,” he said in an interview.
“The preliminary results give us hope that tirzepatide will be a very effective glucose-lowering agent, perhaps the most effective among all options currently available, including insulin,” commented Ildiko Lingvay, MD, a diabetologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Tirzepatide might have the added benefit of clinically meaningful weight loss,” and “the adverse event profile seems to be in line with what we are accustomed to with the GLP-1 RA class. I look forward to seeing the full results. Tirzepatide promises to be a great addition for type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
A rare head-to-head against semaglutide
The five phase 3, randomized controlled trials described by Lilly in its four press releases all belong to the SURPASS series of studies for this agent. Perhaps the most intriguing of the five were results from SURPASS-2, announced in a release on March 4. This trial randomized 1,879 patients from the United States or any of seven other countries to 40 weeks of open-label treatment with one of three different dosages of tirzepatide administered by injection once weekly, or to the control group that received a weekly 1-mg injection of semaglutide (Ozempic), the highest dosage approved for controlling glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes at the time the study launched.
In SURPASS-2 all three tested dosages of tirzepatide led to a significantly larger reduction, from baseline in A1c, compared with semaglutide, after 40 weeks, according to the Lilly release. Each of the three tirzepatide dosages also led to significantly greater weight loss from baseline, compared with semaglutide, and significantly greater percentages of patients who achieved an A1c of less than 7%, compared with semaglutide.
As an example, the highest tested tirzepatide dosage of 15 mg weekly led to an average A1c reduction from baseline of 2.46% and an average weight loss from baseline of 12.4 kg; 92% of patients achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 51% had their A1c fall below 5.7% which indicates completely normalization of glycemic control. By comparison, the patients randomized to treatment with semaglutide had an average 1.86% reduction in their A1c level from baseline and a 6.2-kg average cut in body weight from baseline; 81% achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 20% reached an A1c of less than 5.7%.
There are caveats
While these findings are notable as a rare example of an industry-sponsored head-to-head comparison of two new agents, the study comes with a few important asterisks.
First, it was open label, a curious limitation given that both agents are delivered by the same delivery method and schedule. “I cannot conclude based on this study that tirzepatide is superior because it was open label,” commented Anastassia Amaro, MD, medical director of Penn Metabolic Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“The gold standard is the double-blind study. An open-label design is a limitation,” agreed Dr. Gabbay.
A second caveat is that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved a higher dosage of semaglutide (2.4 g once/week) for treating overweight or obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those without diabetes but a different weight-related condition such as hypertension of hypercholesterolemia. This means that the tested comparator dosage of 1 mg/week is no longer the maximum that most patients treated with semaglutide for glycemic control can receive.
“The inevitable question” about this comparison study is “what about a higher semaglutide dose,” and how might tirzepatide perform relative to that, said Dr. Gabbay. The recently approved higher dosage of semaglutide “adds an interesting wrinkle.”
Lilly has launched a series of studies testing tirzepatide as a treatment for overweight or obesity in people without diabetes, but the results are not expected until sometime in 2022 or 2023.
And there’s a third caveat: Semaglutide has already shown its value for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial with nearly 3,300 randomized patients followed for 2 years and reported in 2016. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT with more than 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, is underway but its results are not expected until 2024.
Despite these important limitations, a blinded comparison of tirzepatide and higher-dose semaglutide is unlikely, Dr. Amaro predicted. “It’s not worth the expense,” she said in an interview. A more likely scenario will be that, if tirzepatide enters the U.S. market, decisions on whether to treat patients with it or semaglutide will pivot on factors like the cost for treatment to individual patients based on their insurance coverage and tolerability, suggested both Dr. Amaro and Dr. Gabbay. “Physicians will need to develop a sense for tirzepatide: Do patients tolerate it and are they happy using it?” Dr. Amaro said.
Tirzepatide versus insulin, or on top of insulin
The other four trials in patients with type 2 diabetes reported by Lilly in releases included SURPASS-1, which randomized 478 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo as monotherapy; SURPASS-3, which randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or insulin degludec (Tresiba) on top of background treatment with metformin; SURPASS-4, which randomized 2,002 patients with high cardiovascular disease risk to treatment with tirzepatide or insulin glargine (Lantus) on top of background treatment with one to three different oral drugs; and SURPASS-5, which randomized 475 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo on top of background treatment with insulin glargine and optional addition of metformin. Altogether, the five trials randomized nearly 6,300 patients.
The studies that compared tirzepatide against two different types of insulin, and the third that tested tirzepatide on top of insulin glargine, are especially notable. “It’s good to see that the combination [of tirzepatide and insulin glargine] works without causing major adverse events,” said Dr. Amaro.
“These are fair and helpful comparisons. I applaud Lilly for doing the right kind of comparisons,” said Dr. Gabbay.
In total, the five studies “provide evidence that tirzepatide will be effective at all stages of type 2 diabetes and can safely be used in combination with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin,” said Dr. Lingvay. The studies with active comparator agents “allow us to compare tirzepatide’s efficacy against established therapies.”
The SURPASS trials were sponsored by Lilly, which is developing tirzepatide. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lingvay has received research funds, consulting and advisory fees, or other support from Lilly as well as from several other companies including Novo Nordisk, which markets semaglutide (Ozempic) and insulin degludec (Tresiba), and Sanofi, which markets insulin glargine (Lantus). Dr. Amaro has received research funding from Lilly and from Fractyl, and has been a consultant to and received research funding from Novo Nordisk.
The investigational, novel, injected once-weekly “twincretin” tirzepatide met its primary efficacy endpoint of significantly cutting hemoglobin A1c as well as its secondary weight-loss endpoint in patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with control patients in top-line results from each of five discrete pivotal trials.
The company developing tirzepatide, Lilly, announced these results in a series of four press releases issued during December 2020–May 2021. Scientific reports on the outcomes from four of these trials are scheduled during the American Diabetes Association’s Scientific Sessions being held virtually in late June 2021, with results from the fifth on track for a report during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.
Tirzepatide is a “twincretin” because it combines in a single molecule two different gut-hormone activities. It works as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) and as an agent that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP).
While diabetologists qualified their comments on these results because of the limited scope and format of the five reports to date, they also expressed enthusiasm over what the press releases said.
Results give hope
“It’s quite exciting, but of course we would like to go by the data that’s presented” at upcoming meetings, commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association in Arlington, Va. “The idea of GLP-1 and GIP activities working together has been out there for a while, but without any therapeutic options that leverage this,” he said in an interview.
“The preliminary results give us hope that tirzepatide will be a very effective glucose-lowering agent, perhaps the most effective among all options currently available, including insulin,” commented Ildiko Lingvay, MD, a diabetologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “Tirzepatide might have the added benefit of clinically meaningful weight loss,” and “the adverse event profile seems to be in line with what we are accustomed to with the GLP-1 RA class. I look forward to seeing the full results. Tirzepatide promises to be a great addition for type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
A rare head-to-head against semaglutide
The five phase 3, randomized controlled trials described by Lilly in its four press releases all belong to the SURPASS series of studies for this agent. Perhaps the most intriguing of the five were results from SURPASS-2, announced in a release on March 4. This trial randomized 1,879 patients from the United States or any of seven other countries to 40 weeks of open-label treatment with one of three different dosages of tirzepatide administered by injection once weekly, or to the control group that received a weekly 1-mg injection of semaglutide (Ozempic), the highest dosage approved for controlling glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes at the time the study launched.
In SURPASS-2 all three tested dosages of tirzepatide led to a significantly larger reduction, from baseline in A1c, compared with semaglutide, after 40 weeks, according to the Lilly release. Each of the three tirzepatide dosages also led to significantly greater weight loss from baseline, compared with semaglutide, and significantly greater percentages of patients who achieved an A1c of less than 7%, compared with semaglutide.
As an example, the highest tested tirzepatide dosage of 15 mg weekly led to an average A1c reduction from baseline of 2.46% and an average weight loss from baseline of 12.4 kg; 92% of patients achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 51% had their A1c fall below 5.7% which indicates completely normalization of glycemic control. By comparison, the patients randomized to treatment with semaglutide had an average 1.86% reduction in their A1c level from baseline and a 6.2-kg average cut in body weight from baseline; 81% achieved an A1c of less than 7%, and 20% reached an A1c of less than 5.7%.
There are caveats
While these findings are notable as a rare example of an industry-sponsored head-to-head comparison of two new agents, the study comes with a few important asterisks.
First, it was open label, a curious limitation given that both agents are delivered by the same delivery method and schedule. “I cannot conclude based on this study that tirzepatide is superior because it was open label,” commented Anastassia Amaro, MD, medical director of Penn Metabolic Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“The gold standard is the double-blind study. An open-label design is a limitation,” agreed Dr. Gabbay.
A second caveat is that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved a higher dosage of semaglutide (2.4 g once/week) for treating overweight or obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those without diabetes but a different weight-related condition such as hypertension of hypercholesterolemia. This means that the tested comparator dosage of 1 mg/week is no longer the maximum that most patients treated with semaglutide for glycemic control can receive.
“The inevitable question” about this comparison study is “what about a higher semaglutide dose,” and how might tirzepatide perform relative to that, said Dr. Gabbay. The recently approved higher dosage of semaglutide “adds an interesting wrinkle.”
Lilly has launched a series of studies testing tirzepatide as a treatment for overweight or obesity in people without diabetes, but the results are not expected until sometime in 2022 or 2023.
And there’s a third caveat: Semaglutide has already shown its value for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes in the SUSTAIN 6 trial with nearly 3,300 randomized patients followed for 2 years and reported in 2016. The cardiovascular outcomes trial for tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT with more than 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, is underway but its results are not expected until 2024.
Despite these important limitations, a blinded comparison of tirzepatide and higher-dose semaglutide is unlikely, Dr. Amaro predicted. “It’s not worth the expense,” she said in an interview. A more likely scenario will be that, if tirzepatide enters the U.S. market, decisions on whether to treat patients with it or semaglutide will pivot on factors like the cost for treatment to individual patients based on their insurance coverage and tolerability, suggested both Dr. Amaro and Dr. Gabbay. “Physicians will need to develop a sense for tirzepatide: Do patients tolerate it and are they happy using it?” Dr. Amaro said.
Tirzepatide versus insulin, or on top of insulin
The other four trials in patients with type 2 diabetes reported by Lilly in releases included SURPASS-1, which randomized 478 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo as monotherapy; SURPASS-3, which randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or insulin degludec (Tresiba) on top of background treatment with metformin; SURPASS-4, which randomized 2,002 patients with high cardiovascular disease risk to treatment with tirzepatide or insulin glargine (Lantus) on top of background treatment with one to three different oral drugs; and SURPASS-5, which randomized 475 patients to treatment with tirzepatide or placebo on top of background treatment with insulin glargine and optional addition of metformin. Altogether, the five trials randomized nearly 6,300 patients.
The studies that compared tirzepatide against two different types of insulin, and the third that tested tirzepatide on top of insulin glargine, are especially notable. “It’s good to see that the combination [of tirzepatide and insulin glargine] works without causing major adverse events,” said Dr. Amaro.
“These are fair and helpful comparisons. I applaud Lilly for doing the right kind of comparisons,” said Dr. Gabbay.
In total, the five studies “provide evidence that tirzepatide will be effective at all stages of type 2 diabetes and can safely be used in combination with other glucose-lowering agents, including insulin,” said Dr. Lingvay. The studies with active comparator agents “allow us to compare tirzepatide’s efficacy against established therapies.”
The SURPASS trials were sponsored by Lilly, which is developing tirzepatide. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lingvay has received research funds, consulting and advisory fees, or other support from Lilly as well as from several other companies including Novo Nordisk, which markets semaglutide (Ozempic) and insulin degludec (Tresiba), and Sanofi, which markets insulin glargine (Lantus). Dr. Amaro has received research funding from Lilly and from Fractyl, and has been a consultant to and received research funding from Novo Nordisk.
Mavacamten boosts quality of life in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Of patients with symptomatic, obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with the investigational oral agent mavacamten, more than twice as many, compared with placebo, had a very large improvement from baseline in their summary quality of life score after 30 weeks of treatment in a pivotal trial with 194 patients evaluable for this endpoint.
The trial’s health-related quality of life assessment, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed an average improvement of more than 9 points, compared with placebo, in summary KCCQ scores among 98 mavacamten-treated patients, and a nearly 15-point improvement from baseline that represents a “moderate to large” improvement in overall health-related quality of life, John A. Spertus, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Largest drug benefit ever seen in KCCQ
The 9-point average incremental improvement on mavacamten, a selective cardiac myosin inhibitor, compared with placebo-treated patients, is “the largest drug-mediated benefit we’ve ever observed on the KCCQ,” said Dr. Spertus, who spearheaded development of the KCCQ. Concurrently with his report the results also appeared online in the Lancet.
“Given the strength of the data, I’d reach for this drug early” to treat patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), added Dr. Spertus, a professor and cardiovascular outcomes researcher at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and clinical director of outcomes research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, also in Kansas City.
No available treatment for obstructive HCM has had “as vigorous an assessment of impact on health status,” and the study that supplied the data he and his associates analyzed, EXPLORER-HCM, is “the largest trial ever done” in patients with HCM, he added.
Management guidelines for HCM released last year by the ACC and American Heart Association named beta-blockers “first-line” medical therapy for the disorder, with the calcium channel blockers verapamil or diltiazem named as “reasonable alternatives” to beta-blockers. However, these commonly used agents have “limited” evidence supporting health-status benefits in patients with HCM, Dr. Spertus and coauthors wrote in their report.
Longer follow-up needed
“This is an important study,” commented Matthew W. Martinez, MD, director of sports cardiology and a HCM specialist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. But “given the longevity of HCM we need follow-up that goes beyond 30 weeks,” he said as designated discussant for the report.
EXPLORER-HCM randomized 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM at 68 centers in 13 countries during 2018-2019. The 30-week trial’s primary outcome was a composite to assess clinical response, compared with baseline, that included a 1.5-mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction; or a 3.0 mL/kg per min or greater improvement in pVO2 and no worsening of NYHA class.
Patients averaged about 59 years of age, about 60% were men, and their pVO2 at entry averaged about 20 mL/kg per min. About 73% were in NYHA functional class II, with the remainder in functional class III. Patients received mavacamten as a once-daily oral dose that gradually up-titrated during the trial to reach targeted reductions in each patient’s plasma levels of the drug and in their left ventricular outflow tract gradient.
The results showed that, after 30 weeks on treatment, the primary endpoint was reached by 37% of 123 patients on mavacamten and by 17% of 128 patients on placebo, a significant difference in an intention-to-treat analysis. About 70% of patients completed their KCCQ after 30 weeks, which meant that fewer patients were in the quality of life analyses, according to the report that was published in The Lancet .
Based on these results the drug is now under consideration for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, with a decision expected by early 2022.
Benefit fades quickly when mavacamten stops
More detailed analysis of quality of life findings in the new report also showed that, while average KCCQ scores (both overall summary score and clinical summary score) steadily improved with mavacamten treatment, compared with control patients, through 18 weeks on treatment, the scores then roughly plateaued out to 30 weeks. This was followed by a sharp reversal back down to baseline levels and similar to control patients 8 weeks after stopping mavacamten, suggesting that the drug’s benefit quickly fades off treatment and hence must be taken chronically.
The responder analysis showed that 9% of patients on mavacamten had a worsening in their KCCQ overall summary scores by more than 5 points after 30 weeks, compared with 23% of the control patients. In contrast, a very large improvement in KCCQ score, defined as a rise of at least 20 points from baseline after 30 weeks, occurred in 36% of those who received mavacamten and in 15% of the controls. The between-group difference indicates a number needed to treat with mavacamten of roughly five to produce one additional patient with a very large improvement in KCCQ overall summary score, Dr. Spertus noted.
By design, all patients enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. During treatment, seven of the mavacamten-treated patients and two in the control arm had a transient decrease in their left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50%, although this later normalized in all affected patients. “An initial criticism” of the trial was that a significant percentage of mavacamten patients “developed left ventricular dysfunction” noted Dr. Martinez, but Dr. Spertus highlighted the poor apparent correlation between this phenomenon and quality of life self-assessment. Six of the seven patients on mavacamten who had a transient drop in their left ventricular ejection fraction had very large improvements in their KCCQ summary scores, Dr. Spertus reported.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a myocardial disorder characterized by primary left ventricular hypertrophy. Although a complex disease, HCM is broadly defined by pathologically enhanced cardiac actin-myosin interactions that result in hypercontractility, diastolic abnormalities, and dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Mavacamten is a first-in-class, small-molecule, selective allosteric inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase developed to target the underlying pathophysiology of HCM by reducing actin-myosin cross-bridge formation, thereby reducing contractility and improving myocardial energetics.
EXPLORER-HCM was sponsored by MyoKardia, the company developing mavacamten and a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Spertus has been a consultant to MyoKardia, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis. He has received research support from Abbott Vascular, and he holds the copyright for the KCCQ. Dr. Martinez has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Of patients with symptomatic, obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with the investigational oral agent mavacamten, more than twice as many, compared with placebo, had a very large improvement from baseline in their summary quality of life score after 30 weeks of treatment in a pivotal trial with 194 patients evaluable for this endpoint.
The trial’s health-related quality of life assessment, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed an average improvement of more than 9 points, compared with placebo, in summary KCCQ scores among 98 mavacamten-treated patients, and a nearly 15-point improvement from baseline that represents a “moderate to large” improvement in overall health-related quality of life, John A. Spertus, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Largest drug benefit ever seen in KCCQ
The 9-point average incremental improvement on mavacamten, a selective cardiac myosin inhibitor, compared with placebo-treated patients, is “the largest drug-mediated benefit we’ve ever observed on the KCCQ,” said Dr. Spertus, who spearheaded development of the KCCQ. Concurrently with his report the results also appeared online in the Lancet.
“Given the strength of the data, I’d reach for this drug early” to treat patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), added Dr. Spertus, a professor and cardiovascular outcomes researcher at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and clinical director of outcomes research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, also in Kansas City.
No available treatment for obstructive HCM has had “as vigorous an assessment of impact on health status,” and the study that supplied the data he and his associates analyzed, EXPLORER-HCM, is “the largest trial ever done” in patients with HCM, he added.
Management guidelines for HCM released last year by the ACC and American Heart Association named beta-blockers “first-line” medical therapy for the disorder, with the calcium channel blockers verapamil or diltiazem named as “reasonable alternatives” to beta-blockers. However, these commonly used agents have “limited” evidence supporting health-status benefits in patients with HCM, Dr. Spertus and coauthors wrote in their report.
Longer follow-up needed
“This is an important study,” commented Matthew W. Martinez, MD, director of sports cardiology and a HCM specialist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. But “given the longevity of HCM we need follow-up that goes beyond 30 weeks,” he said as designated discussant for the report.
EXPLORER-HCM randomized 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM at 68 centers in 13 countries during 2018-2019. The 30-week trial’s primary outcome was a composite to assess clinical response, compared with baseline, that included a 1.5-mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction; or a 3.0 mL/kg per min or greater improvement in pVO2 and no worsening of NYHA class.
Patients averaged about 59 years of age, about 60% were men, and their pVO2 at entry averaged about 20 mL/kg per min. About 73% were in NYHA functional class II, with the remainder in functional class III. Patients received mavacamten as a once-daily oral dose that gradually up-titrated during the trial to reach targeted reductions in each patient’s plasma levels of the drug and in their left ventricular outflow tract gradient.
The results showed that, after 30 weeks on treatment, the primary endpoint was reached by 37% of 123 patients on mavacamten and by 17% of 128 patients on placebo, a significant difference in an intention-to-treat analysis. About 70% of patients completed their KCCQ after 30 weeks, which meant that fewer patients were in the quality of life analyses, according to the report that was published in The Lancet .
Based on these results the drug is now under consideration for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, with a decision expected by early 2022.
Benefit fades quickly when mavacamten stops
More detailed analysis of quality of life findings in the new report also showed that, while average KCCQ scores (both overall summary score and clinical summary score) steadily improved with mavacamten treatment, compared with control patients, through 18 weeks on treatment, the scores then roughly plateaued out to 30 weeks. This was followed by a sharp reversal back down to baseline levels and similar to control patients 8 weeks after stopping mavacamten, suggesting that the drug’s benefit quickly fades off treatment and hence must be taken chronically.
The responder analysis showed that 9% of patients on mavacamten had a worsening in their KCCQ overall summary scores by more than 5 points after 30 weeks, compared with 23% of the control patients. In contrast, a very large improvement in KCCQ score, defined as a rise of at least 20 points from baseline after 30 weeks, occurred in 36% of those who received mavacamten and in 15% of the controls. The between-group difference indicates a number needed to treat with mavacamten of roughly five to produce one additional patient with a very large improvement in KCCQ overall summary score, Dr. Spertus noted.
By design, all patients enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. During treatment, seven of the mavacamten-treated patients and two in the control arm had a transient decrease in their left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50%, although this later normalized in all affected patients. “An initial criticism” of the trial was that a significant percentage of mavacamten patients “developed left ventricular dysfunction” noted Dr. Martinez, but Dr. Spertus highlighted the poor apparent correlation between this phenomenon and quality of life self-assessment. Six of the seven patients on mavacamten who had a transient drop in their left ventricular ejection fraction had very large improvements in their KCCQ summary scores, Dr. Spertus reported.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a myocardial disorder characterized by primary left ventricular hypertrophy. Although a complex disease, HCM is broadly defined by pathologically enhanced cardiac actin-myosin interactions that result in hypercontractility, diastolic abnormalities, and dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Mavacamten is a first-in-class, small-molecule, selective allosteric inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase developed to target the underlying pathophysiology of HCM by reducing actin-myosin cross-bridge formation, thereby reducing contractility and improving myocardial energetics.
EXPLORER-HCM was sponsored by MyoKardia, the company developing mavacamten and a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Spertus has been a consultant to MyoKardia, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis. He has received research support from Abbott Vascular, and he holds the copyright for the KCCQ. Dr. Martinez has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Of patients with symptomatic, obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with the investigational oral agent mavacamten, more than twice as many, compared with placebo, had a very large improvement from baseline in their summary quality of life score after 30 weeks of treatment in a pivotal trial with 194 patients evaluable for this endpoint.
The trial’s health-related quality of life assessment, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed an average improvement of more than 9 points, compared with placebo, in summary KCCQ scores among 98 mavacamten-treated patients, and a nearly 15-point improvement from baseline that represents a “moderate to large” improvement in overall health-related quality of life, John A. Spertus, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
Largest drug benefit ever seen in KCCQ
The 9-point average incremental improvement on mavacamten, a selective cardiac myosin inhibitor, compared with placebo-treated patients, is “the largest drug-mediated benefit we’ve ever observed on the KCCQ,” said Dr. Spertus, who spearheaded development of the KCCQ. Concurrently with his report the results also appeared online in the Lancet.
“Given the strength of the data, I’d reach for this drug early” to treat patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), added Dr. Spertus, a professor and cardiovascular outcomes researcher at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and clinical director of outcomes research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, also in Kansas City.
No available treatment for obstructive HCM has had “as vigorous an assessment of impact on health status,” and the study that supplied the data he and his associates analyzed, EXPLORER-HCM, is “the largest trial ever done” in patients with HCM, he added.
Management guidelines for HCM released last year by the ACC and American Heart Association named beta-blockers “first-line” medical therapy for the disorder, with the calcium channel blockers verapamil or diltiazem named as “reasonable alternatives” to beta-blockers. However, these commonly used agents have “limited” evidence supporting health-status benefits in patients with HCM, Dr. Spertus and coauthors wrote in their report.
Longer follow-up needed
“This is an important study,” commented Matthew W. Martinez, MD, director of sports cardiology and a HCM specialist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. But “given the longevity of HCM we need follow-up that goes beyond 30 weeks,” he said as designated discussant for the report.
EXPLORER-HCM randomized 251 patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM at 68 centers in 13 countries during 2018-2019. The 30-week trial’s primary outcome was a composite to assess clinical response, compared with baseline, that included a 1.5-mL/kg per min or greater increase in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class reduction; or a 3.0 mL/kg per min or greater improvement in pVO2 and no worsening of NYHA class.
Patients averaged about 59 years of age, about 60% were men, and their pVO2 at entry averaged about 20 mL/kg per min. About 73% were in NYHA functional class II, with the remainder in functional class III. Patients received mavacamten as a once-daily oral dose that gradually up-titrated during the trial to reach targeted reductions in each patient’s plasma levels of the drug and in their left ventricular outflow tract gradient.
The results showed that, after 30 weeks on treatment, the primary endpoint was reached by 37% of 123 patients on mavacamten and by 17% of 128 patients on placebo, a significant difference in an intention-to-treat analysis. About 70% of patients completed their KCCQ after 30 weeks, which meant that fewer patients were in the quality of life analyses, according to the report that was published in The Lancet .
Based on these results the drug is now under consideration for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, with a decision expected by early 2022.
Benefit fades quickly when mavacamten stops
More detailed analysis of quality of life findings in the new report also showed that, while average KCCQ scores (both overall summary score and clinical summary score) steadily improved with mavacamten treatment, compared with control patients, through 18 weeks on treatment, the scores then roughly plateaued out to 30 weeks. This was followed by a sharp reversal back down to baseline levels and similar to control patients 8 weeks after stopping mavacamten, suggesting that the drug’s benefit quickly fades off treatment and hence must be taken chronically.
The responder analysis showed that 9% of patients on mavacamten had a worsening in their KCCQ overall summary scores by more than 5 points after 30 weeks, compared with 23% of the control patients. In contrast, a very large improvement in KCCQ score, defined as a rise of at least 20 points from baseline after 30 weeks, occurred in 36% of those who received mavacamten and in 15% of the controls. The between-group difference indicates a number needed to treat with mavacamten of roughly five to produce one additional patient with a very large improvement in KCCQ overall summary score, Dr. Spertus noted.
By design, all patients enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%. During treatment, seven of the mavacamten-treated patients and two in the control arm had a transient decrease in their left ventricular ejection fraction to below 50%, although this later normalized in all affected patients. “An initial criticism” of the trial was that a significant percentage of mavacamten patients “developed left ventricular dysfunction” noted Dr. Martinez, but Dr. Spertus highlighted the poor apparent correlation between this phenomenon and quality of life self-assessment. Six of the seven patients on mavacamten who had a transient drop in their left ventricular ejection fraction had very large improvements in their KCCQ summary scores, Dr. Spertus reported.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is a myocardial disorder characterized by primary left ventricular hypertrophy. Although a complex disease, HCM is broadly defined by pathologically enhanced cardiac actin-myosin interactions that result in hypercontractility, diastolic abnormalities, and dynamic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Mavacamten is a first-in-class, small-molecule, selective allosteric inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase developed to target the underlying pathophysiology of HCM by reducing actin-myosin cross-bridge formation, thereby reducing contractility and improving myocardial energetics.
EXPLORER-HCM was sponsored by MyoKardia, the company developing mavacamten and a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Spertus has been a consultant to MyoKardia, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Merck, and Novartis. He has received research support from Abbott Vascular, and he holds the copyright for the KCCQ. Dr. Martinez has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
FROM ACC 2021
Dapagliflozin’s cost-effectiveness ‘intermediate’ for HFrEF
Although recent trial results have established the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as a key new part of the recommended multidrug treatment regimen for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the current U.S. cost for dapagliflozin means it has merely “intermediate” value when it comes to cost-effectiveness.
A typical regimen with dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) costs about $474/month or roughly $5,700/year based on Medicare pricing. After factoring in the incremental clinical benefits producing by dapagliflozin seen in the DAPA-HF pivotal trial that helped establish its role, this price produces a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of about $84,000, which puts dapagliflozin squarely in the intermediate range for value set in 2014 by a task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
This cost-effectiveness value depends largely on the proven efficacy of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular death among treated patients with HFrEF, and puts the drug’s value roughly on par with another agent recently approved to treat such patients, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which carries a cost-effectiveness value of about $45,000/QALY.
The U.S. cost per QALY for dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFrEF dwarfed the value numbers calculated for several other countries that were generally one-tenth this size. This disparity stemmed from both the relatively high price for dapagliflozin in the U.S. compared with other countries – nearly tenfold higher – and relatively higher costs for all types of U.S. medical care, Justin T. Parizo, MD, and coauthors said in a recent report. But the cost, and hence the cost per QALY, of dapagliflozin may soon drop because certain patents on the drug expired in October 2020, added Dr. Parizo, a cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, and associates. Despite the expired patents, as of June 2021 no generic form of dapagliflozin appeared available for U.S. sale.
Medicare patients pay about $1,630/year out-of-pocket
“A key caveat” to this finding for dapagliflozin is that being cost-effective “is not by itself a mandate for routine clinical use,” Derek S. Chew, MD, and Daniel B. Mark, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.
A major stumbling block for widespread U.S. prescribing of dapagliflozin to patients with HFrEF is its overall price tag for U.S. patients, estimated at $12 billion/year, as well as an out-of-pocket annual cost for individual Medicare patients of roughly $1,630/year. Adding this out-of-pocket cost to the copay for sacubitril/valsartan and two other much less expensive drug classes that together form the current mainstay, quadruple-drug regimen for HFrEF treatment means a potential annual cost paid by each Medicare patient of about $3,000, wrote Dr. Chew, a cardiologist, and Dr. Mark, a cardiologist and professor, both at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
They cited the precedent of the “unexpectedly slow” and “anemic” uptake of sacubitril/valsartan since its U.S. approval in 2015, a cost-effective agent with “comparable clinical effectiveness” to dapagliflozin. “Even with full inclusion [of sacubitril/valsartan] on formularies and elimination of preapproval requirements, use remains very low, and patient-borne out-of-pocket costs may be a key factor,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark. They cited a results from a study that showed abandonment of new prescriptions at retail U.S. pharmacies spiked to a 60% rate when out-of-pocket cost exceeded $500.
More than what patients ‘can afford or are willing to spend’
The estimated $3,000-plus total out-of-pocket cost currently borne by some Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who have to shell out for both sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin “appears to substantially exceed what many patients with heart failure can afford or are willing to spend,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.
Dr. Parizo and coauthors developed their cost-effectiveness model for dapagliflozin in treating HFrEF using primarily data collected in the DAPA-HF trial, which proved the efficacy of the drug for reducing cardiovascular deaths or acute heart failure events that led to hospitalization or intravenous outpatient treatment in more than 4,700 randomized patients with HFrEF. The trial enrolled roughly similar numbers of patients with or without type 2 diabetes.
The model showed an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $83,650/QALY, which was about the same regardless of whether patients also had type 2 diabetes. On a more granular level, the cost-effectiveness value estimate was $78,483/QALY in patients with mild health-status impairment due to their heart failure, and $97,608/QALY in patients with moderate impairment, a finding that underscores the importance of starting dapagliflozin treatment early in the course of HFrEF when disease effects are less severe. The analysis could not address value in patients with more advanced heart failure and in New York Heart Association functional class IV because fewer than 1% of patients in DAPA-HF were in this category.
Drug cost was a major determinant of cost-effectiveness. A 50% drop in cost from the Medicare benchmark of $473.64/month resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $45,000/QALY (putting it into the high-value category based on the 2014 ACC/AHA formula), while a 50% rise in price yielded a value of nearly $123,000/QALY (still in the intermediate range, which spans from $50,000/QALY to $150,000/QALY). No other cost parameters had a meaningful effect on the cost-effectiveness calculation. The analyses also showed that using the basic cost assumptions, treatment with dapagliflozin needs to persist and remain effective for at least 44 months to produce a cost per QALY that’s less than $150,000. The authors stressed that their analysis considered heart failure effects and did not account for added benefit from treatment with dapagliflozin on preservation of renal function.
While it’s indisputable that treatment with dapagliflozin decreases health care costs by, for example, reducing hospitalizations for heart failure, each hospitalization costs just over $12,000, according to the assumptions made by Dr. Parizo and coauthors. But given dapagliflozin’s impact on this outcome, this cost saving translates into about $500/patient during 18 months on treatment (the median duration of treatment in DAPA-HF), which means the savings barely counterbalances the current cost of dapagliflozin treatment for 1 month, noted Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.
The DAPA-HF trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Parizo had no disclosures and none of his coauthors had a relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Chew had no disclosures. Dr. Mark has received research grants from HeartFlow, Mayo Clinic, and Merck.
Although recent trial results have established the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as a key new part of the recommended multidrug treatment regimen for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the current U.S. cost for dapagliflozin means it has merely “intermediate” value when it comes to cost-effectiveness.
A typical regimen with dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) costs about $474/month or roughly $5,700/year based on Medicare pricing. After factoring in the incremental clinical benefits producing by dapagliflozin seen in the DAPA-HF pivotal trial that helped establish its role, this price produces a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of about $84,000, which puts dapagliflozin squarely in the intermediate range for value set in 2014 by a task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
This cost-effectiveness value depends largely on the proven efficacy of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular death among treated patients with HFrEF, and puts the drug’s value roughly on par with another agent recently approved to treat such patients, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which carries a cost-effectiveness value of about $45,000/QALY.
The U.S. cost per QALY for dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFrEF dwarfed the value numbers calculated for several other countries that were generally one-tenth this size. This disparity stemmed from both the relatively high price for dapagliflozin in the U.S. compared with other countries – nearly tenfold higher – and relatively higher costs for all types of U.S. medical care, Justin T. Parizo, MD, and coauthors said in a recent report. But the cost, and hence the cost per QALY, of dapagliflozin may soon drop because certain patents on the drug expired in October 2020, added Dr. Parizo, a cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, and associates. Despite the expired patents, as of June 2021 no generic form of dapagliflozin appeared available for U.S. sale.
Medicare patients pay about $1,630/year out-of-pocket
“A key caveat” to this finding for dapagliflozin is that being cost-effective “is not by itself a mandate for routine clinical use,” Derek S. Chew, MD, and Daniel B. Mark, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.
A major stumbling block for widespread U.S. prescribing of dapagliflozin to patients with HFrEF is its overall price tag for U.S. patients, estimated at $12 billion/year, as well as an out-of-pocket annual cost for individual Medicare patients of roughly $1,630/year. Adding this out-of-pocket cost to the copay for sacubitril/valsartan and two other much less expensive drug classes that together form the current mainstay, quadruple-drug regimen for HFrEF treatment means a potential annual cost paid by each Medicare patient of about $3,000, wrote Dr. Chew, a cardiologist, and Dr. Mark, a cardiologist and professor, both at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
They cited the precedent of the “unexpectedly slow” and “anemic” uptake of sacubitril/valsartan since its U.S. approval in 2015, a cost-effective agent with “comparable clinical effectiveness” to dapagliflozin. “Even with full inclusion [of sacubitril/valsartan] on formularies and elimination of preapproval requirements, use remains very low, and patient-borne out-of-pocket costs may be a key factor,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark. They cited a results from a study that showed abandonment of new prescriptions at retail U.S. pharmacies spiked to a 60% rate when out-of-pocket cost exceeded $500.
More than what patients ‘can afford or are willing to spend’
The estimated $3,000-plus total out-of-pocket cost currently borne by some Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who have to shell out for both sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin “appears to substantially exceed what many patients with heart failure can afford or are willing to spend,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.
Dr. Parizo and coauthors developed their cost-effectiveness model for dapagliflozin in treating HFrEF using primarily data collected in the DAPA-HF trial, which proved the efficacy of the drug for reducing cardiovascular deaths or acute heart failure events that led to hospitalization or intravenous outpatient treatment in more than 4,700 randomized patients with HFrEF. The trial enrolled roughly similar numbers of patients with or without type 2 diabetes.
The model showed an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $83,650/QALY, which was about the same regardless of whether patients also had type 2 diabetes. On a more granular level, the cost-effectiveness value estimate was $78,483/QALY in patients with mild health-status impairment due to their heart failure, and $97,608/QALY in patients with moderate impairment, a finding that underscores the importance of starting dapagliflozin treatment early in the course of HFrEF when disease effects are less severe. The analysis could not address value in patients with more advanced heart failure and in New York Heart Association functional class IV because fewer than 1% of patients in DAPA-HF were in this category.
Drug cost was a major determinant of cost-effectiveness. A 50% drop in cost from the Medicare benchmark of $473.64/month resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $45,000/QALY (putting it into the high-value category based on the 2014 ACC/AHA formula), while a 50% rise in price yielded a value of nearly $123,000/QALY (still in the intermediate range, which spans from $50,000/QALY to $150,000/QALY). No other cost parameters had a meaningful effect on the cost-effectiveness calculation. The analyses also showed that using the basic cost assumptions, treatment with dapagliflozin needs to persist and remain effective for at least 44 months to produce a cost per QALY that’s less than $150,000. The authors stressed that their analysis considered heart failure effects and did not account for added benefit from treatment with dapagliflozin on preservation of renal function.
While it’s indisputable that treatment with dapagliflozin decreases health care costs by, for example, reducing hospitalizations for heart failure, each hospitalization costs just over $12,000, according to the assumptions made by Dr. Parizo and coauthors. But given dapagliflozin’s impact on this outcome, this cost saving translates into about $500/patient during 18 months on treatment (the median duration of treatment in DAPA-HF), which means the savings barely counterbalances the current cost of dapagliflozin treatment for 1 month, noted Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.
The DAPA-HF trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Parizo had no disclosures and none of his coauthors had a relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Chew had no disclosures. Dr. Mark has received research grants from HeartFlow, Mayo Clinic, and Merck.
Although recent trial results have established the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as a key new part of the recommended multidrug treatment regimen for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the current U.S. cost for dapagliflozin means it has merely “intermediate” value when it comes to cost-effectiveness.
A typical regimen with dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) costs about $474/month or roughly $5,700/year based on Medicare pricing. After factoring in the incremental clinical benefits producing by dapagliflozin seen in the DAPA-HF pivotal trial that helped establish its role, this price produces a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of about $84,000, which puts dapagliflozin squarely in the intermediate range for value set in 2014 by a task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
This cost-effectiveness value depends largely on the proven efficacy of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for decreasing the incidence of cardiovascular death among treated patients with HFrEF, and puts the drug’s value roughly on par with another agent recently approved to treat such patients, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), which carries a cost-effectiveness value of about $45,000/QALY.
The U.S. cost per QALY for dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFrEF dwarfed the value numbers calculated for several other countries that were generally one-tenth this size. This disparity stemmed from both the relatively high price for dapagliflozin in the U.S. compared with other countries – nearly tenfold higher – and relatively higher costs for all types of U.S. medical care, Justin T. Parizo, MD, and coauthors said in a recent report. But the cost, and hence the cost per QALY, of dapagliflozin may soon drop because certain patents on the drug expired in October 2020, added Dr. Parizo, a cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University, and associates. Despite the expired patents, as of June 2021 no generic form of dapagliflozin appeared available for U.S. sale.
Medicare patients pay about $1,630/year out-of-pocket
“A key caveat” to this finding for dapagliflozin is that being cost-effective “is not by itself a mandate for routine clinical use,” Derek S. Chew, MD, and Daniel B. Mark, MD, said in an editorial that accompanied the report.
A major stumbling block for widespread U.S. prescribing of dapagliflozin to patients with HFrEF is its overall price tag for U.S. patients, estimated at $12 billion/year, as well as an out-of-pocket annual cost for individual Medicare patients of roughly $1,630/year. Adding this out-of-pocket cost to the copay for sacubitril/valsartan and two other much less expensive drug classes that together form the current mainstay, quadruple-drug regimen for HFrEF treatment means a potential annual cost paid by each Medicare patient of about $3,000, wrote Dr. Chew, a cardiologist, and Dr. Mark, a cardiologist and professor, both at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
They cited the precedent of the “unexpectedly slow” and “anemic” uptake of sacubitril/valsartan since its U.S. approval in 2015, a cost-effective agent with “comparable clinical effectiveness” to dapagliflozin. “Even with full inclusion [of sacubitril/valsartan] on formularies and elimination of preapproval requirements, use remains very low, and patient-borne out-of-pocket costs may be a key factor,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark. They cited a results from a study that showed abandonment of new prescriptions at retail U.S. pharmacies spiked to a 60% rate when out-of-pocket cost exceeded $500.
More than what patients ‘can afford or are willing to spend’
The estimated $3,000-plus total out-of-pocket cost currently borne by some Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who have to shell out for both sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin “appears to substantially exceed what many patients with heart failure can afford or are willing to spend,” wrote Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.
Dr. Parizo and coauthors developed their cost-effectiveness model for dapagliflozin in treating HFrEF using primarily data collected in the DAPA-HF trial, which proved the efficacy of the drug for reducing cardiovascular deaths or acute heart failure events that led to hospitalization or intravenous outpatient treatment in more than 4,700 randomized patients with HFrEF. The trial enrolled roughly similar numbers of patients with or without type 2 diabetes.
The model showed an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $83,650/QALY, which was about the same regardless of whether patients also had type 2 diabetes. On a more granular level, the cost-effectiveness value estimate was $78,483/QALY in patients with mild health-status impairment due to their heart failure, and $97,608/QALY in patients with moderate impairment, a finding that underscores the importance of starting dapagliflozin treatment early in the course of HFrEF when disease effects are less severe. The analysis could not address value in patients with more advanced heart failure and in New York Heart Association functional class IV because fewer than 1% of patients in DAPA-HF were in this category.
Drug cost was a major determinant of cost-effectiveness. A 50% drop in cost from the Medicare benchmark of $473.64/month resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $45,000/QALY (putting it into the high-value category based on the 2014 ACC/AHA formula), while a 50% rise in price yielded a value of nearly $123,000/QALY (still in the intermediate range, which spans from $50,000/QALY to $150,000/QALY). No other cost parameters had a meaningful effect on the cost-effectiveness calculation. The analyses also showed that using the basic cost assumptions, treatment with dapagliflozin needs to persist and remain effective for at least 44 months to produce a cost per QALY that’s less than $150,000. The authors stressed that their analysis considered heart failure effects and did not account for added benefit from treatment with dapagliflozin on preservation of renal function.
While it’s indisputable that treatment with dapagliflozin decreases health care costs by, for example, reducing hospitalizations for heart failure, each hospitalization costs just over $12,000, according to the assumptions made by Dr. Parizo and coauthors. But given dapagliflozin’s impact on this outcome, this cost saving translates into about $500/patient during 18 months on treatment (the median duration of treatment in DAPA-HF), which means the savings barely counterbalances the current cost of dapagliflozin treatment for 1 month, noted Dr. Chew and Dr. Mark.
The DAPA-HF trial was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Parizo had no disclosures and none of his coauthors had a relationship with AstraZeneca. Dr. Chew had no disclosures. Dr. Mark has received research grants from HeartFlow, Mayo Clinic, and Merck.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
Prediabetes linked to higher CVD and CKD rates
in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.
The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’
“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”
Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.
The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.
The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.
The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).
In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.
Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management
The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.
“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.
An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.
in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.
The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’
“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”
Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.
The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.
The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.
The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).
In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.
Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management
The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.
“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.
An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.
in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.
The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’
“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”
Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.
The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.
The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.
The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).
In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.
Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management
The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.
“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.
An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.
FROM ACC 2021
Rivaroxaban cut recurrent limb events in VOYAGER-PAD
After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.
These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.
The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).
The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.
The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.
“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.
An ‘incredibly high’ event rate
“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.
“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”
Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level
“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.
“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”
VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.
In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.
Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding
Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.
“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.
The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.
But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.
“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.
VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.
After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.
These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.
The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).
The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.
The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.
“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.
An ‘incredibly high’ event rate
“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.
“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”
Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level
“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.
“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”
VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.
In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.
Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding
Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.
“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.
The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.
But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.
“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.
VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.
After patients with peripheral artery disease undergo lower-extremity revascularization, they are at high risk for major adverse limb events, and new findings from a prespecified analysis of data from the VOYAGER-PAD trial show that treatment with the direct-acting oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban along with aspirin significantly cut the rate of total major adverse limb events in these patients.
These findings confirm the drop in first major adverse limb events linked to rivaroxaban treatment that was VOYAGER-PAD’s primary result, reported just over a year ago.
The new total-event analysis also provides important insight into the huge magnitude of total major adverse limb events that patients with PAD can develop following lower-extremity revascularization (LER).
The 6,564 patients who all received aspirin and were randomized to either rivaroxaban (Xarelto) or placebo had 4,714 total events during a median follow-up of 2.5 years following their revascularization procedure. This included 1,092 first primary events (a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, MI, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death), 522 primary events that occurred as second or subsequent events among patients after a first primary event (a nearly 50% increase from first events only), and 3,100 additional vascular events that did not fit into the primary-event category, most often a peripheral revascularization procedure, Rupert M. Bauersachs, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.
“We were all astonished by this high event rate,” Dr. Bauersachs said during his report.
The total-event analysis that he reported showed that treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a significant 14% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the incidence of total primary events, which closely tracks the significant 15% relative reduction in first primary events reported from the VOYAGER-PAD trial in 2020. Treatment with rivaroxaban also significantly linked with a 14% cut in total vascular events, compared with placebo, including the many events not included in the primary endpoint, said Dr. Bauersachs, who until his retirement in May 2021 was director of the Clinic for Vascular Medicine at the Darmstadt (Germany) Clinic. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online.
“If one focuses only on first events, you miss the totality of disease burden. There is even greater benefit by reducing total events,” Dr. Bauersachs said during a press briefing. Adding rivaroxaban prevented roughly 2.6 first primary events for every 100 patients treated, but it also prevented 4.4 total primary events and 12.5 total vascular events for every 100 treated patients.
An ‘incredibly high’ event rate
“I don’t think any of us imagined the level of morbidity in this population. The event rate is incredibly high,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor and director of vascular medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Because treatment with rivaroxaban showed clear efficacy for also preventing subsequent events it should not be considered to have failed in patients who have a vascular event while on rivaroxaban treatment, he added as designated discussant for the report. Treatment with rivaroxaban “should be continued indefinitely,” he concluded.
“It’s quite astonishing to see the magnitude of [total] events in these patients,” commented Sahil A. Parikh, MD, a cardiologist and director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. “We’ve always known that these are high-risk patients, but exactly how high their risk is was not well understood until these data came to light.”
Dr. Parikh also noted that, despite the clear evidence reported from VOYAGER-PAD more than a year ago proving the efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for long-term treatment of patients with PAD following LER, this regimen has not yet become standard U.S. practice.
Rivaroxaban use falls short of the expected level
“This paradigm shift has not seen the level of adoption that we would expect based on the data,” he said. “There have been numerous editorials and discussions of this at every major medical meeting” during the past year, but those expert opinions have not translated into changed practice. “Perhaps the pandemic has muted enthusiasm for adoption of a new therapeutic paradigm,” suggested Dr. Parikh, and “on top of that guidelines have yet to be updated,” although he noted that updated guidelines from the ACC and American Heart Association for PAD that include the types of patients enrolled in VOYAGER-PAD are now under review and should be released by the first half of 2022.
“I think the additional data [reported by Dr. Bauersachs] will encourage us to use rivaroxaban in patients with claudication,” Dr. Parikh said. “Perhaps we should use rivaroxaban and aspirin in a broader swath of patients, but it will take time to convince some constituencies.”
VOYAGER-PAD randomized patients with PAD who underwent successful LER within 10 days prior to enrollment at 542 sites in 34 countries during 2015-2018. In addition to every patient receiving 100 mg aspirin daily and either 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily or placebo once daily, patients who received an intra-arterial device such as a stent could also receive the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel for a planned maximum of 30 days after revascularization at the discretion of their physician, and the trial protocol allowed for extending clopidogrel treatment to as many as 60 days.
In addition to the efficacy outcomes, the safety results showed that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin appeared to increase bleeding episodes, but at rates that generally did not reach significance and that were dwarfed by the efficacy benefit. The study’s primary safety outcome was the incidence of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, which occurred in 2.65% of patients who received rivaroxaban and in 1.87% on those on placebo, a 43% relative increase that fell short of significance (P = .07). The analyses overall indicated that 10,000 similar patients treated for 1 year with rivaroxaban would have 181 fewer primary events, compared with placebo-treated patients at the cost of also having 29 additional TIMI major bleeding events compared with patient on placebo.
Adding clopidogrel adds little except bleeding
Further analysis showed that just over half of enrolled patients also received clopidogrel for a median of 29 days following their LER procedure. This added agent produced no significant added benefit during 3-year follow-up, but did boost bleeding risk, especially in patients who received clopidogrel for more than 30 days. This led the study investigators to suggest that, while rivaroxaban plus aspirin is indicated for long-term treatment, addition of clopidogrel on top of this should be limited to 30 days or fewer to minimize bleeding risk.
“I’m sure there is a bleeding hazard associated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but this is attenuated by using dual therapy and not using triple therapy” by also adding clopidogrel, noted Dr. Parikh.
The new VOYAGER-PAD results also showed that the ongoing risk faced by patients with PAD following LER applies globally to their peripheral arteries. Of the 3,034 total peripheral revascularizations performed in the cohort during follow-up, 64% occurred in the index limb and 36% in the contralateral limb. Another striking finding was that the need for ipsilateral repeat revascularization was more common after an index endovascular procedure, 2,329 repeat revascularizations in 4,379 of these patients (53%), compared with 2,185 patients who had surgical revascularization for their index procedure and subsequently 705 of these patients (32%) needed repeat revascularization.
But rivaroxaban treatment appeared to provide little benefit for the much less frequent incidence of first and subsequent events in the coronary and cerebral circulation. During follow-up, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events – cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – were virtually identical in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.
“This study makes it clear that we are learning about differences in presentation between the vascular beds, and the benefits of specific treatments in each vascular bed,” Dr. Beckman said.
VOYAGER-PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). Dr. Bauersachs has received personal fees from Bayer, as well as from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer, and has received grant support from Aspen Pharma. Dr. Beckman been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Amgen, JanOne, Novartis, and Sanofi, and he has served on a data and safety monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Parikh has been a consultant to and received honoraria from Janssen, as well as from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Penumbra, Philips, and Terumo, he has been a speaker on behalf of Inari, and he has received grant support from Abbott, Shockwave Medical, Surmodics, and TriReme Medical.
FROM ACC 2021
Sotagliflozin’s HFpEF benefit confirmed by new analyses
It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.
The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.
Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’
Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”
“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.
The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.
SCORED randomized 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease to treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy. During a median 16 months of treatment, the combined primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 5.6 events/100 patient years on sotagliflozin and 7.5 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 26% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Nearly a third of the enrolled patients had heart failure, with representation across the range of LVEF.
SOLOIST-WHF randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure. During a median 9 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 51 events/100 patient years in the sotagliflozin-treated patients and a rate of 76 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 33% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:117-28). Both trials stopped prematurely because of sponsorship issues.
In addition to the 4,500 patients with heart failure at entry in both trials, SCORED included a total of more than 6,700 without diagnosed heart failure at baseline, and in this subgroup treatment with sotagliflozin cut the incidence of the primary endpoint by a significant 27% compared with control patients.
A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death
Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.
“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.
He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.
SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K2P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.
It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.
The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.
Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’
Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”
“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.
The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.
SCORED randomized 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease to treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy. During a median 16 months of treatment, the combined primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 5.6 events/100 patient years on sotagliflozin and 7.5 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 26% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Nearly a third of the enrolled patients had heart failure, with representation across the range of LVEF.
SOLOIST-WHF randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure. During a median 9 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 51 events/100 patient years in the sotagliflozin-treated patients and a rate of 76 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 33% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:117-28). Both trials stopped prematurely because of sponsorship issues.
In addition to the 4,500 patients with heart failure at entry in both trials, SCORED included a total of more than 6,700 without diagnosed heart failure at baseline, and in this subgroup treatment with sotagliflozin cut the incidence of the primary endpoint by a significant 27% compared with control patients.
A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death
Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.
“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.
He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.
SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K2P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.
It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).
Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.
The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.
Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’
Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”
“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.
The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.
SCORED randomized 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease to treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo on top of guideline-directed medical therapy. During a median 16 months of treatment, the combined primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 5.6 events/100 patient years on sotagliflozin and 7.5 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 26% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:129-39). Nearly a third of the enrolled patients had heart failure, with representation across the range of LVEF.
SOLOIST-WHF randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure. During a median 9 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred at a rate of 51 events/100 patient years in the sotagliflozin-treated patients and a rate of 76 events/100 patient years in the controls, a significant 33% relative reduction with sotagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2021 Jan 14;384[2]:117-28). Both trials stopped prematurely because of sponsorship issues.
In addition to the 4,500 patients with heart failure at entry in both trials, SCORED included a total of more than 6,700 without diagnosed heart failure at baseline, and in this subgroup treatment with sotagliflozin cut the incidence of the primary endpoint by a significant 27% compared with control patients.
A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death
Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.
“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.
He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.
Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.
SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K2P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.
FROM ACC 2021
