Cardiology

TOPLINE:

In contrast to an overall decline in cardiovascular mortality, obesity-related cardiovascular deaths have risen substantially in the past 2 decades, most prominently among Black women. “We observed a threefold increase in obesity-related cardiovascular age-adjusted mortality rates between 1999 and 2020,” wrote the authors.

METHODOLOGY:

Data from the U.S. population-level Multiple Cause of Death database were analyzed, including 281,135 deaths in 1999-2020 for which obesity was listed as a contributing factor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the crude rate of all cardiovascular deaths dropped by 17.6% across all races.
• However, age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality tripled from 2.2/100,000 to 6.6/100,000 from 1999 to 2020, consistent across all racial groups.
• Blacks had the highest age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality (rising from 4.2/100,000 in 1999 to 11.6/100,000 in 2000).
• Ischemic heart disease was the most common cardiovascular cause of death across all races, and hypertensive disease was second.
• Age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality was higher among Blacks (6.7/100,000) than any other racial group, followed by American Indians or Alaskan Natives (3.8/100,000), and lowest among Asian or Pacific Islanders (0.9/100,000).
• The risk of obesity-related cardiovascular disease death rose most rapidly among American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
• Among Blacks, age-adjusted mortality was slightly higher among women than men (6.7/100,000 vs. 6.6/100,000), whereas the reverse was true for all other races (0.6-3.0/100,000 vs. 1.2-6.0/100,000).
• Blacks living in urban settings experienced higher rates of age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality than those living in rural areas (6.8/100,000 vs. 5.9/100,000), whereas the opposite was true for all other racial groups (0.9-3.5/100,000 vs. 2.2-5.4/100,000).

IN PRACTICE:

“There is need for dedicated health strategies aimed at individual communities to better understand and tackle the social determinants of obesity and to design interventions that may alleviate the population burden of both obesity and cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, by Zahra Raisi-Estabragh, MD, PhD, Queen Mary University, London, and colleagues, was published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

LIMITATIONS:

• Database limited to U.S. residents.
• Possible miscoding or diagnostic errors.
• Potential for residual confounding.
• No data on underlying drivers of observed trends.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Raisi-Estabragh has reported receiving funding from the Integrated Academic Training program of the National Institute for Health Research and a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. Another author has reported receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

TOPLINE:

In contrast to an overall decline in cardiovascular mortality, obesity-related cardiovascular deaths have risen substantially in the past 2 decades, most prominently among Black women. “We observed a threefold increase in obesity-related cardiovascular age-adjusted mortality rates between 1999 and 2020,” wrote the authors.

METHODOLOGY:

Data from the U.S. population-level Multiple Cause of Death database were analyzed, including 281,135 deaths in 1999-2020 for which obesity was listed as a contributing factor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the crude rate of all cardiovascular deaths dropped by 17.6% across all races.
• However, age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality tripled from 2.2/100,000 to 6.6/100,000 from 1999 to 2020, consistent across all racial groups.
• Blacks had the highest age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality (rising from 4.2/100,000 in 1999 to 11.6/100,000 in 2000).
• Ischemic heart disease was the most common cardiovascular cause of death across all races, and hypertensive disease was second.
• Age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality was higher among Blacks (6.7/100,000) than any other racial group, followed by American Indians or Alaskan Natives (3.8/100,000), and lowest among Asian or Pacific Islanders (0.9/100,000).
• The risk of obesity-related cardiovascular disease death rose most rapidly among American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
• Among Blacks, age-adjusted mortality was slightly higher among women than men (6.7/100,000 vs. 6.6/100,000), whereas the reverse was true for all other races (0.6-3.0/100,000 vs. 1.2-6.0/100,000).
• Blacks living in urban settings experienced higher rates of age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality than those living in rural areas (6.8/100,000 vs. 5.9/100,000), whereas the opposite was true for all other racial groups (0.9-3.5/100,000 vs. 2.2-5.4/100,000).

IN PRACTICE:

“There is need for dedicated health strategies aimed at individual communities to better understand and tackle the social determinants of obesity and to design interventions that may alleviate the population burden of both obesity and cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, by Zahra Raisi-Estabragh, MD, PhD, Queen Mary University, London, and colleagues, was published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

LIMITATIONS:

• Database limited to U.S. residents.
• Possible miscoding or diagnostic errors.
• Potential for residual confounding.
• No data on underlying drivers of observed trends.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Raisi-Estabragh has reported receiving funding from the Integrated Academic Training program of the National Institute for Health Research and a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. Another author has reported receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

TOPLINE:

In contrast to an overall decline in cardiovascular mortality, obesity-related cardiovascular deaths have risen substantially in the past 2 decades, most prominently among Black women. “We observed a threefold increase in obesity-related cardiovascular age-adjusted mortality rates between 1999 and 2020,” wrote the authors.

METHODOLOGY:

Data from the U.S. population-level Multiple Cause of Death database were analyzed, including 281,135 deaths in 1999-2020 for which obesity was listed as a contributing factor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the crude rate of all cardiovascular deaths dropped by 17.6% across all races.
• However, age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality tripled from 2.2/100,000 to 6.6/100,000 from 1999 to 2020, consistent across all racial groups.
• Blacks had the highest age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality (rising from 4.2/100,000 in 1999 to 11.6/100,000 in 2000).
• Ischemic heart disease was the most common cardiovascular cause of death across all races, and hypertensive disease was second.
• Age-adjusted obesity-related cardiovascular mortality was higher among Blacks (6.7/100,000) than any other racial group, followed by American Indians or Alaskan Natives (3.8/100,000), and lowest among Asian or Pacific Islanders (0.9/100,000).
• The risk of obesity-related cardiovascular disease death rose most rapidly among American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
• Among Blacks, age-adjusted mortality was slightly higher among women than men (6.7/100,000 vs. 6.6/100,000), whereas the reverse was true for all other races (0.6-3.0/100,000 vs. 1.2-6.0/100,000).
• Blacks living in urban settings experienced higher rates of age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality than those living in rural areas (6.8/100,000 vs. 5.9/100,000), whereas the opposite was true for all other racial groups (0.9-3.5/100,000 vs. 2.2-5.4/100,000).

IN PRACTICE:

“There is need for dedicated health strategies aimed at individual communities to better understand and tackle the social determinants of obesity and to design interventions that may alleviate the population burden of both obesity and cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, by Zahra Raisi-Estabragh, MD, PhD, Queen Mary University, London, and colleagues, was published online Sept. 6 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

LIMITATIONS:

• Database limited to U.S. residents.
• Possible miscoding or diagnostic errors.
• Potential for residual confounding.
• No data on underlying drivers of observed trends.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Raisi-Estabragh has reported receiving funding from the Integrated Academic Training program of the National Institute for Health Research and a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the British Heart Foundation. Another author has reported receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

AMSTERDAM – The more weight patients lost while on weekly semaglutide treatment in the STEP-HFpEF trial, the better their outcomes, suggesting that weight loss by itself was a major reason why the treatment improved a broad range of prespecified study outcomes, including symptoms and physical limitations, exercise capacity, and inflammation, new analyses from the trial show.

At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology where he presented these new findings, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, also posited that weight loss produced by weekly subcutaneous injections of 2.4 mg semaglutide (Wegovy) for 52 weeks in the study does not fully explain the multiple mechanisms that may be involved in producing this intervention’s effects in the STEP-HFpEF trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His report earlier at the congress and in a simultaneously published report of the trial’s primary outcomes established a role for medically induced weight loss in managing patients with obesity-phenotype HFpEF in a total of 529 randomized individuals with HFpEF and obesity but without diabetes.

The new analyses showed that for one of the two primary endpoints – the change from baseline in patients’ assessment on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ), the placebo-adjusted average change was a 16.1-point improvement in the 51 people with a 5%-10% weight loss during the 1-year study, and a 21.6-point improvement in the 58 who had at least a 20% weight loss, a between-group average 5.5 point difference that represents a clinically meaningful incremental improvement in this validated metric of symptoms and functional limitations.

Similar weight-related differences in benefit also occurred for the secondary outcomes of changes from baseline in 6-minute walk distance and in levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a measure of systemic inflammation.

In an adjusted regression model, every 10% drop from baseline body weight was significantly linked with a 6.4-point improvement in KCCQ score, a 14.4 meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance, and a 28% relative reduction from baseline in CRP, reported Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

These new, prespecified analyses also showed that people with obesity and HFpEF responded roughly the same to semaglutide treatment compared with placebo-treated controls regardless of their starting body mass index, including people with class 1 (30-34 kg/m²), class 2 (35-39 kg/m²), and class 3 (≥ 40 kg/m²) obesity.

Simultaneously with Dr. Kosiborod’s report at the congress, these findings appeared in a report posted online in Nature Medicine.
 

Not every benefit was fully mediated by weight loss

These analyses “do not tell us how much of the benefit was mediated by weight loss, but the data do say that the more weight a person lost, the more benefit they got,” Dr. Kosiborod explained in an interview. “That is not the same as saying that everything is mediated by weight. It doesn’t say that nothing beyond weight loss matters.”

He and his associates are planning a mediation analysis of data from STEP-HFpEF that will more directly address this issue.

“It’s likely that people who lost more weight with semaglutide also had greater benefits from other effects of semaglutide at the same time. Weight loss is a good surrogate marker” for the range of effects that a person receives from treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, Dr. Kosiborod said.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists may have direct effects on atherosclerosis, as well as other effects that are uncoupled from weight loss,” such as proven anti-inflammatory effects, he added.

Another exploratory effect from semaglutide treatment in the study and reported by Dr. Kosiborod was a significant reduction in serum levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, an association never previously seen with weight loss in people with heart failure.

“The outcomes we’ve already seen in STEP-HFpEF were largely symptomatic, which are extraordinarily important, but there may be a completely different relationship between weight and clinical events,” said John E. Deanfield, PhD, a professor of cardiology at University College Hospital, London, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Deanfield noted that important prognostic markers such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure reductions are usually not temporally related to weight loss. “The idea that [the benefits seen in STEP-HFpEF] are purely from weight loss is something we need to be careful about,” he said.

“My gut feeling is that at least 75% of the effect [in STEP-HFpEF} was due to weight loss,” said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not associated with the research.

STEP-HFpEF was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to, and has received honoraria from, Novo Nordisk. He has been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Deanfield has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Aegerion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has received research funding from Aegerion, Colgate, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – The more weight patients lost while on weekly semaglutide treatment in the STEP-HFpEF trial, the better their outcomes, suggesting that weight loss by itself was a major reason why the treatment improved a broad range of prespecified study outcomes, including symptoms and physical limitations, exercise capacity, and inflammation, new analyses from the trial show.

At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology where he presented these new findings, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, also posited that weight loss produced by weekly subcutaneous injections of 2.4 mg semaglutide (Wegovy) for 52 weeks in the study does not fully explain the multiple mechanisms that may be involved in producing this intervention’s effects in the STEP-HFpEF trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His report earlier at the congress and in a simultaneously published report of the trial’s primary outcomes established a role for medically induced weight loss in managing patients with obesity-phenotype HFpEF in a total of 529 randomized individuals with HFpEF and obesity but without diabetes.

The new analyses showed that for one of the two primary endpoints – the change from baseline in patients’ assessment on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ), the placebo-adjusted average change was a 16.1-point improvement in the 51 people with a 5%-10% weight loss during the 1-year study, and a 21.6-point improvement in the 58 who had at least a 20% weight loss, a between-group average 5.5 point difference that represents a clinically meaningful incremental improvement in this validated metric of symptoms and functional limitations.

Similar weight-related differences in benefit also occurred for the secondary outcomes of changes from baseline in 6-minute walk distance and in levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a measure of systemic inflammation.

In an adjusted regression model, every 10% drop from baseline body weight was significantly linked with a 6.4-point improvement in KCCQ score, a 14.4 meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance, and a 28% relative reduction from baseline in CRP, reported Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

These new, prespecified analyses also showed that people with obesity and HFpEF responded roughly the same to semaglutide treatment compared with placebo-treated controls regardless of their starting body mass index, including people with class 1 (30-34 kg/m²), class 2 (35-39 kg/m²), and class 3 (≥ 40 kg/m²) obesity.

Simultaneously with Dr. Kosiborod’s report at the congress, these findings appeared in a report posted online in Nature Medicine.
 

Not every benefit was fully mediated by weight loss

These analyses “do not tell us how much of the benefit was mediated by weight loss, but the data do say that the more weight a person lost, the more benefit they got,” Dr. Kosiborod explained in an interview. “That is not the same as saying that everything is mediated by weight. It doesn’t say that nothing beyond weight loss matters.”

He and his associates are planning a mediation analysis of data from STEP-HFpEF that will more directly address this issue.

“It’s likely that people who lost more weight with semaglutide also had greater benefits from other effects of semaglutide at the same time. Weight loss is a good surrogate marker” for the range of effects that a person receives from treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, Dr. Kosiborod said.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists may have direct effects on atherosclerosis, as well as other effects that are uncoupled from weight loss,” such as proven anti-inflammatory effects, he added.

Another exploratory effect from semaglutide treatment in the study and reported by Dr. Kosiborod was a significant reduction in serum levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, an association never previously seen with weight loss in people with heart failure.

“The outcomes we’ve already seen in STEP-HFpEF were largely symptomatic, which are extraordinarily important, but there may be a completely different relationship between weight and clinical events,” said John E. Deanfield, PhD, a professor of cardiology at University College Hospital, London, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Deanfield noted that important prognostic markers such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure reductions are usually not temporally related to weight loss. “The idea that [the benefits seen in STEP-HFpEF] are purely from weight loss is something we need to be careful about,” he said.

“My gut feeling is that at least 75% of the effect [in STEP-HFpEF} was due to weight loss,” said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not associated with the research.

STEP-HFpEF was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to, and has received honoraria from, Novo Nordisk. He has been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Deanfield has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Aegerion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has received research funding from Aegerion, Colgate, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – The more weight patients lost while on weekly semaglutide treatment in the STEP-HFpEF trial, the better their outcomes, suggesting that weight loss by itself was a major reason why the treatment improved a broad range of prespecified study outcomes, including symptoms and physical limitations, exercise capacity, and inflammation, new analyses from the trial show.

At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology where he presented these new findings, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, also posited that weight loss produced by weekly subcutaneous injections of 2.4 mg semaglutide (Wegovy) for 52 weeks in the study does not fully explain the multiple mechanisms that may be involved in producing this intervention’s effects in the STEP-HFpEF trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His report earlier at the congress and in a simultaneously published report of the trial’s primary outcomes established a role for medically induced weight loss in managing patients with obesity-phenotype HFpEF in a total of 529 randomized individuals with HFpEF and obesity but without diabetes.

The new analyses showed that for one of the two primary endpoints – the change from baseline in patients’ assessment on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ), the placebo-adjusted average change was a 16.1-point improvement in the 51 people with a 5%-10% weight loss during the 1-year study, and a 21.6-point improvement in the 58 who had at least a 20% weight loss, a between-group average 5.5 point difference that represents a clinically meaningful incremental improvement in this validated metric of symptoms and functional limitations.

Similar weight-related differences in benefit also occurred for the secondary outcomes of changes from baseline in 6-minute walk distance and in levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a measure of systemic inflammation.

In an adjusted regression model, every 10% drop from baseline body weight was significantly linked with a 6.4-point improvement in KCCQ score, a 14.4 meter improvement in 6-minute walk distance, and a 28% relative reduction from baseline in CRP, reported Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

These new, prespecified analyses also showed that people with obesity and HFpEF responded roughly the same to semaglutide treatment compared with placebo-treated controls regardless of their starting body mass index, including people with class 1 (30-34 kg/m²), class 2 (35-39 kg/m²), and class 3 (≥ 40 kg/m²) obesity.

Simultaneously with Dr. Kosiborod’s report at the congress, these findings appeared in a report posted online in Nature Medicine.
 

Not every benefit was fully mediated by weight loss

These analyses “do not tell us how much of the benefit was mediated by weight loss, but the data do say that the more weight a person lost, the more benefit they got,” Dr. Kosiborod explained in an interview. “That is not the same as saying that everything is mediated by weight. It doesn’t say that nothing beyond weight loss matters.”

He and his associates are planning a mediation analysis of data from STEP-HFpEF that will more directly address this issue.

“It’s likely that people who lost more weight with semaglutide also had greater benefits from other effects of semaglutide at the same time. Weight loss is a good surrogate marker” for the range of effects that a person receives from treatment with semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, Dr. Kosiborod said.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists may have direct effects on atherosclerosis, as well as other effects that are uncoupled from weight loss,” such as proven anti-inflammatory effects, he added.

Another exploratory effect from semaglutide treatment in the study and reported by Dr. Kosiborod was a significant reduction in serum levels of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide, an association never previously seen with weight loss in people with heart failure.

“The outcomes we’ve already seen in STEP-HFpEF were largely symptomatic, which are extraordinarily important, but there may be a completely different relationship between weight and clinical events,” said John E. Deanfield, PhD, a professor of cardiology at University College Hospital, London, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Deanfield noted that important prognostic markers such as cholesterol levels and blood pressure reductions are usually not temporally related to weight loss. “The idea that [the benefits seen in STEP-HFpEF] are purely from weight loss is something we need to be careful about,” he said.

“My gut feeling is that at least 75% of the effect [in STEP-HFpEF} was due to weight loss,” said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not associated with the research.

STEP-HFpEF was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to, and has received honoraria from, Novo Nordisk. He has been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Deanfield has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Aegerion, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda, and has received research funding from Aegerion, Colgate, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.
 

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

AMSTERDAM – Among patients with atrial high-rate episodes detected by implantable devices, anticoagulation with edoxaban did not significantly reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism in comparison with placebo but was associated with a higher bleeding risk in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial.

“These results tell us that patients with atrial high-rate episodes with clinical stroke risk factors – but who do not have clinically defined AF[ib] [atrial fibrillation – do not need blood thinners. They do not need to be anticoagulated. That is a relief,” the lead investigator of the trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Kirchhof pointed out that this result was unexpected. “Many of us thought that because atrial high-rate episodes look like AF[ib] when they occur, then they are an indication for anticoagulation. But based on these results from the first-ever randomized trial on this population, there is no need for anticoagulation in these patients.”

Dr. Kirchhof presented the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The study was also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial recruited patients with implanted devices that enable continuous monitoring of atrial rhythm, such as pacemakers and defibrillators. “Because we can record the rhythm day and night with these devices, they pick up small abnormalities. About 20% of these patients experience these occasional atrial high-rate episodes – short episodes that look like AF[ib], but they are rare and brief,” Dr. Kirchhof noted.

He explained that whether the occurrence of these atrial high-rate episodes in patients without AFib, as documented on a conventional electrocardiogram, justifies the initiation of anticoagulants has been unclear. “But this trial tells us that these episodes are different to AF[ib] that is diagnosed on ECG,” he added.

Another finding in the trial was that among these patients, there was an unexpectedly low rate of stroke, despite the patients’ having a CHADSVASC score of 4.

“Based on the result of this trial, these occasional atrial high-rate episodes do not appear to be associated with stroke. It appears quite benign,” Dr. Kirchhof said.
 

Implications for wearable technology?

He said the results may also have implications for wearable devices that pick up abnormal heart rhythm, such as smartwatches.

“We don’t know exactly what these wearable technologies are picking up, but most likely it is these atrial high-rate episodes. But we need more research on the value of these wearable technologies; we need randomized trials in this particular patient population before we consider anticoagulation in these patients,” Dr. Kirchhof stated.

The NOAH-AFNET 6 study was an event-driven, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial involving 2,536 patients aged 65 years or older who had atrial high-rate episodes that lasted for at least 6 minutes and who had at least one additional risk factor for stroke.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive edoxaban or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. The safety outcome was a composite of death from any cause or major bleeding.

The mean age of the patients was 78 years, 37.4% were women, and the median duration of atrial high-rate episodes was 2.8 hours. The trial was terminated early, at a median follow-up of 21 months, on the basis of safety concerns and the results of an independent, informal assessment of futility for the efficacy of edoxaban; at termination, the planned enrollment had been completed.

Results showed that a primary efficacy outcome event occurred in 83 patients (3.2% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 101 patients (4.0% per patient-year) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.08; P = .15). The incidence of stroke was approximately 1% per patient-year in both groups.

A safety outcome event occurred in 149 patients (5.9% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 114 patients (4.5% per patient-year) in the placebo group (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; P = .03).

ECG-diagnosed AFib developed in 462 of 2,536 patients (18.2% total, 8.7% per patient-year).

In the NEJM article, the authors wrote that the findings of this trial – the low incidence of stroke that was not further reduced by treatment with edoxaban – may make it appropriate to withhold anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial high-rate episodes.

The main difference between the population studied in this trial and patients with AFib, as documented on an ECG, appears to be the paucity and brevity of atrial arrhythmias in patients with atrial high-rate episodes (termed low arrhythmia burden). Published reports show that a low arrhythmia burden contributes to a low incidence of stroke among patients with AFib, the study authors wrote.

They added that the low rate of stroke in this trial suggests that in addition to clinical risk prediction formulas for stroke, methods to improve the estimation of stroke risk among patients with infrequent atrial arrhythmias detected by long-term monitoring are needed to guide decision-making on the use of anticoagulation.

Commenting on the NOAH-AFNET 6 results, the comoderator of the ESC HOTLINE session at which they were presented, Barbara Casadei, MD, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, said: “Finally we know what to with these patients. Before we just had a variety of opinions with no evidence. I think that the trial really highlights that patients who come to the doctor with symptoms of AF[ib] or who have ECG-documented AF[ib] have a much higher risk of cardioembolic stroke than patients in whom this presumed AF[ib] is picked up incidentally from implanted devices.”

She added: “The stroke rates are very low in this trial, so anticoagulation was never going to work. But this is an important finding. We know that anticoagulants are not a free lunch. There is a significant bleeding risk. These results suggest that unless a patient has clinical AF[ib] that shows up on an ECG then we need to more cautious in prescribing anticoagulation.”

Also commenting on the study, immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology Ed Fry, MD, Ascension Indiana St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said the management of patients with implanted cardiac devices or personal wearable technology that has picked up an abnormal rhythm suggestive of AFib was a big question in clinical practice.

“These episodes could be AF[ib], which comes with an increased stroke risk, but it could also be something else like atrial tachycardia or supraventricular tachycardia, which do not confer an increased stroke risk,” he explained.

“This study shows that without a firm diagnosis of AF[ib] on an ECG or some sort of continuous AF[ib] monitoring device, we are going to be anticoagulating people who don’t need it. They were exposed to the risk of bleeding without getting the benefit of a reduction in stroke risk,” Dr. Fry noted.

“The important outcome from this trial is that it gives comfort in we can be more confident in withholding anticoagulation until we get a firm diagnosis of AF[ib]. If we have a high index of suspicion that this could be AF[ib], then we can arrange for a further testing,” he added.
 

Second trial reporting soon

A trial similar to NOAH-AFNET 6 is currently underway – the ARTESIA trial, which is expected to be reported later in 2023.

“We are in close contact with the leadership of that trial, and we hope to do some meta-analysis,” Dr. Kirchhof said. “But I think today we’ve gone from no evidence to one outcome-based trial which shows there is no reason to use anticoagulation in these patients with atrial high-rate episodes. I think this is reason to change practice now, but yes, of course we need to look at the data in totality once the second trial has reported.”

But the lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, Stuart Connolly, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., does not believe the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial should change practice at this time.

“This trial fails to adequately address the critical issue that drives clinical decision-making in these patients because it is underpowered for the most important endpoint of stroke,” he said in an interview.

“The key question is whether anticoagulation reduces stroke in these patients,” he added. “To answer that, a clinical trial needs to have a lot of strokes, and this trial had very few. The trial was stopped early and had way too few strokes to properly answer this key question.”

The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

AMSTERDAM – Among patients with atrial high-rate episodes detected by implantable devices, anticoagulation with edoxaban did not significantly reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism in comparison with placebo but was associated with a higher bleeding risk in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial.

“These results tell us that patients with atrial high-rate episodes with clinical stroke risk factors – but who do not have clinically defined AF[ib] [atrial fibrillation – do not need blood thinners. They do not need to be anticoagulated. That is a relief,” the lead investigator of the trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Kirchhof pointed out that this result was unexpected. “Many of us thought that because atrial high-rate episodes look like AF[ib] when they occur, then they are an indication for anticoagulation. But based on these results from the first-ever randomized trial on this population, there is no need for anticoagulation in these patients.”

Dr. Kirchhof presented the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The study was also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial recruited patients with implanted devices that enable continuous monitoring of atrial rhythm, such as pacemakers and defibrillators. “Because we can record the rhythm day and night with these devices, they pick up small abnormalities. About 20% of these patients experience these occasional atrial high-rate episodes – short episodes that look like AF[ib], but they are rare and brief,” Dr. Kirchhof noted.

He explained that whether the occurrence of these atrial high-rate episodes in patients without AFib, as documented on a conventional electrocardiogram, justifies the initiation of anticoagulants has been unclear. “But this trial tells us that these episodes are different to AF[ib] that is diagnosed on ECG,” he added.

Another finding in the trial was that among these patients, there was an unexpectedly low rate of stroke, despite the patients’ having a CHADSVASC score of 4.

“Based on the result of this trial, these occasional atrial high-rate episodes do not appear to be associated with stroke. It appears quite benign,” Dr. Kirchhof said.
 

Implications for wearable technology?

He said the results may also have implications for wearable devices that pick up abnormal heart rhythm, such as smartwatches.

“We don’t know exactly what these wearable technologies are picking up, but most likely it is these atrial high-rate episodes. But we need more research on the value of these wearable technologies; we need randomized trials in this particular patient population before we consider anticoagulation in these patients,” Dr. Kirchhof stated.

The NOAH-AFNET 6 study was an event-driven, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial involving 2,536 patients aged 65 years or older who had atrial high-rate episodes that lasted for at least 6 minutes and who had at least one additional risk factor for stroke.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive edoxaban or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. The safety outcome was a composite of death from any cause or major bleeding.

The mean age of the patients was 78 years, 37.4% were women, and the median duration of atrial high-rate episodes was 2.8 hours. The trial was terminated early, at a median follow-up of 21 months, on the basis of safety concerns and the results of an independent, informal assessment of futility for the efficacy of edoxaban; at termination, the planned enrollment had been completed.

Results showed that a primary efficacy outcome event occurred in 83 patients (3.2% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 101 patients (4.0% per patient-year) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.08; P = .15). The incidence of stroke was approximately 1% per patient-year in both groups.

A safety outcome event occurred in 149 patients (5.9% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 114 patients (4.5% per patient-year) in the placebo group (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; P = .03).

ECG-diagnosed AFib developed in 462 of 2,536 patients (18.2% total, 8.7% per patient-year).

In the NEJM article, the authors wrote that the findings of this trial – the low incidence of stroke that was not further reduced by treatment with edoxaban – may make it appropriate to withhold anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial high-rate episodes.

The main difference between the population studied in this trial and patients with AFib, as documented on an ECG, appears to be the paucity and brevity of atrial arrhythmias in patients with atrial high-rate episodes (termed low arrhythmia burden). Published reports show that a low arrhythmia burden contributes to a low incidence of stroke among patients with AFib, the study authors wrote.

They added that the low rate of stroke in this trial suggests that in addition to clinical risk prediction formulas for stroke, methods to improve the estimation of stroke risk among patients with infrequent atrial arrhythmias detected by long-term monitoring are needed to guide decision-making on the use of anticoagulation.

Commenting on the NOAH-AFNET 6 results, the comoderator of the ESC HOTLINE session at which they were presented, Barbara Casadei, MD, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, said: “Finally we know what to with these patients. Before we just had a variety of opinions with no evidence. I think that the trial really highlights that patients who come to the doctor with symptoms of AF[ib] or who have ECG-documented AF[ib] have a much higher risk of cardioembolic stroke than patients in whom this presumed AF[ib] is picked up incidentally from implanted devices.”

She added: “The stroke rates are very low in this trial, so anticoagulation was never going to work. But this is an important finding. We know that anticoagulants are not a free lunch. There is a significant bleeding risk. These results suggest that unless a patient has clinical AF[ib] that shows up on an ECG then we need to more cautious in prescribing anticoagulation.”

Also commenting on the study, immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology Ed Fry, MD, Ascension Indiana St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said the management of patients with implanted cardiac devices or personal wearable technology that has picked up an abnormal rhythm suggestive of AFib was a big question in clinical practice.

“These episodes could be AF[ib], which comes with an increased stroke risk, but it could also be something else like atrial tachycardia or supraventricular tachycardia, which do not confer an increased stroke risk,” he explained.

“This study shows that without a firm diagnosis of AF[ib] on an ECG or some sort of continuous AF[ib] monitoring device, we are going to be anticoagulating people who don’t need it. They were exposed to the risk of bleeding without getting the benefit of a reduction in stroke risk,” Dr. Fry noted.

“The important outcome from this trial is that it gives comfort in we can be more confident in withholding anticoagulation until we get a firm diagnosis of AF[ib]. If we have a high index of suspicion that this could be AF[ib], then we can arrange for a further testing,” he added.
 

Second trial reporting soon

A trial similar to NOAH-AFNET 6 is currently underway – the ARTESIA trial, which is expected to be reported later in 2023.

“We are in close contact with the leadership of that trial, and we hope to do some meta-analysis,” Dr. Kirchhof said. “But I think today we’ve gone from no evidence to one outcome-based trial which shows there is no reason to use anticoagulation in these patients with atrial high-rate episodes. I think this is reason to change practice now, but yes, of course we need to look at the data in totality once the second trial has reported.”

But the lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, Stuart Connolly, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., does not believe the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial should change practice at this time.

“This trial fails to adequately address the critical issue that drives clinical decision-making in these patients because it is underpowered for the most important endpoint of stroke,” he said in an interview.

“The key question is whether anticoagulation reduces stroke in these patients,” he added. “To answer that, a clinical trial needs to have a lot of strokes, and this trial had very few. The trial was stopped early and had way too few strokes to properly answer this key question.”

The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

AMSTERDAM – Among patients with atrial high-rate episodes detected by implantable devices, anticoagulation with edoxaban did not significantly reduce the incidence of a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism in comparison with placebo but was associated with a higher bleeding risk in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial.

“These results tell us that patients with atrial high-rate episodes with clinical stroke risk factors – but who do not have clinically defined AF[ib] [atrial fibrillation – do not need blood thinners. They do not need to be anticoagulated. That is a relief,” the lead investigator of the trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), said in an interview.

Dr. Kirchhof pointed out that this result was unexpected. “Many of us thought that because atrial high-rate episodes look like AF[ib] when they occur, then they are an indication for anticoagulation. But based on these results from the first-ever randomized trial on this population, there is no need for anticoagulation in these patients.”

Dr. Kirchhof presented the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The study was also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial recruited patients with implanted devices that enable continuous monitoring of atrial rhythm, such as pacemakers and defibrillators. “Because we can record the rhythm day and night with these devices, they pick up small abnormalities. About 20% of these patients experience these occasional atrial high-rate episodes – short episodes that look like AF[ib], but they are rare and brief,” Dr. Kirchhof noted.

He explained that whether the occurrence of these atrial high-rate episodes in patients without AFib, as documented on a conventional electrocardiogram, justifies the initiation of anticoagulants has been unclear. “But this trial tells us that these episodes are different to AF[ib] that is diagnosed on ECG,” he added.

Another finding in the trial was that among these patients, there was an unexpectedly low rate of stroke, despite the patients’ having a CHADSVASC score of 4.

“Based on the result of this trial, these occasional atrial high-rate episodes do not appear to be associated with stroke. It appears quite benign,” Dr. Kirchhof said.
 

Implications for wearable technology?

He said the results may also have implications for wearable devices that pick up abnormal heart rhythm, such as smartwatches.

“We don’t know exactly what these wearable technologies are picking up, but most likely it is these atrial high-rate episodes. But we need more research on the value of these wearable technologies; we need randomized trials in this particular patient population before we consider anticoagulation in these patients,” Dr. Kirchhof stated.

The NOAH-AFNET 6 study was an event-driven, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial involving 2,536 patients aged 65 years or older who had atrial high-rate episodes that lasted for at least 6 minutes and who had at least one additional risk factor for stroke.

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive edoxaban or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. The safety outcome was a composite of death from any cause or major bleeding.

The mean age of the patients was 78 years, 37.4% were women, and the median duration of atrial high-rate episodes was 2.8 hours. The trial was terminated early, at a median follow-up of 21 months, on the basis of safety concerns and the results of an independent, informal assessment of futility for the efficacy of edoxaban; at termination, the planned enrollment had been completed.

Results showed that a primary efficacy outcome event occurred in 83 patients (3.2% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 101 patients (4.0% per patient-year) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-1.08; P = .15). The incidence of stroke was approximately 1% per patient-year in both groups.

A safety outcome event occurred in 149 patients (5.9% per patient-year) in the edoxaban group and in 114 patients (4.5% per patient-year) in the placebo group (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; P = .03).

ECG-diagnosed AFib developed in 462 of 2,536 patients (18.2% total, 8.7% per patient-year).

In the NEJM article, the authors wrote that the findings of this trial – the low incidence of stroke that was not further reduced by treatment with edoxaban – may make it appropriate to withhold anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial high-rate episodes.

The main difference between the population studied in this trial and patients with AFib, as documented on an ECG, appears to be the paucity and brevity of atrial arrhythmias in patients with atrial high-rate episodes (termed low arrhythmia burden). Published reports show that a low arrhythmia burden contributes to a low incidence of stroke among patients with AFib, the study authors wrote.

They added that the low rate of stroke in this trial suggests that in addition to clinical risk prediction formulas for stroke, methods to improve the estimation of stroke risk among patients with infrequent atrial arrhythmias detected by long-term monitoring are needed to guide decision-making on the use of anticoagulation.

Commenting on the NOAH-AFNET 6 results, the comoderator of the ESC HOTLINE session at which they were presented, Barbara Casadei, MD, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, England, said: “Finally we know what to with these patients. Before we just had a variety of opinions with no evidence. I think that the trial really highlights that patients who come to the doctor with symptoms of AF[ib] or who have ECG-documented AF[ib] have a much higher risk of cardioembolic stroke than patients in whom this presumed AF[ib] is picked up incidentally from implanted devices.”

She added: “The stroke rates are very low in this trial, so anticoagulation was never going to work. But this is an important finding. We know that anticoagulants are not a free lunch. There is a significant bleeding risk. These results suggest that unless a patient has clinical AF[ib] that shows up on an ECG then we need to more cautious in prescribing anticoagulation.”

Also commenting on the study, immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology Ed Fry, MD, Ascension Indiana St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said the management of patients with implanted cardiac devices or personal wearable technology that has picked up an abnormal rhythm suggestive of AFib was a big question in clinical practice.

“These episodes could be AF[ib], which comes with an increased stroke risk, but it could also be something else like atrial tachycardia or supraventricular tachycardia, which do not confer an increased stroke risk,” he explained.

“This study shows that without a firm diagnosis of AF[ib] on an ECG or some sort of continuous AF[ib] monitoring device, we are going to be anticoagulating people who don’t need it. They were exposed to the risk of bleeding without getting the benefit of a reduction in stroke risk,” Dr. Fry noted.

“The important outcome from this trial is that it gives comfort in we can be more confident in withholding anticoagulation until we get a firm diagnosis of AF[ib]. If we have a high index of suspicion that this could be AF[ib], then we can arrange for a further testing,” he added.
 

Second trial reporting soon

A trial similar to NOAH-AFNET 6 is currently underway – the ARTESIA trial, which is expected to be reported later in 2023.

“We are in close contact with the leadership of that trial, and we hope to do some meta-analysis,” Dr. Kirchhof said. “But I think today we’ve gone from no evidence to one outcome-based trial which shows there is no reason to use anticoagulation in these patients with atrial high-rate episodes. I think this is reason to change practice now, but yes, of course we need to look at the data in totality once the second trial has reported.”

But the lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, Stuart Connolly, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., does not believe the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial should change practice at this time.

“This trial fails to adequately address the critical issue that drives clinical decision-making in these patients because it is underpowered for the most important endpoint of stroke,” he said in an interview.

“The key question is whether anticoagulation reduces stroke in these patients,” he added. “To answer that, a clinical trial needs to have a lot of strokes, and this trial had very few. The trial was stopped early and had way too few strokes to properly answer this key question.”

The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation who were transported to the nearest hospital emergency department had outcomes similar to those of patients transported to specialist cardiac arrest centers, in the ARREST trial.

Both groups had the same 30-day survival, the primary outcome, as well as 3-month survival and neurologic outcomes.

“The take-home message is that this trial does not support transporting cardiac arrest patients direct to a cardiac arrest center in London; they would fare better going to their nearest emergency department,” senior author Simon R. Redwood, MD, principal investigator of ARREST, from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals and King’s College, London, said during a press briefing. “These results may allow better resource allocation elsewhere.”

Importantly, this study excluded patients who clearly had myocardial infarction (MI), he stressed. Cardiac arrest can result from cardiac causes or from other events, including trauma, overdose, drowning, or electrocution, he noted.

On the other hand, patients with MI “will benefit from going straight to a heart attack center and having an attempt at reopening the artery,” he emphasized.

Tiffany Patterson, PhD, clinical lead of ARREST, with the same affiliations as Dr. Redwood, presented the trial findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam, on Aug. 27. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Observational studies of registry data suggest that postarrest care for patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest, without ST-segment elevation, may be best delivered in a specialized center, she noted.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation called for a randomized clinical trial of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation to clarify this.

In the ARREST trial, among 800 patients with return of spontaneous circulation following OHCA without ST-segment elevation who were randomly assigned to be transported to specialized centers or an emergency department, there was no survival benefit, she summarized.

ARREST was “not simply a negative trial, but a new evidence-based starting point,” according to the trial discussant Lia Crotti, MD, PhD, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano and University Milano-Bicocca, Italy. 

She drew attention to two findings: First, among the 862 patients who were enrolled, whom paramedics judged as being without an obvious noncardiac cause of the cardiac arrest, “only 60% ended up having a cardiac cause for their cardiac arrest and only around one quarter of the total had coronary artery disease.”

The small number of patients who could have benefited from early access to a catheterization laboratory probably contributed to the negative result obtained in this trial, with the loss of statistical power, she said.

Second, London is a dense urban area with high-quality acute care hospitals, so the standard of care in the nearest emergency department may be not so different from that in cardiac arrest centers, she noted. Furthermore, four of the seven cardiac arrest centers have an emergency department, and some of the standard care patients may have been transported there.

“If the clinical trial would be extended to the entire country, including rural areas, maybe the result would be different,” she said.

The study authors acknowledge that the main limitation of this study was that “it was done across London with a dense population in a small geographic area,” and “the London Ambulance Service has rapid response times and short transit times and delivers high quality prehospital care, which could limit generalizability.”

Asked during the press conference here why the results were so different from the registry study findings, Dr. Redwood said, “We’ve seen time and time again that registry data think they are telling us the answer. They’re actually not.”

The session cochairs, Rudolf de Boer, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from University of Lorraine–Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France, each congratulated the researchers on a well-done study.

Dr. de Boer wanted to know whether, for example, 100% of these resuscitated OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation  had a cardiac cause, “Would results differ? Or is this just real life?” he asked. Dr. Patterson replied that the paramedics excluded obvious noncardiac causes and the findings were based on current facilities.

“Does this trial provide a definitive answer?” Dr. de Boer asked. Dr. Patterson replied that for the moment, subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup that might benefit from expedited transport to a cardiac arrest center.

Dr. Zannad wanted to know how informed consent was obtained. Dr. Patterson noted that they have an excellent ethical committee that allowed them to undertake this research in vulnerable patients. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient once the initial emergency had passed if they had regained capacity.
 

Rationale and trial findings

“It’s very well established that early bystander CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation], early defibrillation, and advanced in-hospital care improves survival,” Dr. Redwood noted. “Despite this, only 1 in 10 survive to leave the hospital.”

Therefore, “a cardiac arrest center has been proposed as a way of improving outcome.” These centers have a catheterization laboratory, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, advanced critical care including advanced ventilation, temperature management of the patient, hemodynamic support, and neuroprognostication and rehab “because often these patients will have brain injury.

“There’s quite overwhelming registry data to suggest that these cardiac arrest centers improve outcome,” he said, “but these are limited by bias.”

Between January 2018 and December 2022, London Ambulance paramedics randomly assigned 862 patients who were successfully resuscitated and without a confirmed MI to be transported the nearest hospital emergency department or the catheterization laboratory in a cardiac arrest center.

Data were available for 822 participants. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 68% were male.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest center group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.11; P = 0.96).

Mortality at 3 months was similar in both groups: 64% in the standard care group and 65% in the cardiac arrest center group.

Neurologic outcomes at discharge and 3 months were similar in both groups.

Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest center group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention.

A cardiac cause of arrest was identified in roughly 60% of patients in each group, and of these, roughly 42% were coronary causes, 33% were arrhythmia, and 17% were cardiomyopathy.

The median time from cardiac arrest to hospital arrival was 84 minutes in the cardiac arrest center group and 77 minutes in the standard care group.
 

“Surprising and important RCT evidence”

In an accompanying editorial, Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote that “this study provides randomized trial evidence that in urban settings such as London, there is no survival advantage of a strategy of transporting patients who have been resuscitated to centres with specialty expertise in care of cardiac arrest.
“This result is surprising and important, since this complex and critically ill population would be expected to benefit from centres with more expertise.”

However, “it would be a mistake to conclude that the trial results apply to regions where local hospitals provide a lower quality of care than those in this trial,” they cautioned.

“Where does this leave the medical community, researchers, and society in general?” they asked rhetorically. “Prioritising a minimum standard of care at local hospitals caring for this population is at least as important as ensuring high-quality care or advanced treatment at tertiary centres.

“This trial also calls for more focus on the basics, including efforts to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, aspects of care that are currently being assessed in two ongoing clinical trials (NCT04660526 and NCT03835403) and are most strongly associated with improved survival, when coupled with high-quality prehospital care with trained staff and short response times,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by the British Heart Foundation. The authors reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. The financial disclosures of the editorialists are listed with the editorial.

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

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation who were transported to the nearest hospital emergency department had outcomes similar to those of patients transported to specialist cardiac arrest centers, in the ARREST trial.

Both groups had the same 30-day survival, the primary outcome, as well as 3-month survival and neurologic outcomes.

“The take-home message is that this trial does not support transporting cardiac arrest patients direct to a cardiac arrest center in London; they would fare better going to their nearest emergency department,” senior author Simon R. Redwood, MD, principal investigator of ARREST, from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals and King’s College, London, said during a press briefing. “These results may allow better resource allocation elsewhere.”

Importantly, this study excluded patients who clearly had myocardial infarction (MI), he stressed. Cardiac arrest can result from cardiac causes or from other events, including trauma, overdose, drowning, or electrocution, he noted.

On the other hand, patients with MI “will benefit from going straight to a heart attack center and having an attempt at reopening the artery,” he emphasized.

Tiffany Patterson, PhD, clinical lead of ARREST, with the same affiliations as Dr. Redwood, presented the trial findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam, on Aug. 27. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Observational studies of registry data suggest that postarrest care for patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest, without ST-segment elevation, may be best delivered in a specialized center, she noted.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation called for a randomized clinical trial of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation to clarify this.

In the ARREST trial, among 800 patients with return of spontaneous circulation following OHCA without ST-segment elevation who were randomly assigned to be transported to specialized centers or an emergency department, there was no survival benefit, she summarized.

ARREST was “not simply a negative trial, but a new evidence-based starting point,” according to the trial discussant Lia Crotti, MD, PhD, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano and University Milano-Bicocca, Italy. 

She drew attention to two findings: First, among the 862 patients who were enrolled, whom paramedics judged as being without an obvious noncardiac cause of the cardiac arrest, “only 60% ended up having a cardiac cause for their cardiac arrest and only around one quarter of the total had coronary artery disease.”

The small number of patients who could have benefited from early access to a catheterization laboratory probably contributed to the negative result obtained in this trial, with the loss of statistical power, she said.

Second, London is a dense urban area with high-quality acute care hospitals, so the standard of care in the nearest emergency department may be not so different from that in cardiac arrest centers, she noted. Furthermore, four of the seven cardiac arrest centers have an emergency department, and some of the standard care patients may have been transported there.

“If the clinical trial would be extended to the entire country, including rural areas, maybe the result would be different,” she said.

The study authors acknowledge that the main limitation of this study was that “it was done across London with a dense population in a small geographic area,” and “the London Ambulance Service has rapid response times and short transit times and delivers high quality prehospital care, which could limit generalizability.”

Asked during the press conference here why the results were so different from the registry study findings, Dr. Redwood said, “We’ve seen time and time again that registry data think they are telling us the answer. They’re actually not.”

The session cochairs, Rudolf de Boer, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from University of Lorraine–Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France, each congratulated the researchers on a well-done study.

Dr. de Boer wanted to know whether, for example, 100% of these resuscitated OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation  had a cardiac cause, “Would results differ? Or is this just real life?” he asked. Dr. Patterson replied that the paramedics excluded obvious noncardiac causes and the findings were based on current facilities.

“Does this trial provide a definitive answer?” Dr. de Boer asked. Dr. Patterson replied that for the moment, subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup that might benefit from expedited transport to a cardiac arrest center.

Dr. Zannad wanted to know how informed consent was obtained. Dr. Patterson noted that they have an excellent ethical committee that allowed them to undertake this research in vulnerable patients. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient once the initial emergency had passed if they had regained capacity.
 

Rationale and trial findings

“It’s very well established that early bystander CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation], early defibrillation, and advanced in-hospital care improves survival,” Dr. Redwood noted. “Despite this, only 1 in 10 survive to leave the hospital.”

Therefore, “a cardiac arrest center has been proposed as a way of improving outcome.” These centers have a catheterization laboratory, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, advanced critical care including advanced ventilation, temperature management of the patient, hemodynamic support, and neuroprognostication and rehab “because often these patients will have brain injury.

“There’s quite overwhelming registry data to suggest that these cardiac arrest centers improve outcome,” he said, “but these are limited by bias.”

Between January 2018 and December 2022, London Ambulance paramedics randomly assigned 862 patients who were successfully resuscitated and without a confirmed MI to be transported the nearest hospital emergency department or the catheterization laboratory in a cardiac arrest center.

Data were available for 822 participants. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 68% were male.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest center group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.11; P = 0.96).

Mortality at 3 months was similar in both groups: 64% in the standard care group and 65% in the cardiac arrest center group.

Neurologic outcomes at discharge and 3 months were similar in both groups.

Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest center group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention.

A cardiac cause of arrest was identified in roughly 60% of patients in each group, and of these, roughly 42% were coronary causes, 33% were arrhythmia, and 17% were cardiomyopathy.

The median time from cardiac arrest to hospital arrival was 84 minutes in the cardiac arrest center group and 77 minutes in the standard care group.
 

“Surprising and important RCT evidence”

In an accompanying editorial, Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote that “this study provides randomized trial evidence that in urban settings such as London, there is no survival advantage of a strategy of transporting patients who have been resuscitated to centres with specialty expertise in care of cardiac arrest.
“This result is surprising and important, since this complex and critically ill population would be expected to benefit from centres with more expertise.”

However, “it would be a mistake to conclude that the trial results apply to regions where local hospitals provide a lower quality of care than those in this trial,” they cautioned.

“Where does this leave the medical community, researchers, and society in general?” they asked rhetorically. “Prioritising a minimum standard of care at local hospitals caring for this population is at least as important as ensuring high-quality care or advanced treatment at tertiary centres.

“This trial also calls for more focus on the basics, including efforts to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, aspects of care that are currently being assessed in two ongoing clinical trials (NCT04660526 and NCT03835403) and are most strongly associated with improved survival, when coupled with high-quality prehospital care with trained staff and short response times,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by the British Heart Foundation. The authors reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. The financial disclosures of the editorialists are listed with the editorial.

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

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation who were transported to the nearest hospital emergency department had outcomes similar to those of patients transported to specialist cardiac arrest centers, in the ARREST trial.

Both groups had the same 30-day survival, the primary outcome, as well as 3-month survival and neurologic outcomes.

“The take-home message is that this trial does not support transporting cardiac arrest patients direct to a cardiac arrest center in London; they would fare better going to their nearest emergency department,” senior author Simon R. Redwood, MD, principal investigator of ARREST, from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals and King’s College, London, said during a press briefing. “These results may allow better resource allocation elsewhere.”

Importantly, this study excluded patients who clearly had myocardial infarction (MI), he stressed. Cardiac arrest can result from cardiac causes or from other events, including trauma, overdose, drowning, or electrocution, he noted.

On the other hand, patients with MI “will benefit from going straight to a heart attack center and having an attempt at reopening the artery,” he emphasized.

Tiffany Patterson, PhD, clinical lead of ARREST, with the same affiliations as Dr. Redwood, presented the trial findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam, on Aug. 27. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Observational studies of registry data suggest that postarrest care for patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest, without ST-segment elevation, may be best delivered in a specialized center, she noted.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation called for a randomized clinical trial of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation to clarify this.

In the ARREST trial, among 800 patients with return of spontaneous circulation following OHCA without ST-segment elevation who were randomly assigned to be transported to specialized centers or an emergency department, there was no survival benefit, she summarized.

ARREST was “not simply a negative trial, but a new evidence-based starting point,” according to the trial discussant Lia Crotti, MD, PhD, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano and University Milano-Bicocca, Italy. 

She drew attention to two findings: First, among the 862 patients who were enrolled, whom paramedics judged as being without an obvious noncardiac cause of the cardiac arrest, “only 60% ended up having a cardiac cause for their cardiac arrest and only around one quarter of the total had coronary artery disease.”

The small number of patients who could have benefited from early access to a catheterization laboratory probably contributed to the negative result obtained in this trial, with the loss of statistical power, she said.

Second, London is a dense urban area with high-quality acute care hospitals, so the standard of care in the nearest emergency department may be not so different from that in cardiac arrest centers, she noted. Furthermore, four of the seven cardiac arrest centers have an emergency department, and some of the standard care patients may have been transported there.

“If the clinical trial would be extended to the entire country, including rural areas, maybe the result would be different,” she said.

The study authors acknowledge that the main limitation of this study was that “it was done across London with a dense population in a small geographic area,” and “the London Ambulance Service has rapid response times and short transit times and delivers high quality prehospital care, which could limit generalizability.”

Asked during the press conference here why the results were so different from the registry study findings, Dr. Redwood said, “We’ve seen time and time again that registry data think they are telling us the answer. They’re actually not.”

The session cochairs, Rudolf de Boer, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from University of Lorraine–Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France, each congratulated the researchers on a well-done study.

Dr. de Boer wanted to know whether, for example, 100% of these resuscitated OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation  had a cardiac cause, “Would results differ? Or is this just real life?” he asked. Dr. Patterson replied that the paramedics excluded obvious noncardiac causes and the findings were based on current facilities.

“Does this trial provide a definitive answer?” Dr. de Boer asked. Dr. Patterson replied that for the moment, subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup that might benefit from expedited transport to a cardiac arrest center.

Dr. Zannad wanted to know how informed consent was obtained. Dr. Patterson noted that they have an excellent ethical committee that allowed them to undertake this research in vulnerable patients. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient once the initial emergency had passed if they had regained capacity.
 

Rationale and trial findings

“It’s very well established that early bystander CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation], early defibrillation, and advanced in-hospital care improves survival,” Dr. Redwood noted. “Despite this, only 1 in 10 survive to leave the hospital.”

Therefore, “a cardiac arrest center has been proposed as a way of improving outcome.” These centers have a catheterization laboratory, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, advanced critical care including advanced ventilation, temperature management of the patient, hemodynamic support, and neuroprognostication and rehab “because often these patients will have brain injury.

“There’s quite overwhelming registry data to suggest that these cardiac arrest centers improve outcome,” he said, “but these are limited by bias.”

Between January 2018 and December 2022, London Ambulance paramedics randomly assigned 862 patients who were successfully resuscitated and without a confirmed MI to be transported the nearest hospital emergency department or the catheterization laboratory in a cardiac arrest center.

Data were available for 822 participants. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 68% were male.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest center group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.11; P = 0.96).

Mortality at 3 months was similar in both groups: 64% in the standard care group and 65% in the cardiac arrest center group.

Neurologic outcomes at discharge and 3 months were similar in both groups.

Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest center group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention.

A cardiac cause of arrest was identified in roughly 60% of patients in each group, and of these, roughly 42% were coronary causes, 33% were arrhythmia, and 17% were cardiomyopathy.

The median time from cardiac arrest to hospital arrival was 84 minutes in the cardiac arrest center group and 77 minutes in the standard care group.
 

“Surprising and important RCT evidence”

In an accompanying editorial, Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote that “this study provides randomized trial evidence that in urban settings such as London, there is no survival advantage of a strategy of transporting patients who have been resuscitated to centres with specialty expertise in care of cardiac arrest.
“This result is surprising and important, since this complex and critically ill population would be expected to benefit from centres with more expertise.”

However, “it would be a mistake to conclude that the trial results apply to regions where local hospitals provide a lower quality of care than those in this trial,” they cautioned.

“Where does this leave the medical community, researchers, and society in general?” they asked rhetorically. “Prioritising a minimum standard of care at local hospitals caring for this population is at least as important as ensuring high-quality care or advanced treatment at tertiary centres.

“This trial also calls for more focus on the basics, including efforts to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, aspects of care that are currently being assessed in two ongoing clinical trials (NCT04660526 and NCT03835403) and are most strongly associated with improved survival, when coupled with high-quality prehospital care with trained staff and short response times,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by the British Heart Foundation. The authors reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. The financial disclosures of the editorialists are listed with the editorial.

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

AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.

“A key change is that we removed the ‘and-or’ and the ‘either-or’ terms and recommend using both classes simultaneously in patients who are eligible based on their clinical indications and without contraindications or intolerance,” said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.

Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.

Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
 

Different mechanisms mean additive benefits

“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.

“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.

The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.

The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
 

SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator

Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.

Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.

The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.

Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).

The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.

“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.

The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.

“A key change is that we removed the ‘and-or’ and the ‘either-or’ terms and recommend using both classes simultaneously in patients who are eligible based on their clinical indications and without contraindications or intolerance,” said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.

Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.

Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
 

Different mechanisms mean additive benefits

“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.

“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.

The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.

The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
 

SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator

Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.

Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.

The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.

Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).

The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.

“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.

The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – The era of guidelines that recommended treatment with either a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) ended with new recommendations from the European Society of Cardiology that call for starting both classes simultaneously.

“A key change is that we removed the ‘and-or’ and the ‘either-or’ terms and recommend using both classes simultaneously in patients who are eligible based on their clinical indications and without contraindications or intolerance,” said Darren K. McGuire, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The society’s new guidelines for managing CVD in patients with diabetes, released on Aug. 25 and presented in several sessions at the Congress, also break with the past by calling for starting treatment with both an SGLT-2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 receptor agonist without regard to a person’s existing level of glucose control, including their current and target hemoglobin A1c levels, and regardless of background therapy, added Dr. McGuire, a cardiologist and professor at the UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a member of the ESC panel that wrote the new guidelines.

Instead, the new guidance calls for starting both drug classes promptly in people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CVD.

Both the previous ESC guidelines from 2019 as well as the current Standards of Care for 2023 document from the American Diabetes Association call for using one class or the other, but they hedge on combined treatment as discretionary.
 

Different mechanisms mean additive benefits

“With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes in trials for SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists who were also on the other drug class, we’ve done large, stratified analyses that suggest no treatment-effect modification” when people received agents from both drug classes, Dr. McGuire explained in an interview. “While we don’t understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs for CVD, we’ve become very confident that they use different mechanisms” that appear to have at least partially additive effects.

“Their benefits for CVD risk reduction are completely independent of their glucose effects. They are cardiology drugs,” Dr. McGuire added.

The new ESC guidelines highlight two other clinical settings where people with type 2 diabetes should receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor regardless of their existing level of glucose control and any other medical treatment: people with heart failure and people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a depressed estimated glomerular filtration rate and an elevated urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Nephropathy was considered by the ESC’s guideline panel to confer risk that is similar to that of established atherosclerotic CVD, Dr. McGuire said.

The guidelines also, for the first time for ESC recommendations, made treatment with finerenone (Kerendia, Bayer) a class 1 level A recommendation for people with type 2 diabetes and CKD.
 

SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator

Another major change in the new ESC guideline revision is introduction of a CVD risk calculator intended to estimate the risk among people with type 2 diabetes but without established CVD, heart failure, or CKD.

Called the SCORE2-Diabetes risk estimator, it calculates a person’s 10-year risk for CVD and includes adjustment based on the European region where a person lives; it also tallies different risk levels for women and for men.

The researchers who developed the SCORE2-Diabetes calculator used data from nearly 230,000 people to devise the tool and then validated it with data from an additional 217,000 Europeans with type 2 diabetes.

Key features of the calculator include its use of routinely collected clinical values, such as age, sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, serum cholesterol levels, age at diabetes diagnosis, hemoglobin A1c level, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.

“For the first time we have a clear score to categorize risk” in people with type 2 diabetes and identify who needs more aggressive treatment to prevent CVD development,” said Emanuele Di Angelantonio, MD, PhD, deputy director of the cardiovascular epidemiology unit at the University of Cambridge (England).

The guidelines say that people who have a low (< 5%) or moderate (5%-9%) 10-year risk for CVD are possible candidates for metformin treatment. Those with high (10%-19%) or very high (≥ 20%) risk are possible candidates for treatment with metformin and/or an SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or a GLP-1 receptor agonist, said Dr. Di Angelantonio during his talk at the congress on the new risk score.

“The risk score is a good addition” because it estimates future CVD risk better and more systematically than usual practice, which generally relies on no systematic tool, said Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow (Scotland) and also a member of the guideline-writing panel.

The new risk score “is a reasonable way” to identify people without CVD but at elevated risk who might benefit from treatment with a relatively expensive drug, such as an SGLT-2 inhibitor, Dr. Sattar said in an interview. “It doesn’t rely on any fancy biomarkers or imaging, and it takes about 30 seconds to calculate. It’s not perfect, but it gets the job done,” and it will increase the number of people with type 2 diabetes who will receive an SGLT-2 inhibitor, he predicted.

Dr. McGuire has been a consultant to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Intercept, Lexion, Lilly, Merck, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Di Angelantonio had no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Roche Diagnostics.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and shock are often put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support before heading to the catheterization laboratory. But the practice, done routinely, doesn’t have much backing from randomized trials. Now it’s being challenged by one of the largest such studies to explore the issue.

In a new multicenter trial, there was no survival advantage at 30 days to early use of ECMO in such patients with cardiogenic shock, compared with a usual-care medical approach. ECMO-managed patients, moreover, had sharply increased risks for moderate and severe bleeding and vascular complications.
 

A challenge to common practice

The results undercut guidelines that promote mechanical circulatory support in MI-related cardiogenic shock primarily based on observational data, and they argue against what’s become common practice, said Holger Thiele, MD, Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Such use of ECMO could well offer some type of advantage in MI-related shock, but the data so far don’t show it, Dr. Thiele said at a press conference on the new study, called ECLS-SHOCK, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam. He formally presented the trial at the meeting and is lead author on its simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Almost half of the trial’s patients died, whether or not they had been put on ECMO. All-cause mortality at 30 days, the primary endpoint, was about the same, at 47.8% and 49.0% for the ECMO and usual-care groups, respectively.

Meanwhile, Dr. Thiele reported, risks for moderate or severe bleeding more than doubled and serious peripheral vascular complications almost tripled with addition of ECMO support.

The findings, he noted, are consistent with a new meta-analysis of trials testing ECMO in MI-related shock that also showed increases in bleeding with survival gains using the devices. Dr. Thiele is senior author on that report, published in The Lancet to coincide with his ECLS-SHOCK presentation.
 

Would any subgroups benefit?

Importantly, he said in an interview, ECMO’s failure to improve 30-day survival in the trial probably applies across the spectrum of patients with MI-related shock. Subgroup analyses in both ECLS-SHOCK and the meta-analysis didn’t identify any groups that benefit, Dr. Thiele observed.

For example, there were no significant differences for the primary outcome by age, sex, whether the MI was ST-segment elevation MI or non–ST-segment elevation MI or anterior or nonanterior, or whether the patient had diabetes.

If there is a subgroup in MI-related shock that is likely to benefit from the intervention with lower mortality, he said, “it’s less than 1%, if you ask me.”

An accompanying editorial essentially agreed, arguing that ECLS-SHOCK contests the intervention’s broad application in MI-related shock without shedding light on any selective benefits.

“Will the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial change current clinical practice? If the goal of [ECMO] is to improve 30-day mortality, these data should steer interventional and critical care cardiologists away from its early routine implementation for all or even most patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock,” the editorialists say.

“There will be some patients in this population for whom [ECMO] is necessary and lifesaving, but the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial do not tell us which ones,” write Jane A. Leopold, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

“For now, the best course may be to reserve the early initiation of [ECMO] for those patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock in whom the likely benefits more clearly outweigh the potential harms. We need further studies to tell us who they are,” write Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman, who are deputy editors with The New England Journal of Medicine.

ECLS-SHOCK randomly assigned 420 patients with acute MI complicated by shock and slated for coronary revascularization to receive standard care with or without early ECMO at 44 centers in Germany and Slovenia. Their median age was 63 years, and about 81% were men.

The relative risk for death from any cause, ECMO vs. usual care, was flatly nonsignificant at 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.19; P = .81).

ECMO came at the cost of significantly more cases of the primary safety endpoint, moderate or severe bleeding by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. That endpoint was met by 23.4% of ECMO patients and 9.6% of the control group, for an RR of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.50-3.95).

Rates of stroke or systemic embolization were nonsignificantly different at 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.47-3.76).

Speaking with this news organization, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, pointed out that only 5.8% of the ECMO group but about 32% of those managed with usual care received some form of left ventricular (LV) unloading therapy.

Such measures can include atrial septostomy or the addition of an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous LV-assist pump.

Given that ECMO increases afterload, “which is physiologically detrimental in patients with an ongoing MI, one is left to wonder if the results would have been different with greater use of LV unloading,” said Dr. Bangalore, of NYU Langone Health, New York, who isn’t associated with ECLS-SHOCK.

Also, he pointed out, about 78% of the trial’s patients had experienced some degree of cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite exclusion of anyone who had undergone it for more than 45 minutes. That may make the study more generalizable but also harder to show a benefit from ECMO. “The overall prognosis of that subset of patients despite heroic efforts is bleak at best.”

Dr. Thiele had no disclosures; statements for the other authors can be found at nejm.org. Dr. Bangalore has previously disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic. Dr. Leopold reports grants from Astellas and personal fees from United Therapeutics, Abbott Vascular, and North America Thrombosis Forum. Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman both report employment by The New England Journal of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and shock are often put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support before heading to the catheterization laboratory. But the practice, done routinely, doesn’t have much backing from randomized trials. Now it’s being challenged by one of the largest such studies to explore the issue.

In a new multicenter trial, there was no survival advantage at 30 days to early use of ECMO in such patients with cardiogenic shock, compared with a usual-care medical approach. ECMO-managed patients, moreover, had sharply increased risks for moderate and severe bleeding and vascular complications.
 

A challenge to common practice

The results undercut guidelines that promote mechanical circulatory support in MI-related cardiogenic shock primarily based on observational data, and they argue against what’s become common practice, said Holger Thiele, MD, Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Such use of ECMO could well offer some type of advantage in MI-related shock, but the data so far don’t show it, Dr. Thiele said at a press conference on the new study, called ECLS-SHOCK, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam. He formally presented the trial at the meeting and is lead author on its simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Almost half of the trial’s patients died, whether or not they had been put on ECMO. All-cause mortality at 30 days, the primary endpoint, was about the same, at 47.8% and 49.0% for the ECMO and usual-care groups, respectively.

Meanwhile, Dr. Thiele reported, risks for moderate or severe bleeding more than doubled and serious peripheral vascular complications almost tripled with addition of ECMO support.

The findings, he noted, are consistent with a new meta-analysis of trials testing ECMO in MI-related shock that also showed increases in bleeding with survival gains using the devices. Dr. Thiele is senior author on that report, published in The Lancet to coincide with his ECLS-SHOCK presentation.
 

Would any subgroups benefit?

Importantly, he said in an interview, ECMO’s failure to improve 30-day survival in the trial probably applies across the spectrum of patients with MI-related shock. Subgroup analyses in both ECLS-SHOCK and the meta-analysis didn’t identify any groups that benefit, Dr. Thiele observed.

For example, there were no significant differences for the primary outcome by age, sex, whether the MI was ST-segment elevation MI or non–ST-segment elevation MI or anterior or nonanterior, or whether the patient had diabetes.

If there is a subgroup in MI-related shock that is likely to benefit from the intervention with lower mortality, he said, “it’s less than 1%, if you ask me.”

An accompanying editorial essentially agreed, arguing that ECLS-SHOCK contests the intervention’s broad application in MI-related shock without shedding light on any selective benefits.

“Will the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial change current clinical practice? If the goal of [ECMO] is to improve 30-day mortality, these data should steer interventional and critical care cardiologists away from its early routine implementation for all or even most patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock,” the editorialists say.

“There will be some patients in this population for whom [ECMO] is necessary and lifesaving, but the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial do not tell us which ones,” write Jane A. Leopold, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

“For now, the best course may be to reserve the early initiation of [ECMO] for those patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock in whom the likely benefits more clearly outweigh the potential harms. We need further studies to tell us who they are,” write Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman, who are deputy editors with The New England Journal of Medicine.

ECLS-SHOCK randomly assigned 420 patients with acute MI complicated by shock and slated for coronary revascularization to receive standard care with or without early ECMO at 44 centers in Germany and Slovenia. Their median age was 63 years, and about 81% were men.

The relative risk for death from any cause, ECMO vs. usual care, was flatly nonsignificant at 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.19; P = .81).

ECMO came at the cost of significantly more cases of the primary safety endpoint, moderate or severe bleeding by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. That endpoint was met by 23.4% of ECMO patients and 9.6% of the control group, for an RR of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.50-3.95).

Rates of stroke or systemic embolization were nonsignificantly different at 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.47-3.76).

Speaking with this news organization, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, pointed out that only 5.8% of the ECMO group but about 32% of those managed with usual care received some form of left ventricular (LV) unloading therapy.

Such measures can include atrial septostomy or the addition of an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous LV-assist pump.

Given that ECMO increases afterload, “which is physiologically detrimental in patients with an ongoing MI, one is left to wonder if the results would have been different with greater use of LV unloading,” said Dr. Bangalore, of NYU Langone Health, New York, who isn’t associated with ECLS-SHOCK.

Also, he pointed out, about 78% of the trial’s patients had experienced some degree of cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite exclusion of anyone who had undergone it for more than 45 minutes. That may make the study more generalizable but also harder to show a benefit from ECMO. “The overall prognosis of that subset of patients despite heroic efforts is bleak at best.”

Dr. Thiele had no disclosures; statements for the other authors can be found at nejm.org. Dr. Bangalore has previously disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic. Dr. Leopold reports grants from Astellas and personal fees from United Therapeutics, Abbott Vascular, and North America Thrombosis Forum. Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman both report employment by The New England Journal of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and shock are often put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support before heading to the catheterization laboratory. But the practice, done routinely, doesn’t have much backing from randomized trials. Now it’s being challenged by one of the largest such studies to explore the issue.

In a new multicenter trial, there was no survival advantage at 30 days to early use of ECMO in such patients with cardiogenic shock, compared with a usual-care medical approach. ECMO-managed patients, moreover, had sharply increased risks for moderate and severe bleeding and vascular complications.
 

A challenge to common practice

The results undercut guidelines that promote mechanical circulatory support in MI-related cardiogenic shock primarily based on observational data, and they argue against what’s become common practice, said Holger Thiele, MD, Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Such use of ECMO could well offer some type of advantage in MI-related shock, but the data so far don’t show it, Dr. Thiele said at a press conference on the new study, called ECLS-SHOCK, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam. He formally presented the trial at the meeting and is lead author on its simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Almost half of the trial’s patients died, whether or not they had been put on ECMO. All-cause mortality at 30 days, the primary endpoint, was about the same, at 47.8% and 49.0% for the ECMO and usual-care groups, respectively.

Meanwhile, Dr. Thiele reported, risks for moderate or severe bleeding more than doubled and serious peripheral vascular complications almost tripled with addition of ECMO support.

The findings, he noted, are consistent with a new meta-analysis of trials testing ECMO in MI-related shock that also showed increases in bleeding with survival gains using the devices. Dr. Thiele is senior author on that report, published in The Lancet to coincide with his ECLS-SHOCK presentation.
 

Would any subgroups benefit?

Importantly, he said in an interview, ECMO’s failure to improve 30-day survival in the trial probably applies across the spectrum of patients with MI-related shock. Subgroup analyses in both ECLS-SHOCK and the meta-analysis didn’t identify any groups that benefit, Dr. Thiele observed.

For example, there were no significant differences for the primary outcome by age, sex, whether the MI was ST-segment elevation MI or non–ST-segment elevation MI or anterior or nonanterior, or whether the patient had diabetes.

If there is a subgroup in MI-related shock that is likely to benefit from the intervention with lower mortality, he said, “it’s less than 1%, if you ask me.”

An accompanying editorial essentially agreed, arguing that ECLS-SHOCK contests the intervention’s broad application in MI-related shock without shedding light on any selective benefits.

“Will the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial change current clinical practice? If the goal of [ECMO] is to improve 30-day mortality, these data should steer interventional and critical care cardiologists away from its early routine implementation for all or even most patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock,” the editorialists say.

“There will be some patients in this population for whom [ECMO] is necessary and lifesaving, but the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial do not tell us which ones,” write Jane A. Leopold, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

“For now, the best course may be to reserve the early initiation of [ECMO] for those patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock in whom the likely benefits more clearly outweigh the potential harms. We need further studies to tell us who they are,” write Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman, who are deputy editors with The New England Journal of Medicine.

ECLS-SHOCK randomly assigned 420 patients with acute MI complicated by shock and slated for coronary revascularization to receive standard care with or without early ECMO at 44 centers in Germany and Slovenia. Their median age was 63 years, and about 81% were men.

The relative risk for death from any cause, ECMO vs. usual care, was flatly nonsignificant at 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.19; P = .81).

ECMO came at the cost of significantly more cases of the primary safety endpoint, moderate or severe bleeding by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. That endpoint was met by 23.4% of ECMO patients and 9.6% of the control group, for an RR of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.50-3.95).

Rates of stroke or systemic embolization were nonsignificantly different at 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.47-3.76).

Speaking with this news organization, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, pointed out that only 5.8% of the ECMO group but about 32% of those managed with usual care received some form of left ventricular (LV) unloading therapy.

Such measures can include atrial septostomy or the addition of an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous LV-assist pump.

Given that ECMO increases afterload, “which is physiologically detrimental in patients with an ongoing MI, one is left to wonder if the results would have been different with greater use of LV unloading,” said Dr. Bangalore, of NYU Langone Health, New York, who isn’t associated with ECLS-SHOCK.

Also, he pointed out, about 78% of the trial’s patients had experienced some degree of cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite exclusion of anyone who had undergone it for more than 45 minutes. That may make the study more generalizable but also harder to show a benefit from ECMO. “The overall prognosis of that subset of patients despite heroic efforts is bleak at best.”

Dr. Thiele had no disclosures; statements for the other authors can be found at nejm.org. Dr. Bangalore has previously disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic. Dr. Leopold reports grants from Astellas and personal fees from United Therapeutics, Abbott Vascular, and North America Thrombosis Forum. Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman both report employment by The New England Journal of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – Adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) but without diabetes showed significant improvements in their heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, exercise function, and weight loss when treated with a weight-reducing dose of semaglutide for 52 weeks, compared with placebo, in the randomized STEP-HFpEF trial.

The results, which also showed the treatment’s safety in these patients, “indicate that treatment with semaglutide is a valuable therapeutic approach in the management of patients with HFpEF and obesity,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings establish semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, as a second class of medication with proven efficacy and safety for people with HFpEF, joining two agents also proven beneficial for people with HFpEF, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), both from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

When administered at the approved dose for weight loss of 2.4 mg, injected subcutaneously weekly for 52 weeks, semaglutide (Wegovy) produced an average 7.8-point incremental improvement in patients’ scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of symptoms and functional limitations, compared with controls who received placebo injections, as well as an average incremental weight loss from baseline, compared with placebo, of 10.7%. Both were significant effects, compared with placebo, and clinically meaningful benefits for the study’s two primary endpoints.

Simultaneously with Kosiborod’s report the results also appeared in a report posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A ‘paradigm shift’ for medical weight loss in cardiology

The findings from this study with 529 randomized patients immediately propelled the weight loss formulation of semaglutide into the ranks of agents used to treat and prevent cardiovascular disease events. This evolution in the indications for semaglutide will be driven not only by the STEP-HFpEF results but also by findings from the SELECT trial, which tested the same semaglutide weight-loss dose in people with obesity, established cardiovascular disease, and had positive top-line results for prevention of major cardiovascular adverse events, according to a press release from Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8.

The STEP-HFpEF and SELECT results will trigger “a paradigm shift” for cardiologists, who will now need to consider prescribing a weight-loss medication to many of their patients, agents that until now were not part of the usual pharmacologic toolbox for cardiologists, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. This shift will require education to bring the clinical cardiology community on board, he added in an interview.

Given that semaglutide administered at this dose already has a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity, clinicians could immediately start using the treatment in people with obesity and HFpEF, said Dr. Kosiborod and other cardiologists.

Weekly semaglutide injections “could be considered a treatment option right now” for people with obesity and HFpEF, Dr. Kosiborod said during a press briefing.

Other experts agreed, especially because the STEP-HFpEF results confirmed that weight loss treatment with semaglutide was safe in this population.
 

‘A terrific win for patients’

The new findings are “a terrific win and game changer for patients with HFpEF,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study.

“The magnitude of improvement in the patient-reported health status scores are large and impressive. These data support clinical use of this agent for individuals with HFpEF with a body mass index of 30 kg/m², patients who already fall within existing indications,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

“Given the improvements in clinical outcomes in the STEP-HFpEF and SELECT trials, cardiologists should be prescribing these medications to eligible patients without conditions,” he added. “The perception of [semaglutide] needs to shift and be viewed as a component of the comprehensive medical therapies provided to individuals with established cardiovascular disease or HFpEF who also have elevated body mass index to improve their clinical outcomes.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Historically, cardiologists have had a concern that weight loss was potentially harmful in people with heart failure and that obesity was protective, a phenomenon known as the “obesity paradox,” but the STEP-HFpEF data help disprove that notion, commented Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, a heart failure specialist and vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who also was not involved in the study.
 

No signal of an obesity paradox

“There’s been a concern in the heart failure community to use weight-loss strategies in people with heart failure because of this, but this evidence provides a lot of confidence that it’s safe to use this weight loss treatment. The results show that patients feel better and lose weight with no signal of harm,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview.

The “encouraging findings” for semaglutide in patients with HFpEF “potentially add a much needed extra option for these patients and provide another upstream treatment for patients with signs of this condition plus a high body mass index,” commented Yigal M. Pinto, MD, PhD, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

“How these findings translate to hard end points remains to be established and will be important in determining the role of GLP-1 agonism,” wrote Dr. Pinto, a professor and heart failure specialist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

But Dr. Kosiborod said that the improvement seen in the KCCQ score was itself an important benefit for patients. “Heart failure is defined clinically based on symptoms,” he noted, and results in prior studies documented that patients value improvements in symptoms and physical limitations even more than they value “hard endpoints” such as survival.

The new findings, which indicate that two different and expensive classes of medications are now standard of care for many people with HFpEF and obesity – the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide – also raise concerns over patient access and affordability, as many U.S. insurers have a history of requiring prior authorization, high copays, or coverage denials for these two medical classes.

But Dr. Sweitzer and Dr. Kosiborod both said that the insurance-coverage climate seems, in just the past couple of years or so, to have dramatically improved, although it’s still not ideal.
 

Prior authorization hoops have decreased

“We still have prior-authorization hoops to jump through, but I expect these will continue to decrease over time as evidence for clinical benefits [from weight loss] continues to accumulate,” said Dr. Sweitzer.

And “the SELECT data mean that cardiologists will need to become comfortable prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists,” she added.

“It’s not okay for insurers to say we are not going to cover weight loss medications because it’s a cosmetic indication,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Obesity appears to be very important in the pathogenesis and progression of heart failure, and if patients derive substantial benefit, they should have access to this treatment.”

The improvements in KCCQ score, as well as in several secondary and exploratory endpoints including a significant reduction in C-reactive protein (an indication of a potent anti-inflammatory effect), an average 20 m increase in 6-minute walk distance, a significant average drop in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and a drop in heart failure hospitalizations or urgent heart failure visits (although the trial was not powered to show differences in clinical events), “were the largest benefits in these outcomes we’ve seen,” compared with any other medical intervention in people with HFpEF, he noted.

“About 80% of U.S. patients with HFpEF have obesity or overweight,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. Using semaglutide on these patients “is an issue of access and insurance coverage. My hope is that these and other data will favorably change this.”

A related trial with a similar design, STEP-HFpEF DM, is still in progress and testing the same semaglutide treatment in adults with HFpEF, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, noted Dr. Kosiborod, who is also lead investigator for that study. He said those results will likely become available before the end of 2023.

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. He has also been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Sweitzer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – Adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) but without diabetes showed significant improvements in their heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, exercise function, and weight loss when treated with a weight-reducing dose of semaglutide for 52 weeks, compared with placebo, in the randomized STEP-HFpEF trial.

The results, which also showed the treatment’s safety in these patients, “indicate that treatment with semaglutide is a valuable therapeutic approach in the management of patients with HFpEF and obesity,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings establish semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, as a second class of medication with proven efficacy and safety for people with HFpEF, joining two agents also proven beneficial for people with HFpEF, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), both from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

When administered at the approved dose for weight loss of 2.4 mg, injected subcutaneously weekly for 52 weeks, semaglutide (Wegovy) produced an average 7.8-point incremental improvement in patients’ scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of symptoms and functional limitations, compared with controls who received placebo injections, as well as an average incremental weight loss from baseline, compared with placebo, of 10.7%. Both were significant effects, compared with placebo, and clinically meaningful benefits for the study’s two primary endpoints.

Simultaneously with Kosiborod’s report the results also appeared in a report posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A ‘paradigm shift’ for medical weight loss in cardiology

The findings from this study with 529 randomized patients immediately propelled the weight loss formulation of semaglutide into the ranks of agents used to treat and prevent cardiovascular disease events. This evolution in the indications for semaglutide will be driven not only by the STEP-HFpEF results but also by findings from the SELECT trial, which tested the same semaglutide weight-loss dose in people with obesity, established cardiovascular disease, and had positive top-line results for prevention of major cardiovascular adverse events, according to a press release from Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8.

The STEP-HFpEF and SELECT results will trigger “a paradigm shift” for cardiologists, who will now need to consider prescribing a weight-loss medication to many of their patients, agents that until now were not part of the usual pharmacologic toolbox for cardiologists, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. This shift will require education to bring the clinical cardiology community on board, he added in an interview.

Given that semaglutide administered at this dose already has a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity, clinicians could immediately start using the treatment in people with obesity and HFpEF, said Dr. Kosiborod and other cardiologists.

Weekly semaglutide injections “could be considered a treatment option right now” for people with obesity and HFpEF, Dr. Kosiborod said during a press briefing.

Other experts agreed, especially because the STEP-HFpEF results confirmed that weight loss treatment with semaglutide was safe in this population.
 

‘A terrific win for patients’

The new findings are “a terrific win and game changer for patients with HFpEF,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study.

“The magnitude of improvement in the patient-reported health status scores are large and impressive. These data support clinical use of this agent for individuals with HFpEF with a body mass index of 30 kg/m², patients who already fall within existing indications,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

“Given the improvements in clinical outcomes in the STEP-HFpEF and SELECT trials, cardiologists should be prescribing these medications to eligible patients without conditions,” he added. “The perception of [semaglutide] needs to shift and be viewed as a component of the comprehensive medical therapies provided to individuals with established cardiovascular disease or HFpEF who also have elevated body mass index to improve their clinical outcomes.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Historically, cardiologists have had a concern that weight loss was potentially harmful in people with heart failure and that obesity was protective, a phenomenon known as the “obesity paradox,” but the STEP-HFpEF data help disprove that notion, commented Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, a heart failure specialist and vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who also was not involved in the study.
 

No signal of an obesity paradox

“There’s been a concern in the heart failure community to use weight-loss strategies in people with heart failure because of this, but this evidence provides a lot of confidence that it’s safe to use this weight loss treatment. The results show that patients feel better and lose weight with no signal of harm,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview.

The “encouraging findings” for semaglutide in patients with HFpEF “potentially add a much needed extra option for these patients and provide another upstream treatment for patients with signs of this condition plus a high body mass index,” commented Yigal M. Pinto, MD, PhD, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

“How these findings translate to hard end points remains to be established and will be important in determining the role of GLP-1 agonism,” wrote Dr. Pinto, a professor and heart failure specialist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

But Dr. Kosiborod said that the improvement seen in the KCCQ score was itself an important benefit for patients. “Heart failure is defined clinically based on symptoms,” he noted, and results in prior studies documented that patients value improvements in symptoms and physical limitations even more than they value “hard endpoints” such as survival.

The new findings, which indicate that two different and expensive classes of medications are now standard of care for many people with HFpEF and obesity – the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide – also raise concerns over patient access and affordability, as many U.S. insurers have a history of requiring prior authorization, high copays, or coverage denials for these two medical classes.

But Dr. Sweitzer and Dr. Kosiborod both said that the insurance-coverage climate seems, in just the past couple of years or so, to have dramatically improved, although it’s still not ideal.
 

Prior authorization hoops have decreased

“We still have prior-authorization hoops to jump through, but I expect these will continue to decrease over time as evidence for clinical benefits [from weight loss] continues to accumulate,” said Dr. Sweitzer.

And “the SELECT data mean that cardiologists will need to become comfortable prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists,” she added.

“It’s not okay for insurers to say we are not going to cover weight loss medications because it’s a cosmetic indication,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Obesity appears to be very important in the pathogenesis and progression of heart failure, and if patients derive substantial benefit, they should have access to this treatment.”

The improvements in KCCQ score, as well as in several secondary and exploratory endpoints including a significant reduction in C-reactive protein (an indication of a potent anti-inflammatory effect), an average 20 m increase in 6-minute walk distance, a significant average drop in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and a drop in heart failure hospitalizations or urgent heart failure visits (although the trial was not powered to show differences in clinical events), “were the largest benefits in these outcomes we’ve seen,” compared with any other medical intervention in people with HFpEF, he noted.

“About 80% of U.S. patients with HFpEF have obesity or overweight,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. Using semaglutide on these patients “is an issue of access and insurance coverage. My hope is that these and other data will favorably change this.”

A related trial with a similar design, STEP-HFpEF DM, is still in progress and testing the same semaglutide treatment in adults with HFpEF, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, noted Dr. Kosiborod, who is also lead investigator for that study. He said those results will likely become available before the end of 2023.

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. He has also been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Sweitzer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – Adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) but without diabetes showed significant improvements in their heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, exercise function, and weight loss when treated with a weight-reducing dose of semaglutide for 52 weeks, compared with placebo, in the randomized STEP-HFpEF trial.

The results, which also showed the treatment’s safety in these patients, “indicate that treatment with semaglutide is a valuable therapeutic approach in the management of patients with HFpEF and obesity,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings establish semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, as a second class of medication with proven efficacy and safety for people with HFpEF, joining two agents also proven beneficial for people with HFpEF, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), both from the class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

When administered at the approved dose for weight loss of 2.4 mg, injected subcutaneously weekly for 52 weeks, semaglutide (Wegovy) produced an average 7.8-point incremental improvement in patients’ scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a validated measure of symptoms and functional limitations, compared with controls who received placebo injections, as well as an average incremental weight loss from baseline, compared with placebo, of 10.7%. Both were significant effects, compared with placebo, and clinically meaningful benefits for the study’s two primary endpoints.

Simultaneously with Kosiborod’s report the results also appeared in a report posted online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

A ‘paradigm shift’ for medical weight loss in cardiology

The findings from this study with 529 randomized patients immediately propelled the weight loss formulation of semaglutide into the ranks of agents used to treat and prevent cardiovascular disease events. This evolution in the indications for semaglutide will be driven not only by the STEP-HFpEF results but also by findings from the SELECT trial, which tested the same semaglutide weight-loss dose in people with obesity, established cardiovascular disease, and had positive top-line results for prevention of major cardiovascular adverse events, according to a press release from Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8.

The STEP-HFpEF and SELECT results will trigger “a paradigm shift” for cardiologists, who will now need to consider prescribing a weight-loss medication to many of their patients, agents that until now were not part of the usual pharmacologic toolbox for cardiologists, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. This shift will require education to bring the clinical cardiology community on board, he added in an interview.

Given that semaglutide administered at this dose already has a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity, clinicians could immediately start using the treatment in people with obesity and HFpEF, said Dr. Kosiborod and other cardiologists.

Weekly semaglutide injections “could be considered a treatment option right now” for people with obesity and HFpEF, Dr. Kosiborod said during a press briefing.

Other experts agreed, especially because the STEP-HFpEF results confirmed that weight loss treatment with semaglutide was safe in this population.
 

‘A terrific win for patients’

The new findings are “a terrific win and game changer for patients with HFpEF,” commented Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, professor and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study.

“The magnitude of improvement in the patient-reported health status scores are large and impressive. These data support clinical use of this agent for individuals with HFpEF with a body mass index of 30 kg/m², patients who already fall within existing indications,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview.

“Given the improvements in clinical outcomes in the STEP-HFpEF and SELECT trials, cardiologists should be prescribing these medications to eligible patients without conditions,” he added. “The perception of [semaglutide] needs to shift and be viewed as a component of the comprehensive medical therapies provided to individuals with established cardiovascular disease or HFpEF who also have elevated body mass index to improve their clinical outcomes.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Historically, cardiologists have had a concern that weight loss was potentially harmful in people with heart failure and that obesity was protective, a phenomenon known as the “obesity paradox,” but the STEP-HFpEF data help disprove that notion, commented Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, a heart failure specialist and vice chair of clinical research in the department of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, who also was not involved in the study.
 

No signal of an obesity paradox

“There’s been a concern in the heart failure community to use weight-loss strategies in people with heart failure because of this, but this evidence provides a lot of confidence that it’s safe to use this weight loss treatment. The results show that patients feel better and lose weight with no signal of harm,” Dr. Sweitzer said in an interview.

The “encouraging findings” for semaglutide in patients with HFpEF “potentially add a much needed extra option for these patients and provide another upstream treatment for patients with signs of this condition plus a high body mass index,” commented Yigal M. Pinto, MD, PhD, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

“How these findings translate to hard end points remains to be established and will be important in determining the role of GLP-1 agonism,” wrote Dr. Pinto, a professor and heart failure specialist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

But Dr. Kosiborod said that the improvement seen in the KCCQ score was itself an important benefit for patients. “Heart failure is defined clinically based on symptoms,” he noted, and results in prior studies documented that patients value improvements in symptoms and physical limitations even more than they value “hard endpoints” such as survival.

The new findings, which indicate that two different and expensive classes of medications are now standard of care for many people with HFpEF and obesity – the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide – also raise concerns over patient access and affordability, as many U.S. insurers have a history of requiring prior authorization, high copays, or coverage denials for these two medical classes.

But Dr. Sweitzer and Dr. Kosiborod both said that the insurance-coverage climate seems, in just the past couple of years or so, to have dramatically improved, although it’s still not ideal.
 

Prior authorization hoops have decreased

“We still have prior-authorization hoops to jump through, but I expect these will continue to decrease over time as evidence for clinical benefits [from weight loss] continues to accumulate,” said Dr. Sweitzer.

And “the SELECT data mean that cardiologists will need to become comfortable prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists,” she added.

“It’s not okay for insurers to say we are not going to cover weight loss medications because it’s a cosmetic indication,” said Dr. Kosiborod. “Obesity appears to be very important in the pathogenesis and progression of heart failure, and if patients derive substantial benefit, they should have access to this treatment.”

The improvements in KCCQ score, as well as in several secondary and exploratory endpoints including a significant reduction in C-reactive protein (an indication of a potent anti-inflammatory effect), an average 20 m increase in 6-minute walk distance, a significant average drop in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, and a drop in heart failure hospitalizations or urgent heart failure visits (although the trial was not powered to show differences in clinical events), “were the largest benefits in these outcomes we’ve seen,” compared with any other medical intervention in people with HFpEF, he noted.

“About 80% of U.S. patients with HFpEF have obesity or overweight,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. Using semaglutide on these patients “is an issue of access and insurance coverage. My hope is that these and other data will favorably change this.”

A related trial with a similar design, STEP-HFpEF DM, is still in progress and testing the same semaglutide treatment in adults with HFpEF, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, noted Dr. Kosiborod, who is also lead investigator for that study. He said those results will likely become available before the end of 2023.

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant and adviser to and has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk. He has also been a consultant to numerous other companies, received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer, honoraria from AstraZeneca, and is a stockholder in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Regeneron. Dr. Sweitzer reported no relevant financial relationships.

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