Emergency Medicine

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.

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.

A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.

The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.

In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”

Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”

They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.

“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”

Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.

The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.

Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”

The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.

But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.

The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.

The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).

Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.

The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).

Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.

Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.

“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”

Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.

“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”

The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.

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

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to examine the effects of novel coronavirus infection on the heart showed signs suggestive of myocarditis in 4 out of 26 competitive athletes who recovered from asymptomatic or mild cases of COVID-19.

While these and other similar findings are concerning, commentators are saying the results are preliminary and do not indicate widespread CMR screening is appropriate.

Two of the 4 patients showing signs of myocarditis in this series had no symptoms of COVID-19 but tested positive on routine testing. An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (30.8%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

An additional 12 student athletes (46%) showed late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), of whom 8 (31%) had LGE without T2 elevation suggestive of prior myocardial injury.

This finding, said Saurabh Rajpal, MBBS, MD, the study’s lead author, “could suggest prior myocardial injury or it could suggest athletic myocardial adaptation.”

In a research letter published in JAMA Cardiology, Rajpal and colleagues at Ohio State University in Columbus, described the findings of comprehensive CMR examinations in competitive athletes referred to the sport medicine clinic after testing positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between June and August 2020.

The university had made the decision in the spring to use CMR imaging as a screening tool for return to play, said Dr. Rajpal. While CMR is being used for research purposes, the American College of Cardiology’s recent “consensus expert opinion” statement on resumption of sport and exercise after COVID-19 infection does not require CMR imaging for resumption of competitive activity (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 May 13. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2136).

None of the athletes required hospitalization for their illness, and only 27% reported mild symptoms during the short-term infection, including sore throat, shortness of breath, myalgia, and fever.

On the day of CMR imaging, ECG and transthoracic echocardiography were performed, and serum troponin I was measured. There were no diagnostic ST/T wave changes, ventricular function and volumes were normal, and no athletes showed elevated serum troponin levels.

The updated Lake Louise Criteria were used to assess CMR findings consistent with myocarditis.

“I don’t think this is a COVID-specific issue. We have seen myocarditis after other viral infections; it’s just that COVID-19 is the most studied thus far, and with strenuous activity, inflammation in the heart can be risky,” Dr. Rajpal said in an interview. He added that more long-term and larger studies with control populations are needed.

His group is continuing to follow these athletes and has suggested that CMR “may provide an excellent risk-stratification assessment for myocarditis in athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 to guide safe competitive sports participation.”
 

Significance still unknown

Matthew Martinez, MD, the director of sports cardiology at Atlantic Health – Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center and the Gagnon Cardiovascular Institute, urged caution in making too much of the findings of this small study.

“We know that viruses cause myocardial damage and myocarditis. What we don’t know is how important these findings are. And in terms of risk, would we find the same phenomenon if we did this, say, in flu patients or in other age groups?” Dr. Martinez said in an interview.

“I haven’t seen all the images, but what I’d want to know is are these very subtle findings? Are these overt findings? Is this part of an active individual with symptoms? I need to know a little more data before I can tell if this influences the increased risk of sudden cardiac death that we often associate with myocarditis. I’m not sure how this should influence making decisions with regards to return to play.”

Dr. Martinez, who is the ACC’s chair of Sports and Exercise but was not an author of their recent guidance on return to sport, said that he is not routinely using CMR to assess athletes post-infection, as per the ACC’s recommendations.

“My approach is to evaluate anybody with a history of COVID infection and, first, determine whether it was an important infection with significant symptoms or not. And then, if they’re participating at a high level or are professional athletes, I would suggest an ECG, echo, and troponin. That’s our recommendation for the last several months and is still an appropriate way to evaluate that group.”

“In the presence of an abnormality or ongoing symptoms, I would ask for an MRI at that point,” said Dr. Martinez.

“We just don’t have much data on athletes with no symptoms to use to interpret these CMR findings and the study didn’t offer any controls. We don’t even know if these findings are new findings or old findings that have just been identified now,” he added.

New, updated recommendations from the ACC are coming soon, said Dr. Martinez. “I do not expect them to include CMR as first line.”
 

Cardiologists concerned about misinformation

This is at least the fourth study showing myocardial damage post-COVID-19 infection and there is concern in the medical community that the media has overstated the risks of heart damage, especially in athletes, and at the same time overstated the benefits of CMR.

In particular, Puntmann et al reported in July a 100-patient study that showed evidence of myocardial inflammation by CMR in 78% of patients recently recovered from a bout of COVID-19 (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jul 27; doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557).

“That paper is completely problematic,” John Mandrola, MD, of Baptists Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It has the same overarching weaknesses [of other studies] that it’s observational and retrospective, but there were also numerical issues. So to me that paper is an interesting observation, but utterly unconvincing and preliminary,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Those limitations didn’t stop the study from garnering media attention, however. The Altmetric score (an attention score that tracks all mentions of an article in the media and on social media) for the Puntmann et al paper is approaching 13,000, including coverage from 276 news outlets and more than 19,000 tweets, putting it in the 99th percentile of all research outputs tracked by Altmetric to date.

To counter this, an “open letter” posted online just days before the Rajpal study published urging professional societies to “offer clear guidance discouraging CMR screening for COVID-19 related heart abnormalities in asymptomatic members of the general public.” The letter was signed by 51 clinicians, researchers, and imaging specialists from around the world.

Dr. Mandrola, one of the signatories, said: “This topic really scares people, and when it gets in the media like this, I think the leaders of these societies need to come out and say something really clear on major news networks letting people know that it’s just way too premature to start doing CMRs on every athlete that’s gotten this virus.”

“I understand that the current guidelines may be clear that CMR is not a first-line test for this indication, but when the media coverage is so extensive and so overblown, I wonder how much impact the guidelines will have in countering this fear that’s in the community,” he added.

Asked to comment on the letter, Dr. Rajpal said he agrees with the signatories that asymptomatic people from general population do not need routine cardiac MRI. “However, competitive athletes are a different story. Testing depends on risk assessment in specific population and competitive athletes as per our protocol will get enhanced cardiac workup including CMR for responsible and safe start of competitive sports. ... In the present scenario, while we get more data including control data, we will continue with our current protocol.”

Dr. Mandrola is Medscape Cardiology’s Chief Cardiology Consultant. MDedge is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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