Emergency Medicine

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

International normalized ratio (INR) does not predict periprocedural bleeding in patients with cirrhosis, according to a meta-analysis of 29 studies.

This finding should deter the common practice of delivering blood products to cirrhotic patients with an elevated INR, reported lead author Alexander J. Kovalic, MD, of Novant Forsyth Medical Center in Winston Salem, N.C., and colleagues.

“INR measurement among cirrhotic patients is important in MELD [Model for End-Stage Liver Disease] prognostication and assessment of underlying hepatic synthetic function, however the INR alone does not capture the complicated interplay of anticoagulant and procoagulant deficiencies present in cirrhotic coagulopathy,” Dr. Kovalic and colleagues wrote in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. “Yet, the ‘correction’ of these aberrancies among peripheral coagulation tests remains common ... even in modern practice, and not uncommonly occurs in the periprocedural setting.”

According to investigators, addressing INR with blood transfusion can have a litany of negative effects. Beyond the risks faced by all patient populations, increasing blood volume in those with cirrhosis can increase portal venous pressure, thereby raising risks of portal gastropathy or variceal hemorrhage. In addition, giving plasma products to patients with cirrhotic coagulopathy may further disrupt the balance between anticoagulants and procoagulants, potentially triggering disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Dr. Kovalic and colleagues noted that the lack of correlation between peripheral coagulation tests and bleeding risk has been a longstanding subject of investigation, citing studies from as early as 1981.

To add further weight to this body of evidence, the investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 13,276 patients with cirrhosis who underwent various procedures between 1999 and 2019. Primary outcomes included periprocedural bleeding events and the association between preprocedural INR and periprocedural bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included mortality, quantity of blood and/or plasma products used, and relationship between preprocedural platelet count and periprocedural bleeding events.

The analysis showed that preprocedural INR was not significantly associated with periprocedural bleeding events (pooled odds ratio, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-2.33; P = .06), a finding that held across INR threshold subgroups. Similarly, no significant difference was found between mean INR of patients who had bleeding events versus that of those who did not (pooled mean difference, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.03-0.13; P = .23).

Preprocedural platelet count was also a poor predictor of periprocedural bleeding, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 0.55-2.77; P = .60), although the investigators noted that platelet count thresholds varied widely across studies, from 30 to 150 × 10⁹/L. When studies were stratified by procedural bleeding risk or procedure type, subgroup effects were no longer significant. Other secondary endpoints were incalculable because of insufficient data.

“Hopefully, these findings will spark initiation of more large-scale, higher-quality studies ... to reinforce minimizing administration of fresh frozen plasma for inappropriate correction of INR, which carries a multitude of adverse effects among cirrhotic [patients],” the investigators concluded.

According to Stephen H. Caldwell, MD, of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, “The present paper augments accumulating literature over the past 15 years that INR should be discarded as a measure of procedure-related bleeding risk.”

Dr. Caldwell pointed out that “bleeding in cirrhosis is usually related to portal hypertension not with impaired hemostasis, with the occasional exception of hyperfibrinolysis, which is very different from a prolonged INR.”

He went on to suggest that the present findings should dissuade clinicians from a practice that, for some, is reflexive rather than evidence based.

“It’s remarkable how many medical practices become entrenched based on hand-me-down teaching during our early training years, and remain so for many years beyond as we disperse into various medical and surgical fields,” Dr. Caldwell said. “These learned approaches to common problems can clearly persist for generations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that usually evolve slowly and well-insulated within subspecialties or sub-subspecialties, and hence take several generations of training to diffuse into the wider practice of medical care for common problems. These may become matters of expedience in decision-making, much like the old antibiotic conundrum of ‘no-think-a-cillin,’ as critics referred to over-use of broad spectrum antibiotics. And so it has been with the INR.”The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, and others. Dr. Caldwell disclosed research support from Daiichi concerning the potential role of anticoagulation therapy in preventing cirrhosis progression.

SOURCE: Kovalic AJ et al. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16078.

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

The latest drug shown to benefit patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, works just as well when added on top of a second major agent used to treat these patients, the renin-angiotensin system–inhibiting combination of sacubitril/valsartan, based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

“When there are two very effective treatments, it’s common for people to ask: Which should I use?’ The goal of my presentation was to emphasize that the answer is both. We shouldn’t choose between neprilysin inhibition [sacubitril inhibits the enzyme neprilysin] and SGLT2 [sodium-glucose transporter 2] inhibition; we should use both,” said Milton Packer, MD at the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

EMPEROR-Reduced had the primary goal of testing the safety and efficacy of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The results showed that adding this drug on top of standard treatments led to a 25% relative cut in the study’s primary efficacy endpoint, compared with placebo, and had this effect regardless of whether or not patients also had type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022190).

Among the 3,730 patients enrolled in the trial, 727 (19%) were on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) at entry, which gave Dr. Packer the data to perform the analysis he reported. He presented the study’s three major endpoints as well as a quality of life analysis that compared the performance of empagliflozin in patients who were on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline with the other study patients, who were either on a different type of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker (roughly 70% of study patients) or on no RAS inhibition (about 10% of patients).

The results showed no statistically significant indication of an interaction, suggesting that patients with sacubitril/valsartan on board had just as good response to empagliflozin as patients who were not on this combination. The landmark PARADIGM-HF trial proved several years ago that treatment of HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan led to significantly better outcomes than did treatment with another form of RAS inhibition (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).

For example, EMPEROR-Reduced’s primary endpoint, the combined rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, fell by 36% relative to placebo in patients who received empagliflozin on top of sacubitril/valsartan, and by 23% relative to placebo among the remaining patients who received empagliflozin on top of a different type of RAS inhibitor drug or no RAS inhibition.

“Background treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not diminish, and may have enhanced the efficacy of empagliflozin,” concluded Dr. Packer. Further analyses also showed that concurrent sacubitril/valsartan had no statistically significant impact on empagliflozin’s ability to reduce the rate of total heart failure hospitalizations, or to slow progressive loss of renal function, compared with placebo. The fourth efficacy analysis Dr. Packer presented showed that empagliflozin was also as effective for improving a quality-of-life measure in patients compared with placebo regardless of the type of RAS inhibition used. For all four outcomes, the point-estimate of empagliflozin’s benefit was higher when used along with sacubitril/valsartan.

Brian L. Claggett, PhD, a biostatistician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, designated discussant for the report, disagreed with Dr. Packer’s suggestion that the efficacy of empagliflozin may have been greater when administered against a background of sacubitril/valsartan. From a statistical perspective, there is no basis to suggest that patients did better when they were on both drugs, he cautioned. But Dr. Claggett acknowledged that the new analyses suggested that empagliflozin’s benefit wasn’t compromised by concurrent sacubitril/valsartan use. He also highlighted the value of more fully documenting the safety and efficacy of a new drug when used as part of “comprehensive therapy” with the established drugs that a patient may concurrently receive.

Dr. Packer also presented several measures of treatment safety that all showed similar rates of adverse effects between the empagliflozin and placebo recipients regardless of background RAS inhibition. A notable finding was that the incidence of hypokalemia was 5.9% in patients on empagliflozin and sacubitril/valsartan and 7.5% among patients on empagliflozin and a different type of RAS inhibition.

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin. Dr. Packer has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Claggett has been a consultant to Amgen, AO Biome, Biogen, Corvia, Myokardia, and Novartis.

[email protected]

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

The DAPA-CKD trial results, which proved dapagliflozin’s efficacy for slowing chronic kidney disease progression in patients selected for signs of worsening renal function, also have important messages for cardiologists, especially heart failure physicians.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Those messages include findings that were “consistent” with the results of the earlier DAPA-HF trial, which tested the same sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients selected for having heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition, a specific action of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on the patients in DAPA-CKD, which enrolled patients based on markers of chronic kidney disease (CKD), was prevention of first and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, further highlighting the role that dapagliflozin has in reducing both heart failure and renal events.
 

What DAPA-CKD means for heart failure

The main findings from the DAPA-CKD trial, published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine, included as a secondary outcome the combined rate of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Treatment with dapagliflozin linked with a significant 29% relative reduction in this endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients. At the HFSA meeting, Dr. McMurray reported for the first time the specific HHF numbers, a prespecified secondary endpoint for the study.

Patients on dapagliflozin had 37 total HHF events (1.7%), including both first-time and subsequent hospitalizations, while patients in the placebo arm had a total of 71 HHF events (3.3%) during the study’s median 2.4 years of follow-up, an absolute reduction of 1.6% that translated into a relative risk reduction of 49%.

The HHF findings from DAPA-CKD importantly showed that SGLT2 inhibition in patients with signs of renal dysfunction “will not only slow progression of kidney disease but will also reduce the risk of developing heart failure, crucially in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” explained Dr. McMurray in an interview. “Cardiologists often consult in the kidney wards and advise on management of patients with chronic kidney disease, even those without heart failure.”

The DAPA-CKD findings carry another important message for heart failure management regarding the minimum level of renal function a patient can have and still safely receive dapagliflozin or possibly another agent from the same SGLT2 inhibitor class. In DAPA-CKD, patients safely received dapagliflozin with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m²; 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“Typically, about 40%-50% of patients with heart failure have chronic kidney disease,” which makes this safety finding important to clinicians who care for heart failure patients, but it’s also important for any patient who might be a candidate for dapagliflozin or another drug from its class. “We had no strong evidence before this trial that SGLT2 inhibition could reduce hard renal endpoints,” specifically need for chronic dialysis, renal transplant, or renal death, “in patients with or without diabetes,” Dr. McMurray said.
 

DAPA-CKD grows the pool of eligible heart failure patients

A further consequence of the DAPA-CKD findings is that when, as expected, regulatory bodies give dapagliflozin an indication for treating the types of CKD patients enrolled in the trial, it will functionally expand this treatment to an even larger swath of heart failure patients who currently don’t qualify for this treatment, specifically patients with CKD who also have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). On Oct. 2, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked dapagliflozin for the CKD indication by granting it Breakthrough Therapy Designation based on the DAPA-CKD results.

Results first reported in 2019 from the DAPA-HF trial led to dapagliflozin receiving a labeled indication for treating HFrEF, the types of heart failure patients enrolled in the trial. Direct evidence on the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFpEF will not be available until results from a few trials now in progress become available during the next 12 months.

In the meantime, nearly half of patients with HFpEF also have CKD, noted Dr. McMurray, and another large portion of HFpEF patients have type 2 diabetes and hence qualify for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment that way. “Obviously, we would like to know specifically about heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF” on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he acknowledged. But the recent approval of dapagliflozin for patients with HFrEF and the likely indication coming soon for treating CKD means that the number of patients with heart failure who are not eligible for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is dwindling down to some extent.
 

New DAPA-HF results show no drug, device interactions

In a separate session at the HFSA virtual meeting, Dr. McMurray and several collaborators on the DAPA-HF trial presented results from some new analyses. Dr. McMurray looked at the impact of dapagliflozin treatment on the primary endpoint when patients were stratified by the diuretic dosage they received at study entry. The results showed that “the benefits from dapagliflozin were irrespective of the use of background diuretic therapy or the diuretic dose,” he reported. Study findings also showed that roughly three-quarters of patients in the study had no change in their diuretic dosage during the course of the trial, that the fraction of patients who had an increase in their dosage was about the same as those whose diuretic dosage decreased, and that this pattern was similar in both the patients on dapagliflozin and in those randomized to placebo.

Another set of new analyses from DAPA-HF looked at the impact on dapagliflozin efficacy of background medical and device therapies for heart failure, as well as background diabetes therapies. The findings showed no signal of an interaction with background therapies. “The effects of dapagliflozin are incremental and complimentary to conventional therapies for HFrEF,” concluded Lars Kober, MD, a professor and heart failure physician at Copenhagen University Hospital.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. McMurray’s employer, Glasgow University, has received payments from AstraZeneca and several other companies to compensate for his time overseeing various clinical trials. Dr. Kober has received honoraria for speaking on behalf of several companies including AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

The DAPA-CKD trial results, which proved dapagliflozin’s efficacy for slowing chronic kidney disease progression in patients selected for signs of worsening renal function, also have important messages for cardiologists, especially heart failure physicians.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Those messages include findings that were “consistent” with the results of the earlier DAPA-HF trial, which tested the same sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients selected for having heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition, a specific action of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on the patients in DAPA-CKD, which enrolled patients based on markers of chronic kidney disease (CKD), was prevention of first and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, further highlighting the role that dapagliflozin has in reducing both heart failure and renal events.
 

What DAPA-CKD means for heart failure

The main findings from the DAPA-CKD trial, published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine, included as a secondary outcome the combined rate of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Treatment with dapagliflozin linked with a significant 29% relative reduction in this endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients. At the HFSA meeting, Dr. McMurray reported for the first time the specific HHF numbers, a prespecified secondary endpoint for the study.

Patients on dapagliflozin had 37 total HHF events (1.7%), including both first-time and subsequent hospitalizations, while patients in the placebo arm had a total of 71 HHF events (3.3%) during the study’s median 2.4 years of follow-up, an absolute reduction of 1.6% that translated into a relative risk reduction of 49%.

The HHF findings from DAPA-CKD importantly showed that SGLT2 inhibition in patients with signs of renal dysfunction “will not only slow progression of kidney disease but will also reduce the risk of developing heart failure, crucially in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” explained Dr. McMurray in an interview. “Cardiologists often consult in the kidney wards and advise on management of patients with chronic kidney disease, even those without heart failure.”

The DAPA-CKD findings carry another important message for heart failure management regarding the minimum level of renal function a patient can have and still safely receive dapagliflozin or possibly another agent from the same SGLT2 inhibitor class. In DAPA-CKD, patients safely received dapagliflozin with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m²; 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“Typically, about 40%-50% of patients with heart failure have chronic kidney disease,” which makes this safety finding important to clinicians who care for heart failure patients, but it’s also important for any patient who might be a candidate for dapagliflozin or another drug from its class. “We had no strong evidence before this trial that SGLT2 inhibition could reduce hard renal endpoints,” specifically need for chronic dialysis, renal transplant, or renal death, “in patients with or without diabetes,” Dr. McMurray said.
 

DAPA-CKD grows the pool of eligible heart failure patients

A further consequence of the DAPA-CKD findings is that when, as expected, regulatory bodies give dapagliflozin an indication for treating the types of CKD patients enrolled in the trial, it will functionally expand this treatment to an even larger swath of heart failure patients who currently don’t qualify for this treatment, specifically patients with CKD who also have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). On Oct. 2, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked dapagliflozin for the CKD indication by granting it Breakthrough Therapy Designation based on the DAPA-CKD results.

Results first reported in 2019 from the DAPA-HF trial led to dapagliflozin receiving a labeled indication for treating HFrEF, the types of heart failure patients enrolled in the trial. Direct evidence on the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFpEF will not be available until results from a few trials now in progress become available during the next 12 months.

In the meantime, nearly half of patients with HFpEF also have CKD, noted Dr. McMurray, and another large portion of HFpEF patients have type 2 diabetes and hence qualify for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment that way. “Obviously, we would like to know specifically about heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF” on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he acknowledged. But the recent approval of dapagliflozin for patients with HFrEF and the likely indication coming soon for treating CKD means that the number of patients with heart failure who are not eligible for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is dwindling down to some extent.
 

New DAPA-HF results show no drug, device interactions

In a separate session at the HFSA virtual meeting, Dr. McMurray and several collaborators on the DAPA-HF trial presented results from some new analyses. Dr. McMurray looked at the impact of dapagliflozin treatment on the primary endpoint when patients were stratified by the diuretic dosage they received at study entry. The results showed that “the benefits from dapagliflozin were irrespective of the use of background diuretic therapy or the diuretic dose,” he reported. Study findings also showed that roughly three-quarters of patients in the study had no change in their diuretic dosage during the course of the trial, that the fraction of patients who had an increase in their dosage was about the same as those whose diuretic dosage decreased, and that this pattern was similar in both the patients on dapagliflozin and in those randomized to placebo.

Another set of new analyses from DAPA-HF looked at the impact on dapagliflozin efficacy of background medical and device therapies for heart failure, as well as background diabetes therapies. The findings showed no signal of an interaction with background therapies. “The effects of dapagliflozin are incremental and complimentary to conventional therapies for HFrEF,” concluded Lars Kober, MD, a professor and heart failure physician at Copenhagen University Hospital.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. McMurray’s employer, Glasgow University, has received payments from AstraZeneca and several other companies to compensate for his time overseeing various clinical trials. Dr. Kober has received honoraria for speaking on behalf of several companies including AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

The DAPA-CKD trial results, which proved dapagliflozin’s efficacy for slowing chronic kidney disease progression in patients selected for signs of worsening renal function, also have important messages for cardiologists, especially heart failure physicians.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Those messages include findings that were “consistent” with the results of the earlier DAPA-HF trial, which tested the same sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients selected for having heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition, a specific action of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on the patients in DAPA-CKD, which enrolled patients based on markers of chronic kidney disease (CKD), was prevention of first and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations, John J.V. McMurray, MD, said at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, further highlighting the role that dapagliflozin has in reducing both heart failure and renal events.
 

What DAPA-CKD means for heart failure

The main findings from the DAPA-CKD trial, published in September in the New England Journal of Medicine, included as a secondary outcome the combined rate of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Treatment with dapagliflozin linked with a significant 29% relative reduction in this endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients. At the HFSA meeting, Dr. McMurray reported for the first time the specific HHF numbers, a prespecified secondary endpoint for the study.

Patients on dapagliflozin had 37 total HHF events (1.7%), including both first-time and subsequent hospitalizations, while patients in the placebo arm had a total of 71 HHF events (3.3%) during the study’s median 2.4 years of follow-up, an absolute reduction of 1.6% that translated into a relative risk reduction of 49%.

The HHF findings from DAPA-CKD importantly showed that SGLT2 inhibition in patients with signs of renal dysfunction “will not only slow progression of kidney disease but will also reduce the risk of developing heart failure, crucially in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” explained Dr. McMurray in an interview. “Cardiologists often consult in the kidney wards and advise on management of patients with chronic kidney disease, even those without heart failure.”

The DAPA-CKD findings carry another important message for heart failure management regarding the minimum level of renal function a patient can have and still safely receive dapagliflozin or possibly another agent from the same SGLT2 inhibitor class. In DAPA-CKD, patients safely received dapagliflozin with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m²; 14% of enrolled patients had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“Typically, about 40%-50% of patients with heart failure have chronic kidney disease,” which makes this safety finding important to clinicians who care for heart failure patients, but it’s also important for any patient who might be a candidate for dapagliflozin or another drug from its class. “We had no strong evidence before this trial that SGLT2 inhibition could reduce hard renal endpoints,” specifically need for chronic dialysis, renal transplant, or renal death, “in patients with or without diabetes,” Dr. McMurray said.
 

DAPA-CKD grows the pool of eligible heart failure patients

A further consequence of the DAPA-CKD findings is that when, as expected, regulatory bodies give dapagliflozin an indication for treating the types of CKD patients enrolled in the trial, it will functionally expand this treatment to an even larger swath of heart failure patients who currently don’t qualify for this treatment, specifically patients with CKD who also have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). On Oct. 2, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration fast-tracked dapagliflozin for the CKD indication by granting it Breakthrough Therapy Designation based on the DAPA-CKD results.

Results first reported in 2019 from the DAPA-HF trial led to dapagliflozin receiving a labeled indication for treating HFrEF, the types of heart failure patients enrolled in the trial. Direct evidence on the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with HFpEF will not be available until results from a few trials now in progress become available during the next 12 months.

In the meantime, nearly half of patients with HFpEF also have CKD, noted Dr. McMurray, and another large portion of HFpEF patients have type 2 diabetes and hence qualify for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment that way. “Obviously, we would like to know specifically about heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF” on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, he acknowledged. But the recent approval of dapagliflozin for patients with HFrEF and the likely indication coming soon for treating CKD means that the number of patients with heart failure who are not eligible for SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is dwindling down to some extent.
 

New DAPA-HF results show no drug, device interactions

In a separate session at the HFSA virtual meeting, Dr. McMurray and several collaborators on the DAPA-HF trial presented results from some new analyses. Dr. McMurray looked at the impact of dapagliflozin treatment on the primary endpoint when patients were stratified by the diuretic dosage they received at study entry. The results showed that “the benefits from dapagliflozin were irrespective of the use of background diuretic therapy or the diuretic dose,” he reported. Study findings also showed that roughly three-quarters of patients in the study had no change in their diuretic dosage during the course of the trial, that the fraction of patients who had an increase in their dosage was about the same as those whose diuretic dosage decreased, and that this pattern was similar in both the patients on dapagliflozin and in those randomized to placebo.

Another set of new analyses from DAPA-HF looked at the impact on dapagliflozin efficacy of background medical and device therapies for heart failure, as well as background diabetes therapies. The findings showed no signal of an interaction with background therapies. “The effects of dapagliflozin are incremental and complimentary to conventional therapies for HFrEF,” concluded Lars Kober, MD, a professor and heart failure physician at Copenhagen University Hospital.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. McMurray’s employer, Glasgow University, has received payments from AstraZeneca and several other companies to compensate for his time overseeing various clinical trials. Dr. Kober has received honoraria for speaking on behalf of several companies including AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

Patients with type 2 or type 1 diabetes who stay in a blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL at least 70% of the time have the lowest rates of major adverse coronary events, severe hypoglycemic episodes, and microvascular events, according to a post hoc analysis of data collected from 5,774 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data collected by the DEVOTE trial showed that every additional 10% of the time that a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D) spent in their target range for blood glucose linked with a significant 6% reduced rate for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

For every 10% increase in time in range (TIR), patients showed an average 10% drop in their incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes.
 

Increasing evidence from post hoc analyses

These findings confirmed a prior post hoc analysis of data collected in the DCCT trial (NCT00360815), which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, although those results showed significant relationships between increased TIR and decreased rates of retinopathy and microalbuminuria. For every 10% drop in TIR, retinopathy rose by 64% and microalbuminuria increased by 40%, according to a post hoc analysis of the DCCT data that Dr. Bergenstal helped run and was published in Diabetes Care.

“It’s becoming clear that time in range is an important metric for diabetes management, and our new findings and those previously reported with the DCCT data make it look like time in range is becoming a good marker for clinical outcomes as well,” said Dr. Bergenstal, an endocrinologist at the Park Nicollet Clinic in Minneapolis.

“It’s a new concept, getting time-in-range data,” said Dr. Bergenstal, who was a coauthor of recommendations from Diabetes Care that were made in 2019 by an expert panel organized by the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Congress. “We think this will be a good marker to keep glycemia in a safe range, and the results look positive.” Patients who stay in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at least 70% of the time generally have an hemoglobin A_1c of about 7%, which is what makes it a good target for patients and clinicians to focus on. Patients with a 50% TIR rate generally have an HbA_1c of about 8%.

But a TIR assessment can be more informative than HbA_1c, said the 2019 recommendations document. It called TIR assessments “appropriate and useful as clinical targets and outcome measurements that complement A1c for a wide range of people with diabetes.”
 

Data mining from DEVOTE

The analysis run by Dr. Bergenstal and his associates used data from 5,774 of the 7,637 patients enrolled in the DEVOTE trial, for whom adequate longitudinal blood glucose data were available to derive and track TIR. DEVOTE had the primary aim of comparing two different types of insulin in patients with T2D, according to its explanation in the New England Journal of Medicine. The DEVOTE patients did not undergo routine continuous blood glucose monitoring, so derivation of TIR was the only option with the dataset, Dr. Bergenstal said. “We’re trying to get continuous blood monitoring into T2D trials,” he said.

The post hoc analysis showed that, during the study’s follow-up of just under 2 years, patients who maintained a derived TIR of 70%-100% had about a 6% MACE rate, which peaked at nearly twice that in patients whose TIR was 30% or less. The analysis showed a roughly positive linear relationship between TIR and MACE rates across the range of TIR values. In an adjusted analysis, patients with at least a 70% TIR had a significant 31% lower rate of MACE events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less.

A second analysis that looked for the association between TIR and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes showed a somewhat similar positive relationship, with incidence rates of severe hypoglycemia episodes of about 4%-5% among patients with a TIR of 70% or greater, and a rate of about 7% in patients with a TIR of 30% or less, spiking to 14% among patients with a TIR of 10% or less. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 46% lower rate of severe hypoglycemic events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less. This finding belies a common misconception that the tighter glycemic control that produces a higher TIR will lead to increased episodes of severe hypoglycemia, Dr. Bergenstal noted.

He also reported less extensive data on microvascular events. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 40% cut in these events compared with patients with 50% or less TIR.

DEVOTE was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bergenstal has had financial relationships with Novo Nordisk and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergenstal R et al. EASD 2020, abstract 159.

Patients with type 2 or type 1 diabetes who stay in a blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL at least 70% of the time have the lowest rates of major adverse coronary events, severe hypoglycemic episodes, and microvascular events, according to a post hoc analysis of data collected from 5,774 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data collected by the DEVOTE trial showed that every additional 10% of the time that a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D) spent in their target range for blood glucose linked with a significant 6% reduced rate for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

For every 10% increase in time in range (TIR), patients showed an average 10% drop in their incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes.
 

Increasing evidence from post hoc analyses

These findings confirmed a prior post hoc analysis of data collected in the DCCT trial (NCT00360815), which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, although those results showed significant relationships between increased TIR and decreased rates of retinopathy and microalbuminuria. For every 10% drop in TIR, retinopathy rose by 64% and microalbuminuria increased by 40%, according to a post hoc analysis of the DCCT data that Dr. Bergenstal helped run and was published in Diabetes Care.

“It’s becoming clear that time in range is an important metric for diabetes management, and our new findings and those previously reported with the DCCT data make it look like time in range is becoming a good marker for clinical outcomes as well,” said Dr. Bergenstal, an endocrinologist at the Park Nicollet Clinic in Minneapolis.

“It’s a new concept, getting time-in-range data,” said Dr. Bergenstal, who was a coauthor of recommendations from Diabetes Care that were made in 2019 by an expert panel organized by the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Congress. “We think this will be a good marker to keep glycemia in a safe range, and the results look positive.” Patients who stay in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at least 70% of the time generally have an hemoglobin A_1c of about 7%, which is what makes it a good target for patients and clinicians to focus on. Patients with a 50% TIR rate generally have an HbA_1c of about 8%.

But a TIR assessment can be more informative than HbA_1c, said the 2019 recommendations document. It called TIR assessments “appropriate and useful as clinical targets and outcome measurements that complement A1c for a wide range of people with diabetes.”
 

Data mining from DEVOTE

The analysis run by Dr. Bergenstal and his associates used data from 5,774 of the 7,637 patients enrolled in the DEVOTE trial, for whom adequate longitudinal blood glucose data were available to derive and track TIR. DEVOTE had the primary aim of comparing two different types of insulin in patients with T2D, according to its explanation in the New England Journal of Medicine. The DEVOTE patients did not undergo routine continuous blood glucose monitoring, so derivation of TIR was the only option with the dataset, Dr. Bergenstal said. “We’re trying to get continuous blood monitoring into T2D trials,” he said.

The post hoc analysis showed that, during the study’s follow-up of just under 2 years, patients who maintained a derived TIR of 70%-100% had about a 6% MACE rate, which peaked at nearly twice that in patients whose TIR was 30% or less. The analysis showed a roughly positive linear relationship between TIR and MACE rates across the range of TIR values. In an adjusted analysis, patients with at least a 70% TIR had a significant 31% lower rate of MACE events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less.

A second analysis that looked for the association between TIR and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes showed a somewhat similar positive relationship, with incidence rates of severe hypoglycemia episodes of about 4%-5% among patients with a TIR of 70% or greater, and a rate of about 7% in patients with a TIR of 30% or less, spiking to 14% among patients with a TIR of 10% or less. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 46% lower rate of severe hypoglycemic events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less. This finding belies a common misconception that the tighter glycemic control that produces a higher TIR will lead to increased episodes of severe hypoglycemia, Dr. Bergenstal noted.

He also reported less extensive data on microvascular events. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 40% cut in these events compared with patients with 50% or less TIR.

DEVOTE was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bergenstal has had financial relationships with Novo Nordisk and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergenstal R et al. EASD 2020, abstract 159.

Patients with type 2 or type 1 diabetes who stay in a blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL at least 70% of the time have the lowest rates of major adverse coronary events, severe hypoglycemic episodes, and microvascular events, according to a post hoc analysis of data collected from 5,774 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Data collected by the DEVOTE trial showed that every additional 10% of the time that a patient with type 2 diabetes (T2D) spent in their target range for blood glucose linked with a significant 6% reduced rate for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

For every 10% increase in time in range (TIR), patients showed an average 10% drop in their incidence of severe hypoglycemic episodes.
 

Increasing evidence from post hoc analyses

These findings confirmed a prior post hoc analysis of data collected in the DCCT trial (NCT00360815), which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine, although those results showed significant relationships between increased TIR and decreased rates of retinopathy and microalbuminuria. For every 10% drop in TIR, retinopathy rose by 64% and microalbuminuria increased by 40%, according to a post hoc analysis of the DCCT data that Dr. Bergenstal helped run and was published in Diabetes Care.

“It’s becoming clear that time in range is an important metric for diabetes management, and our new findings and those previously reported with the DCCT data make it look like time in range is becoming a good marker for clinical outcomes as well,” said Dr. Bergenstal, an endocrinologist at the Park Nicollet Clinic in Minneapolis.

“It’s a new concept, getting time-in-range data,” said Dr. Bergenstal, who was a coauthor of recommendations from Diabetes Care that were made in 2019 by an expert panel organized by the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Congress. “We think this will be a good marker to keep glycemia in a safe range, and the results look positive.” Patients who stay in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L) at least 70% of the time generally have an hemoglobin A_1c of about 7%, which is what makes it a good target for patients and clinicians to focus on. Patients with a 50% TIR rate generally have an HbA_1c of about 8%.

But a TIR assessment can be more informative than HbA_1c, said the 2019 recommendations document. It called TIR assessments “appropriate and useful as clinical targets and outcome measurements that complement A1c for a wide range of people with diabetes.”
 

Data mining from DEVOTE

The analysis run by Dr. Bergenstal and his associates used data from 5,774 of the 7,637 patients enrolled in the DEVOTE trial, for whom adequate longitudinal blood glucose data were available to derive and track TIR. DEVOTE had the primary aim of comparing two different types of insulin in patients with T2D, according to its explanation in the New England Journal of Medicine. The DEVOTE patients did not undergo routine continuous blood glucose monitoring, so derivation of TIR was the only option with the dataset, Dr. Bergenstal said. “We’re trying to get continuous blood monitoring into T2D trials,” he said.

The post hoc analysis showed that, during the study’s follow-up of just under 2 years, patients who maintained a derived TIR of 70%-100% had about a 6% MACE rate, which peaked at nearly twice that in patients whose TIR was 30% or less. The analysis showed a roughly positive linear relationship between TIR and MACE rates across the range of TIR values. In an adjusted analysis, patients with at least a 70% TIR had a significant 31% lower rate of MACE events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less.

A second analysis that looked for the association between TIR and incidence of hypoglycemic episodes showed a somewhat similar positive relationship, with incidence rates of severe hypoglycemia episodes of about 4%-5% among patients with a TIR of 70% or greater, and a rate of about 7% in patients with a TIR of 30% or less, spiking to 14% among patients with a TIR of 10% or less. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 46% lower rate of severe hypoglycemic events, compared with patients whose TIR was 50% or less. This finding belies a common misconception that the tighter glycemic control that produces a higher TIR will lead to increased episodes of severe hypoglycemia, Dr. Bergenstal noted.

He also reported less extensive data on microvascular events. In an adjusted analysis, patients with a TIR of at least 70% had a significant 40% cut in these events compared with patients with 50% or less TIR.

DEVOTE was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Bergenstal has had financial relationships with Novo Nordisk and several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bergenstal R et al. EASD 2020, abstract 159.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Mentoring is often promoted as an organizational practice to promote diversity and inclusion. New or established group members who want to further their careers look for a mentor to guide them toward success within a system by amplifying their strengths and accomplishments and defending and promoting them when necessary. But how can mentoring work if there isn’t a mentor?

For underrepresented groups or marginalized physicians, it too often looks as if there are no mentors who understand the struggles of being a racial or ethnic minority group member or mentors who are even cognizant of those struggles. Mentoring is a practice that occurs within the overarching systems of practice groups, academic departments, hospitals, medicine, and society at large. These systems frequently carry the legacies of bias, discrimination, and exclusion. The mentoring itself that takes place within a biased system risks perpetuating institutional bias, exclusion, or a sense of unworthiness in the mentee. It is stressful for any person with a minority background or even a minority interest to feel that there’s no one to emulate in their immediate working environment. When that is the case, a natural question follows: “Do I even belong here?”

Before departments and psychiatric practices turn to old, surface-level solutions like using mentorship to appear more welcoming to underrepresented groups, leaders must explicitly evaluate their track record of mentorship within their system and determine whether mentorship has been used to protect the status quo or move the culture forward. As mentorship is inherently an imbalanced relationship, there must be department- or group-level reflection about the diversity of mentors and also their examinations of mentors’ own preconceived notions of who will make a “good” mentee.

At the most basic level, leaders can examine whether there are gaps in who is mentored and who is not. Other parts of mentoring relationships should also be examined: a) How can mentoring happen if there is a dearth of underrepresented groups in the department? b) What type of mentoring style is favored? Do departments/groups look for a natural fit between mentor and mentee or are they matched based on interests, ideals, and goals? and c) How is the worthiness for mentorship determined?

One example is the fraught process of evaluating “worthiness” among residents. Prospective mentors frequently divide trainees unofficially into a top-tier candidates, middle-tier performers who may be overlooked, and a bottom tier who are avoided when it comes to mentorship. Because this division is informal and usually based on extremely early perceptions of trainees’ aptitude and openness, the process can be subject to an individual mentor’s conscious and unconscious bias, which then plays a large role in perpetuating systemic racism. When it comes to these informal but often rigid divisions, it can be hard to fall from the top when mentees are buoyed by good will, frequent opportunities to shine, and the mentor’s reputation. Likewise, it can be hard to break out from the middle and bottom groups without a strong advocate or opportunities to demonstrate exceptional proficiency.

Below are three recommendations to consider for improving mentorship within departments:

1) Consider opportunities for senior mentors and potential mentees to interact with one another outside of assigned duties so that some mentorship relationships can be formed organically.

2) Review when mentorship relationships have been ineffective or unsuccessful versus productive and useful for both participants.

3) Increase opportunities for adjunct or former faculty who remain connected to the institution to also be mentors. This approach would open up more possibilities and could increase the diversity of available mentors.

If mentorship is to be part of the armamentarium for promoting equity within academia and workplaces alike, it must be examined and changed to meet the new reality.

Dr. Posada is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University in Washington. She also serves as staff physician at George Washington Medical Faculty Associates, also in Washington. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Forrester is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellowship training director at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The dramatically positive safety and efficacy results from the DAPA-CKD trial, which showed that treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly cut both chronic kidney disease progression and all-cause death in patients with or without type 2 diabetes, were also notable for broadening the population of patients eligible for this treatment to those in the upper range of stage 4 CKD.

Courtesy European Society of Cardiology

Of the 4,304 CKD patients enrolled in DAPA-CKD, 624 (14%) had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73m², an unprecedented population to receive a drug from the SGLT2 inhibitor class in a reported study. The results provided definitive evidence for efficacy and safety in this range of renal function, said Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Ph.D., at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Until now, the widely accepted lowest level for starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in routine practice has been an eGFR as low as 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².
 

Using SGLT2 inhibitors when eGFR is as low as 25

“It’s time to reduce the eGFR level for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor to as low as 25,” said Dr. Heerspink, a professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands).

While conceding that this is primarily a decision to be made by guideline writers and regulatory bodies, he declared what he believed was established by the DAPA-CKD findings: “We’ve shown that dapagliflozin can be safely used in these patients. It is effective across the spectrum of kidney function.”

Other experts not associated with the study agreed.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The trial researchers were “brave” to enroll patients with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², and “we urgently need these agents in patients with an eGFR this low,” commented Chantal Mathieu, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium, and designated discussant for the report. Overall, she called the findings “spectacular,” a “landmark trial,” and a “winner.”

The study also set an new, lower floor for the level of albuminuria that can be usefully treated with dapagliflozin (Farxiga) by enrolling patients with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio as low as 200 mg/g; the previous lower limit had been 300 mg/g, noted Dr. Mathieu. The new findings pose challenges to guideline writers, regulators who approve drug labels, and payers to a quickly make changes that will bring dapagliflozin to a wider number of patients with CKD.

Once the full DAPA-CKD results are reported, “it will change practice, and push the eGFR needle down” to as low as 25. It will also lower the albuminuria threshold for using dapagliflozin or other drugs in the class, commented David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto. “It’s just one study,” he admitted, but the consistent renal benefits seen across several studies involving all four drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class will help hasten this change in identifying treatable patients, as well as expand the drug class to patients with CKD but no type 2 diabetes (T2D).

“I don’t think we’ve ever had stronger evidence” for drugs that can benefit both heart and renal function, plus the drug class is “very safe, and really easy to start” and maintain in patients, Dr. Cherney said in an interview. “It’s wonderful for these patients that we now have something new for treatment,” a drug with a “very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio.”
 

Results show many dapagliflozin benefits

While this broadening of the range of patients proven to tolerate and benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor was an important consequence of DAPA-CKD, the study’s primary finding – that dapagliflozin was as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression in patients regardless of whether they also had T2D – will have an even bigger impact on expanding the target patient population. Showing efficacy in patients with CKD but without a T2D etiology, the status of about a third of the enrolled 4,304 patients, makes this treatment an option for “millions” of additional patients worldwide, said Dr. Heerspink. “These are the most common patients nephrologists see.” A major challenge now will be to do a better job finding patients with CKD who could benefit from dapagliflozin.

DAPA-CKD enrolled CKD patients based primarily on prespecified albuminuria and eGFR levels at more than 300 centers in 34 countries, including the United States. Virtually all patients, 97%, were on the only treatment now available with proven efficacy for slowing CKD, either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. The small number of patients not on one of these drugs was because of poor tolerance.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of cardiovascular death, renal death, end-stage renal disease, or a drop in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline. This occurred in 14.5% of patients who received placebo and in 9.2% of those who received dapagliflozin during a median follow-up of 2.4 years, a highly significant 39% relative risk reduction. Concurrently with the report at the virtual meeting the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine. This 5.3% cut in the absolute rate of the combined, primary adverse outcome converted into a number needed to treat of 19 to prevent 1 event during 2.4 years, a “much lower” number needed to treat than reported for renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in these types of patients, Dr. Heerspink said.

Notable positive secondary outcomes included a significant 31% relative cut (a 2% absolute decline) in all-cause mortality, “a major highlight” of the findings, Dr. Heerspink said. Dapagliflozin treatment also linked with a significant 29% relative cut in the incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure.

“Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients with CKD,” explained David C. Wheeler, MD, a coinvestigator on the study and professor of kidney medicine at University College London. “The heart and kidney are intertwined. This is about cardiorenal disease.”

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Heerspink has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca. He has also received personal fees from Mundipharma and Novo Nordisk, and he has also served as consultant to several other companies with the honoraria being paid to his institution. Dr. Mathieu has had relationships with AstraZeneca and several other companies. Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and several other companies. Dr. Wheeler has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and from several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Heerspink HJL et al. EASD 2020 and N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816.

The dramatically positive safety and efficacy results from the DAPA-CKD trial, which showed that treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly cut both chronic kidney disease progression and all-cause death in patients with or without type 2 diabetes, were also notable for broadening the population of patients eligible for this treatment to those in the upper range of stage 4 CKD.

Courtesy European Society of Cardiology

Of the 4,304 CKD patients enrolled in DAPA-CKD, 624 (14%) had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73m², an unprecedented population to receive a drug from the SGLT2 inhibitor class in a reported study. The results provided definitive evidence for efficacy and safety in this range of renal function, said Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Ph.D., at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Until now, the widely accepted lowest level for starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in routine practice has been an eGFR as low as 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².
 

Using SGLT2 inhibitors when eGFR is as low as 25

“It’s time to reduce the eGFR level for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor to as low as 25,” said Dr. Heerspink, a professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands).

While conceding that this is primarily a decision to be made by guideline writers and regulatory bodies, he declared what he believed was established by the DAPA-CKD findings: “We’ve shown that dapagliflozin can be safely used in these patients. It is effective across the spectrum of kidney function.”

Other experts not associated with the study agreed.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The trial researchers were “brave” to enroll patients with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², and “we urgently need these agents in patients with an eGFR this low,” commented Chantal Mathieu, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium, and designated discussant for the report. Overall, she called the findings “spectacular,” a “landmark trial,” and a “winner.”

The study also set an new, lower floor for the level of albuminuria that can be usefully treated with dapagliflozin (Farxiga) by enrolling patients with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio as low as 200 mg/g; the previous lower limit had been 300 mg/g, noted Dr. Mathieu. The new findings pose challenges to guideline writers, regulators who approve drug labels, and payers to a quickly make changes that will bring dapagliflozin to a wider number of patients with CKD.

Once the full DAPA-CKD results are reported, “it will change practice, and push the eGFR needle down” to as low as 25. It will also lower the albuminuria threshold for using dapagliflozin or other drugs in the class, commented David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto. “It’s just one study,” he admitted, but the consistent renal benefits seen across several studies involving all four drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class will help hasten this change in identifying treatable patients, as well as expand the drug class to patients with CKD but no type 2 diabetes (T2D).

“I don’t think we’ve ever had stronger evidence” for drugs that can benefit both heart and renal function, plus the drug class is “very safe, and really easy to start” and maintain in patients, Dr. Cherney said in an interview. “It’s wonderful for these patients that we now have something new for treatment,” a drug with a “very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio.”
 

Results show many dapagliflozin benefits

While this broadening of the range of patients proven to tolerate and benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor was an important consequence of DAPA-CKD, the study’s primary finding – that dapagliflozin was as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression in patients regardless of whether they also had T2D – will have an even bigger impact on expanding the target patient population. Showing efficacy in patients with CKD but without a T2D etiology, the status of about a third of the enrolled 4,304 patients, makes this treatment an option for “millions” of additional patients worldwide, said Dr. Heerspink. “These are the most common patients nephrologists see.” A major challenge now will be to do a better job finding patients with CKD who could benefit from dapagliflozin.

DAPA-CKD enrolled CKD patients based primarily on prespecified albuminuria and eGFR levels at more than 300 centers in 34 countries, including the United States. Virtually all patients, 97%, were on the only treatment now available with proven efficacy for slowing CKD, either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. The small number of patients not on one of these drugs was because of poor tolerance.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of cardiovascular death, renal death, end-stage renal disease, or a drop in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline. This occurred in 14.5% of patients who received placebo and in 9.2% of those who received dapagliflozin during a median follow-up of 2.4 years, a highly significant 39% relative risk reduction. Concurrently with the report at the virtual meeting the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine. This 5.3% cut in the absolute rate of the combined, primary adverse outcome converted into a number needed to treat of 19 to prevent 1 event during 2.4 years, a “much lower” number needed to treat than reported for renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in these types of patients, Dr. Heerspink said.

Notable positive secondary outcomes included a significant 31% relative cut (a 2% absolute decline) in all-cause mortality, “a major highlight” of the findings, Dr. Heerspink said. Dapagliflozin treatment also linked with a significant 29% relative cut in the incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure.

“Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients with CKD,” explained David C. Wheeler, MD, a coinvestigator on the study and professor of kidney medicine at University College London. “The heart and kidney are intertwined. This is about cardiorenal disease.”

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Heerspink has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca. He has also received personal fees from Mundipharma and Novo Nordisk, and he has also served as consultant to several other companies with the honoraria being paid to his institution. Dr. Mathieu has had relationships with AstraZeneca and several other companies. Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and several other companies. Dr. Wheeler has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and from several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Heerspink HJL et al. EASD 2020 and N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816.

The dramatically positive safety and efficacy results from the DAPA-CKD trial, which showed that treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly cut both chronic kidney disease progression and all-cause death in patients with or without type 2 diabetes, were also notable for broadening the population of patients eligible for this treatment to those in the upper range of stage 4 CKD.

Courtesy European Society of Cardiology

Of the 4,304 CKD patients enrolled in DAPA-CKD, 624 (14%) had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73m², an unprecedented population to receive a drug from the SGLT2 inhibitor class in a reported study. The results provided definitive evidence for efficacy and safety in this range of renal function, said Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Ph.D., at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Until now, the widely accepted lowest level for starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in routine practice has been an eGFR as low as 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².
 

Using SGLT2 inhibitors when eGFR is as low as 25

“It’s time to reduce the eGFR level for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor to as low as 25,” said Dr. Heerspink, a professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands).

While conceding that this is primarily a decision to be made by guideline writers and regulatory bodies, he declared what he believed was established by the DAPA-CKD findings: “We’ve shown that dapagliflozin can be safely used in these patients. It is effective across the spectrum of kidney function.”

Other experts not associated with the study agreed.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The trial researchers were “brave” to enroll patients with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73 m², and “we urgently need these agents in patients with an eGFR this low,” commented Chantal Mathieu, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium, and designated discussant for the report. Overall, she called the findings “spectacular,” a “landmark trial,” and a “winner.”

The study also set an new, lower floor for the level of albuminuria that can be usefully treated with dapagliflozin (Farxiga) by enrolling patients with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio as low as 200 mg/g; the previous lower limit had been 300 mg/g, noted Dr. Mathieu. The new findings pose challenges to guideline writers, regulators who approve drug labels, and payers to a quickly make changes that will bring dapagliflozin to a wider number of patients with CKD.

Once the full DAPA-CKD results are reported, “it will change practice, and push the eGFR needle down” to as low as 25. It will also lower the albuminuria threshold for using dapagliflozin or other drugs in the class, commented David Z.I. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Toronto. “It’s just one study,” he admitted, but the consistent renal benefits seen across several studies involving all four drugs in the SGLT2 inhibitor class will help hasten this change in identifying treatable patients, as well as expand the drug class to patients with CKD but no type 2 diabetes (T2D).

“I don’t think we’ve ever had stronger evidence” for drugs that can benefit both heart and renal function, plus the drug class is “very safe, and really easy to start” and maintain in patients, Dr. Cherney said in an interview. “It’s wonderful for these patients that we now have something new for treatment,” a drug with a “very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio.”
 

Results show many dapagliflozin benefits

While this broadening of the range of patients proven to tolerate and benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor was an important consequence of DAPA-CKD, the study’s primary finding – that dapagliflozin was as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression in patients regardless of whether they also had T2D – will have an even bigger impact on expanding the target patient population. Showing efficacy in patients with CKD but without a T2D etiology, the status of about a third of the enrolled 4,304 patients, makes this treatment an option for “millions” of additional patients worldwide, said Dr. Heerspink. “These are the most common patients nephrologists see.” A major challenge now will be to do a better job finding patients with CKD who could benefit from dapagliflozin.

DAPA-CKD enrolled CKD patients based primarily on prespecified albuminuria and eGFR levels at more than 300 centers in 34 countries, including the United States. Virtually all patients, 97%, were on the only treatment now available with proven efficacy for slowing CKD, either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. The small number of patients not on one of these drugs was because of poor tolerance.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of cardiovascular death, renal death, end-stage renal disease, or a drop in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline. This occurred in 14.5% of patients who received placebo and in 9.2% of those who received dapagliflozin during a median follow-up of 2.4 years, a highly significant 39% relative risk reduction. Concurrently with the report at the virtual meeting the results also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine. This 5.3% cut in the absolute rate of the combined, primary adverse outcome converted into a number needed to treat of 19 to prevent 1 event during 2.4 years, a “much lower” number needed to treat than reported for renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in these types of patients, Dr. Heerspink said.

Notable positive secondary outcomes included a significant 31% relative cut (a 2% absolute decline) in all-cause mortality, “a major highlight” of the findings, Dr. Heerspink said. Dapagliflozin treatment also linked with a significant 29% relative cut in the incidence of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure.

“Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients with CKD,” explained David C. Wheeler, MD, a coinvestigator on the study and professor of kidney medicine at University College London. “The heart and kidney are intertwined. This is about cardiorenal disease.”

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin. Dr. Heerspink has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca. He has also received personal fees from Mundipharma and Novo Nordisk, and he has also served as consultant to several other companies with the honoraria being paid to his institution. Dr. Mathieu has had relationships with AstraZeneca and several other companies. Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and several other companies. Dr. Wheeler has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and from several other companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Heerspink HJL et al. EASD 2020 and N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024816.

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Current American and European guidelines recommending long-term beta-blocker therapy following an acute MI appear to be obsolete in the modern reperfusion era, suggests an analysis of Danish registry data.

Those guidelines are based on old randomized trials of beta-blocker therapy conducted prior to introduction of routine percutaneous coronary intervention and modern multidrug optimal medical therapy for acute MI. There have been no prospective controlled studies in the reperfusion era. And a new Danish national observational study strongly suggests it’s time to reexamine the beta-blocker recommendation, Anders Holt, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Stable, optimally treated MI patients do not seem to benefit from beta-blocker treatment exceeding 3 months post hospitalization – bearing in mind this doesn’t apply to patients with other indications for beta-blockers, like heart failure or atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Holt of Copenhagen University Hospital.

His analysis of Danish national registry data on more than 30,000 patients hospitalized for acute MI during 2003-2018 earned him the annual ESC Young Investigator Award in Population Science.

Frontline Medical News

“This was a crisp and clear presentation of a very creative use of observational epidemiology to try to understand the length of therapy that may or may not be appropriate,” commented award session cochair Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Dr. Holt reported on 30,177 patients optimally treated for a first MI in Danish hospitals during 2003-2018, none of whom had a prior indication or contraindication for beta-blocker therapy. “Optimally treated” meant they underwent percutaneous coronary revascularization and were discharged on a statin and aspirin. As a study requirement, all had to be stable 90 days post hospitalization, at which point 24,770 of the patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy, and 5,407 (18%) were not. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. All patients were followed through the registries for a maximum of 3 years, the duration of beta-blocker therapy post MI recommended in American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. (The Danish Society of Cardiology recommends 2 years.)

At 3 years post MI, there was no between-group difference in a composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, heart failure, stroke, angina, or a cardiac procedure, with a rate of 22.9% in the beta-blocker group and 21.6% in patients not on long-term beta-blocker therapy. The rate of recurrent MI was identical at 6.7% in both groups. Cardiovascular death occurred during 3 years of follow-up in 1.4% of patients on beta-blocker therapy and 1.7% who weren’t, a nonsignificant difference.

“We saw no evidence of any cardioprotective effect, but no increased risk of adverse events resulting in hospitalization, either,” Dr. Holt observed. “I would like to acknowledge that no evidence of effect does not necessarily equal evidence of no effect, but even if there was an effect we can with fair certainty say that it’s probably quite minimal.”

He noted that the Danish registry data indicates that each year since 2012 has shown a growing trend for Danish patients to dispense with long-term beta-blocker therapy after an acute MI.

“This might indicate we are nudging toward a change in practice, where more physicians are thinking that long-term beta-blocker therapy might not be indicated for all MI patients in the reperfusion era,” according to Dr. Holt.

Asked by the four-judge award panel about the possibility of unmeasured confounding in this observational study, Dr Holt responded: “I would be very cautious about asking patients to stop beta-blocker therapy after 3 months just based on this observational data. We can’t speak to causality in an observational study.” But he added that “well-designed observational studies provide valuable data regarding this topic and should not be ignored. They should possibly influence the guidelines and the designs for upcoming randomized trials.”

He conducted several supplementary analyses designed to address the possibility of unevenly distributed unmeasured confounding in the registry study. These analyses proved reassuring. A positive exposure control analysis compared 3-year outcomes in patients who remained on long-term statin therapy and those who didn’t. As expected, outcomes were significantly better in those who did: a 3-year composite outcome rate of 22.1%, compared with 32.1% in patients not on a statin; a cardiovascular death rate of 1.3% with and 2.1% without statin therapy; a recurrent MI rate of 6.6%, compared with 10.1% without a statin; and a 2.8% all-cause mortality with and 5.4% without statin therapy.

In contrast, all-cause mortality was unaffected by whether or not patients were on long-term beta-blocker therapy. And in a negative exposure outcome analysis, no association was found between beta-blocker therapy and the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia, as to be expected if the beta-blocker and no-beta-blocker groups were comparable in key respects.

Dr. Holt reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study.

[email protected]

Atrial fibrillation has been known to confer an increased risk for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but there’s been no evidence of how the etiology of AFib can influence post-TAVR outcomes.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Now, a group of researchers from Bern (Switzerland) University are reporting that valvular AFib almost triples the risk of death or debilitating stroke, compared with patients with no AFib, and significantly increases the risk over nonvalvular AFib.*

“The present findings may have implications for risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVR,” wrote Taishi Okuno, MD, and colleagues in what they said is the first study “to appreciate the combined effect” of AFib and mitral stenosis in TAVR. “The identification of valvular AFib may refine the estimated risk for adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR,” they wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The fact that valvular AFib seems to confer a higher risk is an interesting finding,” Fred Welt, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview. “I think it helps to a certain extent in prognostication because we can say to patients who have concomitant mitral valve disease that they are at higher risk.” Dr. Welt is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council.

The analysis included 1,472 patients with aortic stenosis who had TAVR at Bern University Hospital between August 2007 and June 2018, 32% of whom (465) had atrial fibrillation, subcategorized as nonvalvular (26%, 376) and valvular (6%, 89). The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke 1 year after TAVR, occurred in 9.3% of patients with no AFib, 14.5% of those with nonvalvular AFib and 24.2% of patients with valvular AFib.

In terms of hazard ratios, patients with nonvalvular AFib had a 57% greater risk of poor outcomes (P = .009) and those with valvular AFib had a 275% greater risk (P < .001), compared with patients with no AFib. Patients with valvular AFib had a 77% higher rate of cardiovascular death or stroke than those with nonvalvular AFib (P = .027).**

In their analysis, Dr. Okuno and colleagues acknowledged that the definition of valvular AFib used in guidelines and clinical trials isn’t uniform. Valvular atrial fibrillation was defined as AFib with mitral stenosis or a mitral valve prosthesis.

To account for the varying definitions of valvular and nonvalvular AFib, the researchers performed a sensitivity analysis of AFib patients with significant valve disease other than mitral stenosis; 42% of patients in the nonvalvular group fit this definition. Patients with AFib and valvular disease other than mitral stenosis had almost twice the risk of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke at 1 year, compared with patients who had AFib but no significant disease of any valve (20.1% vs. 10.9%, P = .03).

Furthermore, when they excluded patients with mild mitral stenosis from the valvular AFib group, “the effect of an increased risk for cardiovascular death or disabling stroke was no longer statistically significant.”

When the researchers separated out the two elements of the composite endpoint, they found valvular AFib carried a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular death – 21.1% (P < .002) vs. 7% for no AFib and 12.3% (P = .003) for nonvalvular AFib. However, the incidence of cardiovascular events – disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke and transient ischemic attack – showed no significant difference across the three groups, Dr. Okuno and colleagues noted. Specifically, the rates of disabling stroke were 3.8%, 3.7% and 5.7% in the no-AFib, nonvalvular-AFib, and valvular-AFib groups, respectively

In an invited editorial, Bernard Iung, MD, and Vincent Algalarrondo, MD, PhD, noted the problems with the definitions for valvular and nonvalvular AFib. “The term valvular AFib now frequently refers to patients with AFib associated with moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve,” they wrote. The definition is justified, they noted, because there’s little evidence on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with mitral stenosis.

They noted the term nonvalvular is “ambiguous” because it doesn’t exclude valvular disease but rather only a subset defined by the restrictive use of a class of anticoagulants. Hence, the definition of valvular AFib “is subject to criticisms and remains not standardized.”

“The individualization of valvular AFib in patients undergoing TAVR is debatable, and the definition used in the present study also included mild mitral stenosis and bioprostheses, thereby highlighting again the lack of a clear and uniform definition of the concept of valvular AFib,” they wrote.

While Dr. Welt said the findings may help in stratifying risk in patients with valvular AFib, he’s not certain how that would influence treatment decisions. “In most cases when we’re considering TAVR in these patients it’s because they have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis,” he said.

Surgery as an alternative is fraught with consequences, he said. “Would it be because you would want to repair the mitral valve as well?” he said. “And once you get into that territory, you’re talking about double-valve surgery, which is a much riskier operation than isolated aortic valve replacement.”

The study raises important questions about patients with valvular AFib, Dr. Welt added. “Why are these patients dying at higher rate? Is it some other arrhythmia or some other hemodynamic problem? Are there other things we can learn about these patients that would help us to better treat patients?”

But exploring these findings further with a randomized clinical trial may not be practical, he added. “The number of patients in whom this is an issue is in the scheme of things rather low: 6%,” he said.

Dr. Okuno has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Iung is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Algalarrondo has been a consultant for Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Welt disclosed a relationship with Medtronic.

SOURCE: Okuno T et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.049.

Corrections, 9/29/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the increase in risk of (*) death or debilitating stroke and of (**) a poor outcome in those with valvular Afib.

Atrial fibrillation has been known to confer an increased risk for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but there’s been no evidence of how the etiology of AFib can influence post-TAVR outcomes.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Now, a group of researchers from Bern (Switzerland) University are reporting that valvular AFib almost triples the risk of death or debilitating stroke, compared with patients with no AFib, and significantly increases the risk over nonvalvular AFib.*

“The present findings may have implications for risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVR,” wrote Taishi Okuno, MD, and colleagues in what they said is the first study “to appreciate the combined effect” of AFib and mitral stenosis in TAVR. “The identification of valvular AFib may refine the estimated risk for adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR,” they wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The fact that valvular AFib seems to confer a higher risk is an interesting finding,” Fred Welt, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview. “I think it helps to a certain extent in prognostication because we can say to patients who have concomitant mitral valve disease that they are at higher risk.” Dr. Welt is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council.

The analysis included 1,472 patients with aortic stenosis who had TAVR at Bern University Hospital between August 2007 and June 2018, 32% of whom (465) had atrial fibrillation, subcategorized as nonvalvular (26%, 376) and valvular (6%, 89). The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke 1 year after TAVR, occurred in 9.3% of patients with no AFib, 14.5% of those with nonvalvular AFib and 24.2% of patients with valvular AFib.

In terms of hazard ratios, patients with nonvalvular AFib had a 57% greater risk of poor outcomes (P = .009) and those with valvular AFib had a 275% greater risk (P < .001), compared with patients with no AFib. Patients with valvular AFib had a 77% higher rate of cardiovascular death or stroke than those with nonvalvular AFib (P = .027).**

In their analysis, Dr. Okuno and colleagues acknowledged that the definition of valvular AFib used in guidelines and clinical trials isn’t uniform. Valvular atrial fibrillation was defined as AFib with mitral stenosis or a mitral valve prosthesis.

To account for the varying definitions of valvular and nonvalvular AFib, the researchers performed a sensitivity analysis of AFib patients with significant valve disease other than mitral stenosis; 42% of patients in the nonvalvular group fit this definition. Patients with AFib and valvular disease other than mitral stenosis had almost twice the risk of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke at 1 year, compared with patients who had AFib but no significant disease of any valve (20.1% vs. 10.9%, P = .03).

Furthermore, when they excluded patients with mild mitral stenosis from the valvular AFib group, “the effect of an increased risk for cardiovascular death or disabling stroke was no longer statistically significant.”

When the researchers separated out the two elements of the composite endpoint, they found valvular AFib carried a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular death – 21.1% (P < .002) vs. 7% for no AFib and 12.3% (P = .003) for nonvalvular AFib. However, the incidence of cardiovascular events – disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke and transient ischemic attack – showed no significant difference across the three groups, Dr. Okuno and colleagues noted. Specifically, the rates of disabling stroke were 3.8%, 3.7% and 5.7% in the no-AFib, nonvalvular-AFib, and valvular-AFib groups, respectively

In an invited editorial, Bernard Iung, MD, and Vincent Algalarrondo, MD, PhD, noted the problems with the definitions for valvular and nonvalvular AFib. “The term valvular AFib now frequently refers to patients with AFib associated with moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve,” they wrote. The definition is justified, they noted, because there’s little evidence on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with mitral stenosis.

They noted the term nonvalvular is “ambiguous” because it doesn’t exclude valvular disease but rather only a subset defined by the restrictive use of a class of anticoagulants. Hence, the definition of valvular AFib “is subject to criticisms and remains not standardized.”

“The individualization of valvular AFib in patients undergoing TAVR is debatable, and the definition used in the present study also included mild mitral stenosis and bioprostheses, thereby highlighting again the lack of a clear and uniform definition of the concept of valvular AFib,” they wrote.

While Dr. Welt said the findings may help in stratifying risk in patients with valvular AFib, he’s not certain how that would influence treatment decisions. “In most cases when we’re considering TAVR in these patients it’s because they have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis,” he said.

Surgery as an alternative is fraught with consequences, he said. “Would it be because you would want to repair the mitral valve as well?” he said. “And once you get into that territory, you’re talking about double-valve surgery, which is a much riskier operation than isolated aortic valve replacement.”

The study raises important questions about patients with valvular AFib, Dr. Welt added. “Why are these patients dying at higher rate? Is it some other arrhythmia or some other hemodynamic problem? Are there other things we can learn about these patients that would help us to better treat patients?”

But exploring these findings further with a randomized clinical trial may not be practical, he added. “The number of patients in whom this is an issue is in the scheme of things rather low: 6%,” he said.

Dr. Okuno has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Iung is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Algalarrondo has been a consultant for Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Welt disclosed a relationship with Medtronic.

SOURCE: Okuno T et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.049.

Corrections, 9/29/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the increase in risk of (*) death or debilitating stroke and of (**) a poor outcome in those with valvular Afib.

Atrial fibrillation has been known to confer an increased risk for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but there’s been no evidence of how the etiology of AFib can influence post-TAVR outcomes.

enot-poloskun/Getty Images

Now, a group of researchers from Bern (Switzerland) University are reporting that valvular AFib almost triples the risk of death or debilitating stroke, compared with patients with no AFib, and significantly increases the risk over nonvalvular AFib.*

“The present findings may have implications for risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVR,” wrote Taishi Okuno, MD, and colleagues in what they said is the first study “to appreciate the combined effect” of AFib and mitral stenosis in TAVR. “The identification of valvular AFib may refine the estimated risk for adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR,” they wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The fact that valvular AFib seems to confer a higher risk is an interesting finding,” Fred Welt, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview. “I think it helps to a certain extent in prognostication because we can say to patients who have concomitant mitral valve disease that they are at higher risk.” Dr. Welt is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council.

The analysis included 1,472 patients with aortic stenosis who had TAVR at Bern University Hospital between August 2007 and June 2018, 32% of whom (465) had atrial fibrillation, subcategorized as nonvalvular (26%, 376) and valvular (6%, 89). The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke 1 year after TAVR, occurred in 9.3% of patients with no AFib, 14.5% of those with nonvalvular AFib and 24.2% of patients with valvular AFib.

In terms of hazard ratios, patients with nonvalvular AFib had a 57% greater risk of poor outcomes (P = .009) and those with valvular AFib had a 275% greater risk (P < .001), compared with patients with no AFib. Patients with valvular AFib had a 77% higher rate of cardiovascular death or stroke than those with nonvalvular AFib (P = .027).**

In their analysis, Dr. Okuno and colleagues acknowledged that the definition of valvular AFib used in guidelines and clinical trials isn’t uniform. Valvular atrial fibrillation was defined as AFib with mitral stenosis or a mitral valve prosthesis.

To account for the varying definitions of valvular and nonvalvular AFib, the researchers performed a sensitivity analysis of AFib patients with significant valve disease other than mitral stenosis; 42% of patients in the nonvalvular group fit this definition. Patients with AFib and valvular disease other than mitral stenosis had almost twice the risk of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke at 1 year, compared with patients who had AFib but no significant disease of any valve (20.1% vs. 10.9%, P = .03).

Furthermore, when they excluded patients with mild mitral stenosis from the valvular AFib group, “the effect of an increased risk for cardiovascular death or disabling stroke was no longer statistically significant.”

When the researchers separated out the two elements of the composite endpoint, they found valvular AFib carried a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular death – 21.1% (P < .002) vs. 7% for no AFib and 12.3% (P = .003) for nonvalvular AFib. However, the incidence of cardiovascular events – disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke and transient ischemic attack – showed no significant difference across the three groups, Dr. Okuno and colleagues noted. Specifically, the rates of disabling stroke were 3.8%, 3.7% and 5.7% in the no-AFib, nonvalvular-AFib, and valvular-AFib groups, respectively

In an invited editorial, Bernard Iung, MD, and Vincent Algalarrondo, MD, PhD, noted the problems with the definitions for valvular and nonvalvular AFib. “The term valvular AFib now frequently refers to patients with AFib associated with moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve,” they wrote. The definition is justified, they noted, because there’s little evidence on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with mitral stenosis.

They noted the term nonvalvular is “ambiguous” because it doesn’t exclude valvular disease but rather only a subset defined by the restrictive use of a class of anticoagulants. Hence, the definition of valvular AFib “is subject to criticisms and remains not standardized.”

“The individualization of valvular AFib in patients undergoing TAVR is debatable, and the definition used in the present study also included mild mitral stenosis and bioprostheses, thereby highlighting again the lack of a clear and uniform definition of the concept of valvular AFib,” they wrote.

While Dr. Welt said the findings may help in stratifying risk in patients with valvular AFib, he’s not certain how that would influence treatment decisions. “In most cases when we’re considering TAVR in these patients it’s because they have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis,” he said.

Surgery as an alternative is fraught with consequences, he said. “Would it be because you would want to repair the mitral valve as well?” he said. “And once you get into that territory, you’re talking about double-valve surgery, which is a much riskier operation than isolated aortic valve replacement.”

The study raises important questions about patients with valvular AFib, Dr. Welt added. “Why are these patients dying at higher rate? Is it some other arrhythmia or some other hemodynamic problem? Are there other things we can learn about these patients that would help us to better treat patients?”

But exploring these findings further with a randomized clinical trial may not be practical, he added. “The number of patients in whom this is an issue is in the scheme of things rather low: 6%,” he said.

Dr. Okuno has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Iung is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Algalarrondo has been a consultant for Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Welt disclosed a relationship with Medtronic.

SOURCE: Okuno T et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.049.

Corrections, 9/29/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the increase in risk of (*) death or debilitating stroke and of (**) a poor outcome in those with valvular Afib.