Heart Failure

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, a pillar of therapy for patients with chronic heart failure with below-normal ejection fraction, came suggestively close to showing efficacy for preventing cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients who have just had an MI but have no history of heart failure in a controlled trial with more than 5,600 patients.

Although sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) fell short of producing a significant benefit, it did show good safety that was similar to the study’s comparator treatment, ramipril, an agent from the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor class that is a mainstay of treatment in these patients.

“To say that, with no run-in, sacubitril/valsartan is as well tolerated and as safe as one of the best-studied ACE inhibitors – ramipril – in acutely ill MI patients, is a big statement,” said Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. This high level of safety without gradual uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) “should lower barriers” to broader use of the dual-drug formulation for its approved indication in patients with chronic heart failure, especially patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction that is below normal. In addition, results from the PARADISE-MI trial suggested that “patients seemed to benefit before they develop heart failure. We couldn’t prove that, but we should build on this, and make it easier for patients to use this treatment,” Dr. Pfeffer said during a press briefing following his talk at the sessions.

Preventing heart failures to come

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in acute MI patients within a few days of their event “is perhaps addressing prevention of the heart failure that’s to come,” commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, designated discussant for the report and professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. “Patients who are destined to develop heart failure are beginning their treatment early. The subgroup analyses suggest that it’s the sicker patients who benefited the most,” she said.

But Dr. Pfeffer stressed that “I don’t think this is a subgroup discussion. I would like to pursue this, but that’s up to the sponsor,” Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan.

‘Exceedingly reassuring’ safety

The safety data that Dr. Pfeffer reported “are exceedingly reassuring. We didn’t see a signal of harm, and in some of the exploratory endpoints there was some evidence of benefit, so we need to encourage you to continue,” commented Mary N. Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation program at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis.

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI vs. ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI) trial enrolled 5,669 patients with no history of heart failure within an average of 4 days following an acute MI at 495 sites in 41 countries during 2016-2020, with 8% of enrolled patients from the United States. Patients averaged 64 years of age, about three-quarters were men, about 43% had a history of diabetes, and only 1% were Black; Dr. Pfeffer noted that this is because most patients came from countries with low Black populations. The enrollment criteria required a left ventricular ejection fraction no greater than 40%, and among the enrolled patients this averaged about 37%.

A 10% nonsignificant relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined first-event rate of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an outpatient visit for heart failure. During a median follow-up of 23 months, this occurred at a rate of 7.4/100 patient years in the ramipril arm and 6.7/100 patient years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm, a 10% relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan that was not significant, which meant all other efficacy analyses were exploratory, Dr. Pfeffer stressed.

Several secondary efficacy analyses showed significant benefits from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, including the total number of events that comprised the primary endpoint, with a 21% relative risk reduction associated with sacubitril/valsartan, as well as investigator-reported events. The primary-endpoint benefit from sacubitril/valsartan was also significant in two subgroup analyses: patients aged 65 years or older (roughly half the study cohort), who had a 24% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, and the 88% of patients who received treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention for their acute MI, who had a 19% relative risk reduction on sacubitril/valsartan, compared with patients who received ramipril.

The study’s safety data showed nearly identical rates in the two treatment arms for total adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events that led to stopping the study drug, as well as in laboratory measures. The biggest between-treatment differences were a modest excess of hypotension on sacubitril valsartan, 28%, compared with 22% on ramipril, and a modest excess rate of cough on ramipril, 13%, compared with 9% on sacubitril/valsartan.

The added insight the results provide about sacubitril/valsartan comes at a time when U.S. patients continue to struggle to get health insurance coverage for an agent that has been approved for U.S. use in treating heart failure since 2015.

“Our patients do not have access to this important treatment,” declared Dr. Walsh during the press briefing. “The prior authorization process is unbelievable, and some patients have no access unless they pay the full cost on their own. This is an important, real-world problem that we face with this drug.”

PARADISE-MI was sponsored by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Pfeffer has received research funding from and is a consultant to Novartis. He is also a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvidia, DalCor, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Peerbridge, and Sanofi, and he holds equity in DalCor and Peerbridge. Dr. Stevenson has received honoraria from LivaNova and has received research support from Abbott. Dr. Walsh had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

In 2016, results from the LEADER trial of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes helped jump-start awareness of the potential role of this new class of drugs, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, for reducing cardiovascular events. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled more than 9000 patients at more than 400 sites in over 30 countries, and took nearly 6 years from the start of patient enrollment to publication of the landmark results.

In December 2020, an independent team of researchers published results from a study with a design identical to LEADER, but used data that came not from a massive, global, years-long trial but from already-existing numbers culled from three large U.S. insurance claim databases. The result of this emulation using real-world data was virtually identical to what the actual trial showed, replicating both the direction and statistical significance of the original finding of the randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

What if research proved that this sort of RCT emulation could reliably be done on a regular basis? What might it mean for regulatory decisions on drugs and devices that historically have been based entirely on efficacy evidence from RCTs?
 

Making the most of a sea of observational data

Medicine in the United States has become increasingly awash in a sea of observational data collected from sources that include electronic health records, insurance claims, and increasingly, personal-health monitoring devices.

The Food and Drug Administration is now in the process of trying to figure out how it can legitimately harness this tsunami of real-world data to make efficacy decisions, essentially creating a new category of evidence to complement traditional data from randomized trials. It’s an opportunity that agency staff and their outside advisors have been keen to seize, especially given the soaring cost of prospective, randomized trials.

Recognition of this untapped resource in part led to a key initiative, among many others, included in the 21st Century Cures Act, passed in December 2016. Among the Act’s mandates was that, by the end of 2021, the FDA would issue guidance on when drug sponsors could use real-world evidence (RWE) to either help support a new indication for an already approved drug or help satisfy postapproval study requirements.

The initiative recognizes that this approach is not appropriate for initial drug approvals, which remain exclusively reliant on evidence from RCTs. Instead, it seems best suited to support expanding indications for already approved drugs.

Although FDA staff have made progress in identifying the challenges and broadening their understanding of how to best handle real-world data that come from observing patients in routine practice, agency leaders stress that this complex issue will likely not be fully resolved by their guidance to be published later this year. The FDA released a draft of the guidance in May 2019.
 

Can RWE be ‘credible and reliable?’

“Whether observational, nonrandomized data can become credible enough to use is what we’re talking about. These are possibilities that need to be explained and better understood,” said Robert Temple, MD, deputy director for clinical science of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Since the 1970s, the FDA has recognized historical controls as legitimate, so it’s possible [for RWE] to be credible. The big test is when is it credible and reliable enough [to assess efficacy]?” wondered Dr. Temple during a 2-day workshop on the topic held mid-February and organized by Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy.

“We’re approaching an inflection point regarding how observational studies are generated and used, but our evidentiary standards will not lower, and it will be a case-by-case decision” by the agency as they review future RWE submissions, said John Concato, MD, the FDA’s associate director for real-world evidence, during the workshop.

“We are working toward guidance development, but also looking down the road to what we need to do to enable this,” said Dr. Concato. “It’s a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have already been fixed.” He added that the agency will likely release a “portfolio” of guidance for submitting real-world data and RWE. Real-world data are raw information that, when analyzed, become RWE.

In short, the FDA seems headed toward guidance that won’t spell out a pathway that guarantees success using RWE but will at least open the door to consideration of this unprecedented application.
 

Not like flipping a switch

The guidance will not activate acceptance of RWE all at once. “It’s not like a light switch,” cautioned Adam Kroetsch, MPP, research director for biomedical innovation and regulatory policy at Duke-Margolis in Washington, D.C. “It’s an evolutionary process,” and the upcoming guidance will provide “just a little more clarity” on what sorts of best practices using RWE the FDA will find persuasive. “It’s hard for the FDA to clearly say what it’s looking for until they see some good examples,” Dr. Kroetsch said in an interview.

What will change is that drug sponsors can submit using RWE, and the FDA “will have a more open-minded view,” predicted Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD, a workshop participant and chief of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “For the first time, a law required [the FDA] to take a serious look” at observational data for efficacy assessment.

“The FDA has had a bias against using RWE for evidence of efficacy but has long used it to understand drug safety. Now the FDA is trying to wrap its arms around how to best use RWE” for efficacy decisions, said Joseph S. Ross, MD, another workshop participant and professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The agency’s cautious approach is reassuring, Dr. Ross noted in an interview. “There was worry that the 21st Century Cures Act would open the door to allowing real-world data to be used in ways that weren’t very reliable. Very quickly, the FDA started trying to figure out the best ways to use these data in reasonable ways.”
 

Duplicating RCTs with RWE

To help better understand the potential use of RWE, the FDA sponsored several demonstration projects. Researchers presented results from three of these projects during the workshop in February. All three examined whether RWE, plugged into the design of an actual RCT, can produce roughly similar results when similar patients are used.

A generally consistent finding from the three demonstration projects was that “when the data are fit for purpose” the emulated or duplicated analyses with RWE “can come to similar conclusions” as the actual RCTs, said Dr. Schneeweiss, who leads one of the demonstration projects, RCT DUPLICATE.

At the workshop he reported results from RWE duplications of 20 different RCTs using insurance claims data from U.S. patients. The findings came from 10 duplications already reported in Circulation in December 2020 (including a duplication of the LEADER trial), and an additional 10 as yet unpublished RCT duplications. In the next few months, the researchers intend to assess a final group of 10 more RCT duplications.

Workshop participants also presented results from two other FDA demonstration projects: the OPERAND program run by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard; and the CERSI program based at Yale and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Both are smaller in scale than RCT DUPLICATE, incorporate lab data in addition to claims data, and in some cases test how well RWE can emulate RCTs that are not yet completed.

Collectively, results from these demonstration projects suggest that RWE can successfully emulate the results of an RCT, said Dr. Ross, a coinvestigator on the CERSI study. But the CERSI findings also highlighted how an RCT can fall short of clinical relevance.

“One of our most important findings was that RCTs don’t always represent real-world practice,” he said. His group attempted to replicate the 5,000-patient GRADE trial of four different drug options added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the four options included insulin glargine (Lantus), and the attempt to emulate the study with RWE hit the bump that no relevant real-world patients in their US claims database actually received the formulation.

That means the GRADE trial “is almost meaningless. It doesn’t reflect real-world practice,” Dr. Ross noted.

Results from the three demonstration projects “highlight the gaps we still have,” summed up Dr. Kroetsch. “They show where we need better data” from observational sources that function as well as data from RCTs.

Still, the demonstration project results are “an important step forward in establishing the validity of real-world evidence,” commented David Kerr, MBChB, an endocrinologist and director of research and innovation at the Sansum Diabetes Research Institute in Santa Barbara, Calif.
 

‘Target trials’ tether RWE

The target trial approach to designing an observational study is a key tool for boosting reliability and applicability of the results. The idea is to create a well-designed trial that could be the basis for a conventional RCT, and then use observational data to flesh out the target trial instead of collecting data from prospectively enrolled patients.

Designing observational studies that emulate target trials allows causal inferences, said Miguel A. Hernán, MD, DrPH, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Plugging real-world data into the framework of an appropriately designed target trial substantially cuts the risk of a biased analysis, he explained during the workshop.

However, the approach has limitations. The target trial must be a pragmatic trial, and the approach does not work for placebo-controlled trials, although it can accommodate a usual-care control arm. It also usually precludes patient blinding, testing treatments not used in routine practice, and close monitoring of patients in ways that are uncommon in usual care.

The target trial approach received broad endorsement during the workshop as the future for observational studies destined for efficacy consideration by the FDA.

“The idea of prespecifying a target trial is a really fantastic place to start,” commented Robert Ball, MD, deputy director of the FDA Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. “There is still a whole set of questions once the trial is prespecified, but prespecification would be a fantastic step forward,” he said during the workshop.

Participants also endorsed other important steps to boost the value of observational studies for regulatory reviews, including preregistering the study on a site such as clinicaltrials.gov; being fully transparent about the origins of observational data; using data that match the needs of the target trial; not reviewing the data in advance to avoid cherry picking and gaming the analysis; and reporting neutral or negative results when they occur, something often not currently done for observational analyses.

But although there was clear progress and much agreement among thought leaders at the workshop, FDA representatives stressed caution in moving forward.
 

“No easy answer”

“With more experience, we can learn what works and what doesn’t work in generating valid results from observational studies,” said Dr. Concato. “Although the observational results have upside potential, we need to learn more. There is no easy answer, no checklist for fit-for-use data, no off-the-shelf study design, and no ideal analytic method.”

Dr. Concato acknowledged that the FDA’s goal is clear given the 2016 legislation. “The FDA is embracing our obligations under the 21st Century Cures Act to evaluate use of real-world data and real-world evidence.”

He also suggested that researchers “shy away from a false dichotomy of RCTs or observational studies and instead think about how and when RCTs and observational studies can be designed and conducted to yield trustworthy results.” Dr. Concato’s solution: “a taxonomy of interventional or noninterventional studies.”

“The FDA is under enormous pressure to embrace real-world evidence, both because of the economics of running RCTs and because of the availability of new observational data from electronic health records, wearable devices, claims, etc.,” said Dr. Kerr, who did not participate in the workshop but coauthored an editorial that calls for using real-world data in regulatory decisions for drugs and devices for diabetes. These factors create an “irresistible force” spurring the FDA to consider observational, noninterventional data.

“I think the FDA really wants this to go forward,” Dr. Kerr added in an interview. “The FDA keeps telling us that clinical trials do not have enough women or patients from minority groups. Real-world data is a way to address that. This will not be the death of RCTs, but this work shines a light on the deficiencies of RCTs and how the deficiencies can be dealt with.”

Dr. Kroetsch has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schneeweiss has reported being a consultant to and holding equity in Aetion and receiving research funding from the FDA. Dr. Ross has reported receiving research funding from the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Dr. Hernán has reported being a consultant for Cytel. Dr. Kerr has reported being a consultant for Ascensia, EOFlow, Lifecare, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Voluntis. Dr. Temple, Dr. Concato, and Dr. Ball are FDA employees.

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

In 2016, results from the LEADER trial of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes helped jump-start awareness of the potential role of this new class of drugs, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, for reducing cardiovascular events. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled more than 9000 patients at more than 400 sites in over 30 countries, and took nearly 6 years from the start of patient enrollment to publication of the landmark results.

In December 2020, an independent team of researchers published results from a study with a design identical to LEADER, but used data that came not from a massive, global, years-long trial but from already-existing numbers culled from three large U.S. insurance claim databases. The result of this emulation using real-world data was virtually identical to what the actual trial showed, replicating both the direction and statistical significance of the original finding of the randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

What if research proved that this sort of RCT emulation could reliably be done on a regular basis? What might it mean for regulatory decisions on drugs and devices that historically have been based entirely on efficacy evidence from RCTs?
 

Making the most of a sea of observational data

Medicine in the United States has become increasingly awash in a sea of observational data collected from sources that include electronic health records, insurance claims, and increasingly, personal-health monitoring devices.

The Food and Drug Administration is now in the process of trying to figure out how it can legitimately harness this tsunami of real-world data to make efficacy decisions, essentially creating a new category of evidence to complement traditional data from randomized trials. It’s an opportunity that agency staff and their outside advisors have been keen to seize, especially given the soaring cost of prospective, randomized trials.

Recognition of this untapped resource in part led to a key initiative, among many others, included in the 21st Century Cures Act, passed in December 2016. Among the Act’s mandates was that, by the end of 2021, the FDA would issue guidance on when drug sponsors could use real-world evidence (RWE) to either help support a new indication for an already approved drug or help satisfy postapproval study requirements.

The initiative recognizes that this approach is not appropriate for initial drug approvals, which remain exclusively reliant on evidence from RCTs. Instead, it seems best suited to support expanding indications for already approved drugs.

Although FDA staff have made progress in identifying the challenges and broadening their understanding of how to best handle real-world data that come from observing patients in routine practice, agency leaders stress that this complex issue will likely not be fully resolved by their guidance to be published later this year. The FDA released a draft of the guidance in May 2019.
 

Can RWE be ‘credible and reliable?’

“Whether observational, nonrandomized data can become credible enough to use is what we’re talking about. These are possibilities that need to be explained and better understood,” said Robert Temple, MD, deputy director for clinical science of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Since the 1970s, the FDA has recognized historical controls as legitimate, so it’s possible [for RWE] to be credible. The big test is when is it credible and reliable enough [to assess efficacy]?” wondered Dr. Temple during a 2-day workshop on the topic held mid-February and organized by Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy.

“We’re approaching an inflection point regarding how observational studies are generated and used, but our evidentiary standards will not lower, and it will be a case-by-case decision” by the agency as they review future RWE submissions, said John Concato, MD, the FDA’s associate director for real-world evidence, during the workshop.

“We are working toward guidance development, but also looking down the road to what we need to do to enable this,” said Dr. Concato. “It’s a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have already been fixed.” He added that the agency will likely release a “portfolio” of guidance for submitting real-world data and RWE. Real-world data are raw information that, when analyzed, become RWE.

In short, the FDA seems headed toward guidance that won’t spell out a pathway that guarantees success using RWE but will at least open the door to consideration of this unprecedented application.
 

Not like flipping a switch

The guidance will not activate acceptance of RWE all at once. “It’s not like a light switch,” cautioned Adam Kroetsch, MPP, research director for biomedical innovation and regulatory policy at Duke-Margolis in Washington, D.C. “It’s an evolutionary process,” and the upcoming guidance will provide “just a little more clarity” on what sorts of best practices using RWE the FDA will find persuasive. “It’s hard for the FDA to clearly say what it’s looking for until they see some good examples,” Dr. Kroetsch said in an interview.

What will change is that drug sponsors can submit using RWE, and the FDA “will have a more open-minded view,” predicted Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD, a workshop participant and chief of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “For the first time, a law required [the FDA] to take a serious look” at observational data for efficacy assessment.

“The FDA has had a bias against using RWE for evidence of efficacy but has long used it to understand drug safety. Now the FDA is trying to wrap its arms around how to best use RWE” for efficacy decisions, said Joseph S. Ross, MD, another workshop participant and professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The agency’s cautious approach is reassuring, Dr. Ross noted in an interview. “There was worry that the 21st Century Cures Act would open the door to allowing real-world data to be used in ways that weren’t very reliable. Very quickly, the FDA started trying to figure out the best ways to use these data in reasonable ways.”
 

Duplicating RCTs with RWE

To help better understand the potential use of RWE, the FDA sponsored several demonstration projects. Researchers presented results from three of these projects during the workshop in February. All three examined whether RWE, plugged into the design of an actual RCT, can produce roughly similar results when similar patients are used.

A generally consistent finding from the three demonstration projects was that “when the data are fit for purpose” the emulated or duplicated analyses with RWE “can come to similar conclusions” as the actual RCTs, said Dr. Schneeweiss, who leads one of the demonstration projects, RCT DUPLICATE.

At the workshop he reported results from RWE duplications of 20 different RCTs using insurance claims data from U.S. patients. The findings came from 10 duplications already reported in Circulation in December 2020 (including a duplication of the LEADER trial), and an additional 10 as yet unpublished RCT duplications. In the next few months, the researchers intend to assess a final group of 10 more RCT duplications.

Workshop participants also presented results from two other FDA demonstration projects: the OPERAND program run by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard; and the CERSI program based at Yale and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Both are smaller in scale than RCT DUPLICATE, incorporate lab data in addition to claims data, and in some cases test how well RWE can emulate RCTs that are not yet completed.

Collectively, results from these demonstration projects suggest that RWE can successfully emulate the results of an RCT, said Dr. Ross, a coinvestigator on the CERSI study. But the CERSI findings also highlighted how an RCT can fall short of clinical relevance.

“One of our most important findings was that RCTs don’t always represent real-world practice,” he said. His group attempted to replicate the 5,000-patient GRADE trial of four different drug options added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the four options included insulin glargine (Lantus), and the attempt to emulate the study with RWE hit the bump that no relevant real-world patients in their US claims database actually received the formulation.

That means the GRADE trial “is almost meaningless. It doesn’t reflect real-world practice,” Dr. Ross noted.

Results from the three demonstration projects “highlight the gaps we still have,” summed up Dr. Kroetsch. “They show where we need better data” from observational sources that function as well as data from RCTs.

Still, the demonstration project results are “an important step forward in establishing the validity of real-world evidence,” commented David Kerr, MBChB, an endocrinologist and director of research and innovation at the Sansum Diabetes Research Institute in Santa Barbara, Calif.
 

‘Target trials’ tether RWE

The target trial approach to designing an observational study is a key tool for boosting reliability and applicability of the results. The idea is to create a well-designed trial that could be the basis for a conventional RCT, and then use observational data to flesh out the target trial instead of collecting data from prospectively enrolled patients.

Designing observational studies that emulate target trials allows causal inferences, said Miguel A. Hernán, MD, DrPH, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Plugging real-world data into the framework of an appropriately designed target trial substantially cuts the risk of a biased analysis, he explained during the workshop.

However, the approach has limitations. The target trial must be a pragmatic trial, and the approach does not work for placebo-controlled trials, although it can accommodate a usual-care control arm. It also usually precludes patient blinding, testing treatments not used in routine practice, and close monitoring of patients in ways that are uncommon in usual care.

The target trial approach received broad endorsement during the workshop as the future for observational studies destined for efficacy consideration by the FDA.

“The idea of prespecifying a target trial is a really fantastic place to start,” commented Robert Ball, MD, deputy director of the FDA Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. “There is still a whole set of questions once the trial is prespecified, but prespecification would be a fantastic step forward,” he said during the workshop.

Participants also endorsed other important steps to boost the value of observational studies for regulatory reviews, including preregistering the study on a site such as clinicaltrials.gov; being fully transparent about the origins of observational data; using data that match the needs of the target trial; not reviewing the data in advance to avoid cherry picking and gaming the analysis; and reporting neutral or negative results when they occur, something often not currently done for observational analyses.

But although there was clear progress and much agreement among thought leaders at the workshop, FDA representatives stressed caution in moving forward.
 

“No easy answer”

“With more experience, we can learn what works and what doesn’t work in generating valid results from observational studies,” said Dr. Concato. “Although the observational results have upside potential, we need to learn more. There is no easy answer, no checklist for fit-for-use data, no off-the-shelf study design, and no ideal analytic method.”

Dr. Concato acknowledged that the FDA’s goal is clear given the 2016 legislation. “The FDA is embracing our obligations under the 21st Century Cures Act to evaluate use of real-world data and real-world evidence.”

He also suggested that researchers “shy away from a false dichotomy of RCTs or observational studies and instead think about how and when RCTs and observational studies can be designed and conducted to yield trustworthy results.” Dr. Concato’s solution: “a taxonomy of interventional or noninterventional studies.”

“The FDA is under enormous pressure to embrace real-world evidence, both because of the economics of running RCTs and because of the availability of new observational data from electronic health records, wearable devices, claims, etc.,” said Dr. Kerr, who did not participate in the workshop but coauthored an editorial that calls for using real-world data in regulatory decisions for drugs and devices for diabetes. These factors create an “irresistible force” spurring the FDA to consider observational, noninterventional data.

“I think the FDA really wants this to go forward,” Dr. Kerr added in an interview. “The FDA keeps telling us that clinical trials do not have enough women or patients from minority groups. Real-world data is a way to address that. This will not be the death of RCTs, but this work shines a light on the deficiencies of RCTs and how the deficiencies can be dealt with.”

Dr. Kroetsch has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schneeweiss has reported being a consultant to and holding equity in Aetion and receiving research funding from the FDA. Dr. Ross has reported receiving research funding from the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Dr. Hernán has reported being a consultant for Cytel. Dr. Kerr has reported being a consultant for Ascensia, EOFlow, Lifecare, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Voluntis. Dr. Temple, Dr. Concato, and Dr. Ball are FDA employees.

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

In 2016, results from the LEADER trial of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes helped jump-start awareness of the potential role of this new class of drugs, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, for reducing cardiovascular events. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled more than 9000 patients at more than 400 sites in over 30 countries, and took nearly 6 years from the start of patient enrollment to publication of the landmark results.

In December 2020, an independent team of researchers published results from a study with a design identical to LEADER, but used data that came not from a massive, global, years-long trial but from already-existing numbers culled from three large U.S. insurance claim databases. The result of this emulation using real-world data was virtually identical to what the actual trial showed, replicating both the direction and statistical significance of the original finding of the randomized, controlled trial (RCT).

What if research proved that this sort of RCT emulation could reliably be done on a regular basis? What might it mean for regulatory decisions on drugs and devices that historically have been based entirely on efficacy evidence from RCTs?
 

Making the most of a sea of observational data

Medicine in the United States has become increasingly awash in a sea of observational data collected from sources that include electronic health records, insurance claims, and increasingly, personal-health monitoring devices.

The Food and Drug Administration is now in the process of trying to figure out how it can legitimately harness this tsunami of real-world data to make efficacy decisions, essentially creating a new category of evidence to complement traditional data from randomized trials. It’s an opportunity that agency staff and their outside advisors have been keen to seize, especially given the soaring cost of prospective, randomized trials.

Recognition of this untapped resource in part led to a key initiative, among many others, included in the 21st Century Cures Act, passed in December 2016. Among the Act’s mandates was that, by the end of 2021, the FDA would issue guidance on when drug sponsors could use real-world evidence (RWE) to either help support a new indication for an already approved drug or help satisfy postapproval study requirements.

The initiative recognizes that this approach is not appropriate for initial drug approvals, which remain exclusively reliant on evidence from RCTs. Instead, it seems best suited to support expanding indications for already approved drugs.

Although FDA staff have made progress in identifying the challenges and broadening their understanding of how to best handle real-world data that come from observing patients in routine practice, agency leaders stress that this complex issue will likely not be fully resolved by their guidance to be published later this year. The FDA released a draft of the guidance in May 2019.
 

Can RWE be ‘credible and reliable?’

“Whether observational, nonrandomized data can become credible enough to use is what we’re talking about. These are possibilities that need to be explained and better understood,” said Robert Temple, MD, deputy director for clinical science of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Since the 1970s, the FDA has recognized historical controls as legitimate, so it’s possible [for RWE] to be credible. The big test is when is it credible and reliable enough [to assess efficacy]?” wondered Dr. Temple during a 2-day workshop on the topic held mid-February and organized by Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy.

“We’re approaching an inflection point regarding how observational studies are generated and used, but our evidentiary standards will not lower, and it will be a case-by-case decision” by the agency as they review future RWE submissions, said John Concato, MD, the FDA’s associate director for real-world evidence, during the workshop.

“We are working toward guidance development, but also looking down the road to what we need to do to enable this,” said Dr. Concato. “It’s a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have already been fixed.” He added that the agency will likely release a “portfolio” of guidance for submitting real-world data and RWE. Real-world data are raw information that, when analyzed, become RWE.

In short, the FDA seems headed toward guidance that won’t spell out a pathway that guarantees success using RWE but will at least open the door to consideration of this unprecedented application.
 

Not like flipping a switch

The guidance will not activate acceptance of RWE all at once. “It’s not like a light switch,” cautioned Adam Kroetsch, MPP, research director for biomedical innovation and regulatory policy at Duke-Margolis in Washington, D.C. “It’s an evolutionary process,” and the upcoming guidance will provide “just a little more clarity” on what sorts of best practices using RWE the FDA will find persuasive. “It’s hard for the FDA to clearly say what it’s looking for until they see some good examples,” Dr. Kroetsch said in an interview.

What will change is that drug sponsors can submit using RWE, and the FDA “will have a more open-minded view,” predicted Sebastian Schneeweiss, MD, ScD, a workshop participant and chief of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “For the first time, a law required [the FDA] to take a serious look” at observational data for efficacy assessment.

“The FDA has had a bias against using RWE for evidence of efficacy but has long used it to understand drug safety. Now the FDA is trying to wrap its arms around how to best use RWE” for efficacy decisions, said Joseph S. Ross, MD, another workshop participant and professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The agency’s cautious approach is reassuring, Dr. Ross noted in an interview. “There was worry that the 21st Century Cures Act would open the door to allowing real-world data to be used in ways that weren’t very reliable. Very quickly, the FDA started trying to figure out the best ways to use these data in reasonable ways.”
 

Duplicating RCTs with RWE

To help better understand the potential use of RWE, the FDA sponsored several demonstration projects. Researchers presented results from three of these projects during the workshop in February. All three examined whether RWE, plugged into the design of an actual RCT, can produce roughly similar results when similar patients are used.

A generally consistent finding from the three demonstration projects was that “when the data are fit for purpose” the emulated or duplicated analyses with RWE “can come to similar conclusions” as the actual RCTs, said Dr. Schneeweiss, who leads one of the demonstration projects, RCT DUPLICATE.

At the workshop he reported results from RWE duplications of 20 different RCTs using insurance claims data from U.S. patients. The findings came from 10 duplications already reported in Circulation in December 2020 (including a duplication of the LEADER trial), and an additional 10 as yet unpublished RCT duplications. In the next few months, the researchers intend to assess a final group of 10 more RCT duplications.

Workshop participants also presented results from two other FDA demonstration projects: the OPERAND program run by the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard; and the CERSI program based at Yale and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Both are smaller in scale than RCT DUPLICATE, incorporate lab data in addition to claims data, and in some cases test how well RWE can emulate RCTs that are not yet completed.

Collectively, results from these demonstration projects suggest that RWE can successfully emulate the results of an RCT, said Dr. Ross, a coinvestigator on the CERSI study. But the CERSI findings also highlighted how an RCT can fall short of clinical relevance.

“One of our most important findings was that RCTs don’t always represent real-world practice,” he said. His group attempted to replicate the 5,000-patient GRADE trial of four different drug options added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the four options included insulin glargine (Lantus), and the attempt to emulate the study with RWE hit the bump that no relevant real-world patients in their US claims database actually received the formulation.

That means the GRADE trial “is almost meaningless. It doesn’t reflect real-world practice,” Dr. Ross noted.

Results from the three demonstration projects “highlight the gaps we still have,” summed up Dr. Kroetsch. “They show where we need better data” from observational sources that function as well as data from RCTs.

Still, the demonstration project results are “an important step forward in establishing the validity of real-world evidence,” commented David Kerr, MBChB, an endocrinologist and director of research and innovation at the Sansum Diabetes Research Institute in Santa Barbara, Calif.
 

‘Target trials’ tether RWE

The target trial approach to designing an observational study is a key tool for boosting reliability and applicability of the results. The idea is to create a well-designed trial that could be the basis for a conventional RCT, and then use observational data to flesh out the target trial instead of collecting data from prospectively enrolled patients.

Designing observational studies that emulate target trials allows causal inferences, said Miguel A. Hernán, MD, DrPH, a professor of biostatistics and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Plugging real-world data into the framework of an appropriately designed target trial substantially cuts the risk of a biased analysis, he explained during the workshop.

However, the approach has limitations. The target trial must be a pragmatic trial, and the approach does not work for placebo-controlled trials, although it can accommodate a usual-care control arm. It also usually precludes patient blinding, testing treatments not used in routine practice, and close monitoring of patients in ways that are uncommon in usual care.

The target trial approach received broad endorsement during the workshop as the future for observational studies destined for efficacy consideration by the FDA.

“The idea of prespecifying a target trial is a really fantastic place to start,” commented Robert Ball, MD, deputy director of the FDA Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. “There is still a whole set of questions once the trial is prespecified, but prespecification would be a fantastic step forward,” he said during the workshop.

Participants also endorsed other important steps to boost the value of observational studies for regulatory reviews, including preregistering the study on a site such as clinicaltrials.gov; being fully transparent about the origins of observational data; using data that match the needs of the target trial; not reviewing the data in advance to avoid cherry picking and gaming the analysis; and reporting neutral or negative results when they occur, something often not currently done for observational analyses.

But although there was clear progress and much agreement among thought leaders at the workshop, FDA representatives stressed caution in moving forward.
 

“No easy answer”

“With more experience, we can learn what works and what doesn’t work in generating valid results from observational studies,” said Dr. Concato. “Although the observational results have upside potential, we need to learn more. There is no easy answer, no checklist for fit-for-use data, no off-the-shelf study design, and no ideal analytic method.”

Dr. Concato acknowledged that the FDA’s goal is clear given the 2016 legislation. “The FDA is embracing our obligations under the 21st Century Cures Act to evaluate use of real-world data and real-world evidence.”

He also suggested that researchers “shy away from a false dichotomy of RCTs or observational studies and instead think about how and when RCTs and observational studies can be designed and conducted to yield trustworthy results.” Dr. Concato’s solution: “a taxonomy of interventional or noninterventional studies.”

“The FDA is under enormous pressure to embrace real-world evidence, both because of the economics of running RCTs and because of the availability of new observational data from electronic health records, wearable devices, claims, etc.,” said Dr. Kerr, who did not participate in the workshop but coauthored an editorial that calls for using real-world data in regulatory decisions for drugs and devices for diabetes. These factors create an “irresistible force” spurring the FDA to consider observational, noninterventional data.

“I think the FDA really wants this to go forward,” Dr. Kerr added in an interview. “The FDA keeps telling us that clinical trials do not have enough women or patients from minority groups. Real-world data is a way to address that. This will not be the death of RCTs, but this work shines a light on the deficiencies of RCTs and how the deficiencies can be dealt with.”

Dr. Kroetsch has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schneeweiss has reported being a consultant to and holding equity in Aetion and receiving research funding from the FDA. Dr. Ross has reported receiving research funding from the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Dr. Hernán has reported being a consultant for Cytel. Dr. Kerr has reported being a consultant for Ascensia, EOFlow, Lifecare, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Voluntis. Dr. Temple, Dr. Concato, and Dr. Ball are FDA employees.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

When starting a new loop diuretic for a patient with heart failure, strongly consider torsemide over furosemide, Anthony C. Breu, MD, advised at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

“Whether or not you take a patient who’s already on furosemide and you make the switch to torsemide is a little bit tougher for me to advocate, though that has happened in clinical trials,” said Dr. Breu, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who spoke May 5 at the Converge session “Things We Do for No Reason.” He co-presented the session with Leonard Feldman, MD, SFHM, director of the Osler Medical Residency Urban Health Track and associate professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“If you consider doing this it would make sense to do so concert with the outpatient primary doctor and the outpatient cardiologist,” Dr. Breu said. “But in my review of the literature, it’s at least worth having these discussions, particularly for a patient who has multiple readmissions for heart failure. That may be a time to pause and ask: ‘Could torsemide be of benefit here?’ ”

In Dr. Breu’s opinion, there are at least three reasons why consider torsemide should be considered a first-line treatment for heart failure. For one thing, the current evidence says so. In a trial published in 2001, researchers randomized 234 patients with heart failure to receive torsemide or furosemide for 1 year. The percentage of patients who had one or more hospital readmissions was lower among those who received torsemide, compared with those who received furosemide in the torsemide group for heart failure (17% vs. 32%, respectively; P < .01) and for other cardiovascular causes (44% vs. 59%; P = .03). In addition, the number of total admissions was numerically lower for patients in the torsemide group, compared with the furosemide group for heart failure (23 vs. 61; P < .01) and for cardiovascular causes (78 vs. 130; P = .02).

In a separate study, researchers conducted an open-label trial of 237 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV heart failure who were randomized to torsemide or furosemide. They found that a significantly higher percentage of patients in the torsemide group improved by one or more NYHA heart failure class, compared with those in the furosemide group (40%; P = .001 vs. 31%; P = .3). Moreover, patients treated with furosemide had more restrictions of daily life at 9 months, compared with those treated with torsemide (P < .001).

A separate, open-label, nonrandomized, postmarketing surveillance trial also found benefits of torsemide over furosemide or other agents used for patients with NYHA class III and IV heart failure. Patients treated with torsemide had a lower total mortality, compared with those treated with furosemide or other agents (2.2% vs. 4.5%, respectively; P < .05) as well as a lower cardiac mortality (1.4% vs. 3.5%; P < .05). They were also more likely to improve by one or more heart failure class (46% vs. 37%; P < .01) and less likely to have potassium levels less than 3.5 mEq/L or greater than 5.0 mEq/L (13% vs. 18%; P = .01).

According to Dr. Breu, meta-analyses of this topic consistently show that the NYHA class improved more with torsemide than with furosemide. “Some meta-analyses find a mortality benefit, while others find a readmissions benefit,” he said. “None of them show a benefit of furosemide over torsemide.”

A second reason to use torsemide as a first-line treatment for heart failure is that it has superior pharmacokinetics/dynamics, compared with furosemide. “We’ve all heard that furosemide has variable bioavailability,” said Dr. Breu, who also deputy editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do For No Reason” article series. “Torsemide and bumetanide are much more reliably absorbed, partially because they are not affected by food, whereas furosemide is. That could be potentially problematic for patients who take their diuretic with meals. The fact that torsemide has less renal clearance is a benefit, because patients with heart failure have changing renal function.” In addition, the half-life of torsemide is 3-4 hours and the duration of action is 12 hours, “which are both longer than those for furosemide or bumetanide,” he added.

He also pointed out that torsemide has been shown to block the aldosterone receptor in vitro and in rat models – an effect that has not been observed with other loop diuretics. A randomized trial of patients with chronic heart failure found that levels of renin and aldosterone increased more with torsemide, compared with furosemide, supporting the hypothesis of aldosterone receptor blockade.

A third main reason to use torsemide as your go-to for heart failure has to do with its purported antifibrotic effects, “so that it could be more than a diuretic,” Dr. Breu said. “In heart failure, myocardial fibrosis occurs from increased collagen synthesis and turnover. Aldosterone has been shown to play a role in this myocardial fibrosis. Spironolactone has been shown to mitigate this to some extent. If torsemide acts a little like spironolactone, maybe that could explain some of the long-term effects that we see in these studies.”

A study supporting this notion found that torsemide but not furosemide reduced levels of serum carboxyl-terminal peptide of procollagen type I, which is associated with exaggerated myocardial deposition of collagen type I fibers in cardiac diseases.

Going forward, a study known as TRANSFORM-HF, which is currently recruiting about 6,000 patients, should bring more clarity to the topic. The primary objective is to compare the treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on clinical outcomes over 12 months in patients with heart failure who are hospitalized. The estimated completion is mid-2022.

Dr. Breu and Dr. Feldman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

Inequities in the initial growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) programs in American hospitals has led to less use of the transformative procedure in poorer communities, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Using Medicare claims data, investigators identified 554 new TAVR programs created between January 2012 and December 2018.

Of these, 98% were established in metropolitan areas (>50,000 residents) and 53% were started in areas with preexisting TAVR programs, “thereby increasing the number of programs but not necessarily increasing the geographic availability of the procedure,” said study author Ashwin Nathan, MD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Only 11 programs were started in nonmetropolitan areas over the study period, he noted during the featured clinical research presentation at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2021 annual scientific sessions, held virtually this year.

Hospitals that established TAVR programs, compared with those that did not, cared for patients with higher median household incomes (difference, $1,305; P = .03) and from areas with better economic well-being based on the Distressed Communities Index (difference, –3.15 units; P < .01), and cared for fewer patients with dual eligibility for Medicaid (difference, –3.15%; P < .01).

When the investigators looked at rates of TAVR between the core-based statistical areas, there were fewer TAVR procedures per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries in areas with more Medicaid dual-eligible patients (difference, –1.19% per 1% increase), lower average median household incomes (difference, –0.62% per $1,000 decrease), and more average community distress (difference, –0.35% per 1 unit increase; P < .01 for all).

“What we can conclude is that the increased number of TAVR programs that we found during the study period did not necessarily translate to increased access to TAVR ... Wealthy, more privileged patients had more access to TAVR by virtue of the hospitals that serve them,” Dr. Nathan said.

Future steps, he said, are to identify the role of race and ethnicity in inequitable access to TAVR, identify system- and patient-level barriers to access, and to develop and test solutions to address inequitable care.

Elaborating on the latter point during a discussion of the results, study coauthor Jay S. Giri, MD, MPH, also from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, observed that although the data showed rural areas are left behind, not every part of an urban area acts like the area more generally.

As a result, they’re delving into the 25 largest urban areas and trying to disaggregate, based on both socioeconomic status and race within the area, whether inequities exist, he said. “Believe it or not, in some urban areas where there clearly is access – there might even be a dozen TAVR programs within a 25 mile radius – do some of those areas still act like rural areas that don’t have access? So more to come on that.”

Session comoderator Steven Yakubov, MD, MidWest Cardiology Research Foundation in Columbus, Ohio, said the results show TAVR programs tend to be developed in well-served areas but asked whether some of the responsibility falls on patients to seek medical attention. “Do we just not give enough education to patients on how to access care?”

Dr. Giri responded by highlighting the complexity of navigating from even being diagnosed with aortic stenosis to making it through a multidisciplinary TAVR evaluation.

“Individuals with increased health literacy and more means are more likely to make it through that gauntlet. But from a public health perspective, obviously, I’d argue that the onus is probably more on the medical community at large to figure out how to roll these programs out more widespread,” he said.

“It looked to us like market forces overwhelmingly seemed to drive the development of new TAVR programs over access to care considerations,” Dr. Giri added. “And just to point out, those market forces aren’t at the level of the device manufacturers, who are often maligned for cost. This is really about the market forces at the level of hospitals and health systems.”

Session comoderator Megan Coylewright, MD, MPH, Erlanger Heart and Lung Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., said, “I think that’s really well stated,” and noted that physicians may bear some responsibility as well.

“From a physician responsibility, especially for structural heart, we tended to all aggregate together, all of us that have structural heart training or that have trained in certain institutions,” she said. “It’s certainly on us to continue to spread out and go to the communities in need to ensure access. I think, as Dr. Giri said, there are a lot of solutions and that needs to be the focus for the next couple of years.”

Dr. Nathan reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giri reported serving as a principal investigator for a research study for Boston Scientific, Inari Medical, Abbott, and Recor Medical; consulting for Boston Scientific; and serving on an advisory board for Inari Medical.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to reduce the risk for kidney function decline, kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at risk for disease progression.

“Chronic kidney disease is an important public health issue, and there is a significant unmet need for therapies that slow disease progression and improve outcomes,” said Aliza Thompson, MD, deputy director of the division of cardiology and nephrology at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Today’s approval of Farxiga for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is an important step forward in helping people living with kidney disease.”

Dapagliflozin was approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, and approval was expanded in 2020 to include treatment of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, based on results of the DAPA-HF trial.

This new approval in chronic kidney disease was based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial that was stopped early in March 2020 because of efficacy of the treatment.

DAPA-CKD randomly assigned 4,304 patients with CKD but without diabetes to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo. The full study results, reported at the 2020 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that, during a median of 2.4 years, treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant 31% relative reduction, compared with placebo in the study’s primary outcome, a composite that included at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline, end-stage kidney disease, kidney transplant, renal death, or cardiovascular death.

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant relative reduction of 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization.

“Farxiga was not studied, nor is expected to be effective, in treating chronic kidney disease among patients with autosomal dominant or recessive polycystic (characterized by multiple cysts) kidney disease or among patients who require or have recently used immunosuppressive therapy to treat kidney disease,” the FDA statement noted.

Dapagliflozin should not be used by patients with a history of serious hypersensitivity reactions to this medication, or who are on dialysis, the agency added. “Serious, life-threatening cases of Fournier’s Gangrene have occurred in patients with diabetes taking Farxiga.”

Patients should consider taking a lower dose of insulin or insulin secretagogue to reduce hypoglycemic risk if they are also taking dapagliflozin. Treatment can also cause dehydration, serious urinary tract infections, genital yeast infections, and metabolic acidosis, the announcement said. “Patients should be assessed for their volume status and kidney function before starting Farxiga.”

Dapagliflozin previously received Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, and Priority Review designations for this new indication.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

What started as an attempt to standardize care for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock at a handful of Detroit-area hospitals has led to markedly better survival rates than the traditional flip of a coin, in a nationwide analysis.

Final results from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) show 71% of patients survived to discharge and 68% were alive at 30 days.

Patients presenting in stage C or D shock, who comprised the bulk of patients in previous trials, had survival rates of 79% and 77%, respectively.

Among stage E patients, who are in extremis and have typical survival rates of less than 20%, survival was 54% at discharge and 49% at 30 days, co–principal investigator Babar Basir, DO, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) annual scientific sessions, held virtually.

“This is the first push to really be able to consistently get survival rates over 50%, particularly in those patients who presented in stage C and D shock,” he said. “Really, it’s important to emphasize here the hard work it’s taken to get to this point and all the research that’s been done.”

The NCSI protocol emphasizes rapid identification and support of cardiogenic shock (door to support time <90 minutes), early placement of the Impella (Abiomed) ventricular assist device prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and right heart monitoring to reduce the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

Co–principal investigator William O’Neill, MD, also from Henry Ford, previously reported results from the pilot study showing 84% of 30 patients survived to discharge.

The present analysis was based on outcomes of 406 consecutive acute MI patients (mean age, 63.7 years; 24% female) who presented with cardiogenic shock at 32 academic and 48 community hospitals in 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Dr. Basir emphasized that this is the largest prospective North American acute MI cardiogenic shock study in 20 years and recruited “one of the sickest cohorts ever studied.” The average blood pressure among the patients was 77/50 mm Hg; 77% had a lactate of at least 2 mmol/L (mean, 4.8 mmol/L), and 25% were in stage E shock.

One-quarter of patients were transferred from other institutions, 82% presented with ST-segment elevation MI, two-thirds had multivessel disease, and 13% had a left main culprit lesion.

Right heart catheterization was used in 90% of patients, an Impella CP device in 92%, an Impella 2.5 device in 5%, femoral access PCI in 78%, and aspiration thrombectomy in a full 27%.

Despite this sick cohort, survival at 30 days was better than in any previous study of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Basir said. In comparison, 30-day survival rates were 53%, 60%, and 49% in the SHOCK, IABP SHOCK, and CULPRIT SHOCK trials, respectively.

That said, survival over the course of the first year fell to 53% in the entire cohort, 62% in patients with stage C or D shock, and 31% in those in stage E shock.

“One-year mortality continues to be a problem for these patients and emphasizes the need for goal-directed medical therapy, early advanced heart failure follow-up, and novel therapies such as what we are planning with the evaluation of [supersaturated oxygen] SSO₂ to reduce infarct sizes in the ISO-SHOCK trial,” set to begin later this year, Dr. Basir said.

Given the promising results in the NCSI, the randomized controlled RECOVER IV trial is planned to begin in 2022, he noted. It will assess whether Impella pre-PCI is superior to PCI without Impella in patients with inclusion criteria similar to that of the NCSI. The DanGer Shock randomized trial is ongoing in Denmark and Germany and assessing all-cause mortality at 6 months with the Impella CP device compared with standard of care.

“We hypothesize that greater utilization of this protocol, and refinement of the escalation strategies will consistently lead to a survival rate greater than 80%,” Dr. Basir concluded.

Past SCAI president Kirk Garratt, MD, Christiana Care, Newark, Del., who moderated a press conference where the data were highlighted, noted that late complications led to a roughly 20% absolute mortality increase from discharge to 1 year, and questioned what percentage could be attributed to the mechanical support offered.

Dr. Basir said that information was not specifically tracked but that many patients presented with multiorgan failure and, irrespective of that, the majority died from ongoing heart failure.

During the formal presentation, panelist Ron Waksman, MD, MedStar Heart Institute, Washington, questioned whether results were different between academic and community centers, but also pointed to the lack of a comparator in the single-arm study.

“It’s very hard to do any comparison historically; we do need to have a control group,” he said. “If you would have opened it to any treatment at the time of the initiative, which is great, but not just limit it to use of the Impella devices, we would have better understanding if there is really a differentiation between one device versus the other devices.”

Dr. Basir replied, “I think that is a very reasonable comment and, in regard to your question, it is always difficult to differentiate between academic and community centers, but these were large community programs that have all of the technologies available in an academic center.”

NCIS is funded in part by unrestricted grants from Abiomed and Chiesi. Dr. Basir reported consulting for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll.

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

Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
 

“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.

“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.

The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.

The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.



Among the key findings:

• In patients with breast cancer,  has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
• Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
• The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
• The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
• Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
• Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.

The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.

The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.

“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
 

“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.

“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.

The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.

The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.



Among the key findings:

• In patients with breast cancer,  has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
• Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
• The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
• The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
• Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
• Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.

The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.

The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.

“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hormonal therapies for the treatment of hormone-dependent breast and prostate cancer could raise the risk for myocardial infarction and stroke, and patients need to be closely monitored to allow early detection and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
 

“The statement provides data on the risks of each type of hormonal therapy so clinicians can use it as a guide to help manage cardiovascular risks during cancer treatment,” Tochi Okwuosa, DO, chair of the writing group, said in a news release.

“A team-based approach to patient care that includes the oncology team, cardiologist, primary care clinician, dietitian, endocrinologist, and other health care professionals as appropriate is needed to work with each patient to manage and reduce the increased risk of heart disease and strokes associated with hormonal therapy in breast and prostate cancer treatment,” said Dr. Okwuosa, director of cardio-oncology services, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago.

The scientific statement was published online April 26 in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

Hormone-dependent cancers, such as prostate and breast cancer, are the most common noncutaneous cancers in the United States and around the world. As hormonal therapies have markedly improved survival in these patients, CVD has emerged as a leading cause illness and death.

The increased CVD burden might be explained by the increasing average age of cancer survivors, leading to higher rates of age-related CV risk factors and coronary artery disease.

The writing group reviewed existing evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the cardiovascular impact of anticancer hormonal therapies.



Among the key findings:

• In patients with breast cancer,  has been shown to increase the risk for venous thromboembolic events, but to have somewhat protective to neutral effects on CVD risk burden and CVD events. Conversely, aromatase inhibitors have been shown to increase the risk for CVD risk factors and events, including MI and stroke.
• Androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer appears to increase the risk for CV events, although gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with a lower risk for CV events than are GnRH agonists. The oral antiandrogens appear to be associated with increased CVD risk as well, particularly when used for complete androgen blockade as combination GnRH/anti-androgen therapy.
• The duration of hormonal therapies has a significant impact on CVD risk; the longer patients receive hormonal therapy, the greater the risk. More research is needed to better define the risks associated with duration of treatment.
• The data are mixed on the impact of preexisting CV risk factors and CVD on CV events associated with hormonal therapy. Although the presence of baseline CV risk factors and CVD can increase CV events associated with aromatase inhibitors, it is not clear that tamoxifen does.
• Studies suggest that patients with prostate cancer and baseline CVD and CV risk factors have increased rates of CV events when treated with androgen-deprivation therapy.
• Although the prolonged use of some hormonal therapies worsens CV risk factors and , the effects of the duration of therapy on CV events are less clear.

The writing group noted that there are no definitive guidelines for the monitoring and management of hormonal therapy-related CVD risks.

The authors encourage clinicians to be alert for worsening CV problems in those with preexisting heart disease or risk factors, and to recognize that even patients without preexisting CV problems are at higher risk because of their exposure to hormonal therapies.

“For patients who have two or more cardiovascular risk factors, it is likely that referral to a cardiologist would be appropriate prior to beginning hormone treatment. For patients already receiving hormonal therapies, a discussion with the oncology team can help to determine if a cardiology referral is recommended,” Dr. Okwuosa said in the news release.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardio-Oncology Subcommittee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Okwuosa has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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