User login
Semaglutide for meaningful weight loss in obesity and diabetes?
A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.
These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.
More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.
In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.
The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”
Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.
“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”
Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.
“They mark a real paradigm shift in our ability to treat obesity,” with results closer to those achieved with bariatric surgery, Dr. Davies, of the University of Leicester, England, said in a statement from her institution.
“It is really encouraging,” she continued, “that along with the weight loss we saw real improvements in general health, with significant improvement in physical functioning scores, blood pressure, and blood glucose control.”
Dr. Lingvay noted that on average, patients in the four STEP clinical trials lost 10%-17% of their body weight, “which is a huge step forward compared with all other medications currently available to treat obesity.” She stressed that these results are comparable to the 20%-30% weight loss seen with bariatric surgery.
One of four trials under review
More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.
Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.
As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.
Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes
STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.
For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m2, and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m2, and the mean A1c was 8.1%.
The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.
Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.
The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.
All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).
The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.
Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).
Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.
Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.
These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.
More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.
In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.
The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”
Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.
“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”
Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.
“They mark a real paradigm shift in our ability to treat obesity,” with results closer to those achieved with bariatric surgery, Dr. Davies, of the University of Leicester, England, said in a statement from her institution.
“It is really encouraging,” she continued, “that along with the weight loss we saw real improvements in general health, with significant improvement in physical functioning scores, blood pressure, and blood glucose control.”
Dr. Lingvay noted that on average, patients in the four STEP clinical trials lost 10%-17% of their body weight, “which is a huge step forward compared with all other medications currently available to treat obesity.” She stressed that these results are comparable to the 20%-30% weight loss seen with bariatric surgery.
One of four trials under review
More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.
Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.
As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.
Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes
STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.
For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m2, and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m2, and the mean A1c was 8.1%.
The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.
Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.
The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.
All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).
The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.
Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).
Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.
Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.
These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.
More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.
In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.
The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”
Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.
“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”
Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.
“They mark a real paradigm shift in our ability to treat obesity,” with results closer to those achieved with bariatric surgery, Dr. Davies, of the University of Leicester, England, said in a statement from her institution.
“It is really encouraging,” she continued, “that along with the weight loss we saw real improvements in general health, with significant improvement in physical functioning scores, blood pressure, and blood glucose control.”
Dr. Lingvay noted that on average, patients in the four STEP clinical trials lost 10%-17% of their body weight, “which is a huge step forward compared with all other medications currently available to treat obesity.” She stressed that these results are comparable to the 20%-30% weight loss seen with bariatric surgery.
One of four trials under review
More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.
Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.
As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.
The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.
Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes
STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.
For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m2, and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m2, and the mean A1c was 8.1%.
The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.
Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.
The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.
All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).
The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.
Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).
Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.
Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heart failure redefined with new classifications, staging
The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.
In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.
The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.
“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.
The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.
“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Braunwald and Elliott M. Antman, MD, both from TIMI Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, wrote an editorial that accompanied the European Journal of Heart Failure article.
A new universal definition
“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”
This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”
Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.
“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.
For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.
“We’ve had some wacky definitions in heart failure that haven’t made sense for 30 years, the principal of which is the definition of heart failure that says it’s the inability of the heart to meet the metabolic demands of the body,” Dr. Mann, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
“I think this description was developed thinking about people with end-stage heart failure, but it makes no sense in clinical practice. Does it make sense to say about someone with New York Heart Association class I heart failure that their heart can’t meet the metabolic demands of the body?” said Dr. Mann, who was not involved with the writing of the consensus statement.
Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum
Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.
The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:
- At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
- Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
- HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
- Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.
One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”
“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.
The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.
“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
New classifications according to LVEF
And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.
“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:
- HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
- HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
- HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
- HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.
HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
Improved, not recovered, HF
The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.
“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.
“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.
“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.
Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.
“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.
“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
One step toward universality
“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”
In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.
Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.
“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.
For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”
To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.
Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.
The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.
In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.
The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.
“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.
The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.
“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Braunwald and Elliott M. Antman, MD, both from TIMI Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, wrote an editorial that accompanied the European Journal of Heart Failure article.
A new universal definition
“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”
This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”
Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.
“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.
For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.
“We’ve had some wacky definitions in heart failure that haven’t made sense for 30 years, the principal of which is the definition of heart failure that says it’s the inability of the heart to meet the metabolic demands of the body,” Dr. Mann, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
“I think this description was developed thinking about people with end-stage heart failure, but it makes no sense in clinical practice. Does it make sense to say about someone with New York Heart Association class I heart failure that their heart can’t meet the metabolic demands of the body?” said Dr. Mann, who was not involved with the writing of the consensus statement.
Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum
Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.
The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:
- At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
- Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
- HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
- Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.
One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”
“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.
The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.
“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
New classifications according to LVEF
And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.
“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:
- HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
- HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
- HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
- HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.
HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
Improved, not recovered, HF
The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.
“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.
“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.
“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.
Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.
“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.
“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
One step toward universality
“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”
In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.
Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.
“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.
For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”
To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.
Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.
The terminology and classification scheme for heart failure (HF) is changing in ways that experts hope will directly impact patient outcomes.
In a new consensus statement, a multisociety group of experts proposed a new universal definition of heart failure and made substantial revisions to the way in which the disease is staged and classified.
The authors of the statement, led by writing committee chair and immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, hope their efforts will go far to improve standardization of terminology, but more importantly will facilitate better management of the disease in ways that keep pace with current knowledge and advances in the field.
“There is a great need for reframing and standardizing the terminology across societies and different stakeholders, and importantly for patients because a lot of the terminology we were using was understood by academicians, but were not being translated in important ways to ensure patients are being appropriately treated,” said Dr. Bozkurt, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
The consensus statement was a group effort led by the HFSA, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Heart Failure Society, with endorsements from the Canadian Heart Failure Society, the Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association.
The article was published March 1 in the Journal of Cardiac Failure and the European Journal of Heart Failure, authored by a writing committee of 38 individuals with domain expertise in HF, cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular disease.
“This is a very thorough and very carefully written document that I think will be helpful for clinicians because they’ve tapped into important changes in the field that have occurred over the past 10 years and that now allow us to do more for patients than we could before,” Eugene Braunwald, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Braunwald and Elliott M. Antman, MD, both from TIMI Study Group at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, wrote an editorial that accompanied the European Journal of Heart Failure article.
A new universal definition
“[Heart failure] is a clinical syndrome with symptoms and or signs caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality and corroborated by elevated natriuretic peptide levels and/or objective evidence of pulmonary or systemic congestion.”
This proposed definition, said the authors, is designed to be contemporary and simple “but conceptually comprehensive, with near universal applicability, prognostic and therapeutic viability, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity.”
Both left and right HF qualifies under this definition, said the authors, but conditions that result in marked volume overload, such as chronic kidney disease, which may present with signs and symptoms of HF, do not.
“Although some of these patients may have concomitant HF, these patients have a primary abnormality that may require a specific treatment beyond that for HF,” said the consensus statement authors.
For his part, Douglas L. Mann, MD, is happy to see what he considers a more accurate and practical definition for heart failure.
“We’ve had some wacky definitions in heart failure that haven’t made sense for 30 years, the principal of which is the definition of heart failure that says it’s the inability of the heart to meet the metabolic demands of the body,” Dr. Mann, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.
“I think this description was developed thinking about people with end-stage heart failure, but it makes no sense in clinical practice. Does it make sense to say about someone with New York Heart Association class I heart failure that their heart can’t meet the metabolic demands of the body?” said Dr. Mann, who was not involved with the writing of the consensus statement.
Proposed revised stages of the HF continuum
Overall, minimal changes have been made to the HF stages, with tweaks intended to enhance understanding and address the evolving role of biomarkers.
The authors proposed an approach to staging of HF:
- At-risk for HF (stage A), for patients at risk for HF but without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF and without structural or biomarkers evidence of heart disease.
- Pre-HF (stage B), for patients without current or prior symptoms or signs of HF, but evidence of structural heart disease or abnormal cardiac function, or elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
- HF (stage C), for patients with current or prior symptoms and/or signs of HF caused by a structural and/or functional cardiac abnormality.
- Advanced HF (stage D), for patients with severe symptoms and/or signs of HF at rest, recurrent hospitalizations despite guideline-directed management and therapy (GDMT), refractory or intolerant to GDMT, requiring advanced therapies such as consideration for transplant, mechanical circulatory support, or palliative care.
One notable change to the staging scheme is stage B, which the authors have reframed as “pre–heart failure.”
“Pre-cancer is a term widely understood and considered actionable and we wanted to tap into this successful messaging and embrace the pre–heart failure concept as something that is treatable and preventable,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
“We want patients and clinicians to understand that there are things we can do to prevent heart failure, strategies we didn’t have before, like SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with diabetes at risk for HF,” she added.
The revision also avoids the stigma of HF before the symptoms are manifest.
“Not calling it stage A and stage B heart failure you might say is semantics, but it’s important semantics,” said Dr. Braunwald. “When you’re talking to a patient or a relative and tell them they have stage A heart failure, it’s scares them unnecessarily. They don’t hear the stage A or B part, just the heart failure part.”
New classifications according to LVEF
And finally, in what some might consider the most obviously needed modification, the document proposes a new and revised classification of HF according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Most agree on how to classify heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but although the middle range has long been understood to be a clinically relevant, it has no proper name or clear delineation.
“For standardization across practice guidelines, to recognize clinical trajectories in HF, and to facilitate the recognition of different heart failure entities in a sensitive and specific manner that can guide therapy, we want to formalize the heart failure categories according to ejection fraction,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
To this end, the authors propose the following four classifications of EF:
- HF with reduced EF (HFrEF): LVEF of up to 40%.
- HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF): LVEF of 41-49%.
- HF with preserved EF (HFpEF)HF with an LVEF of at least 50%.
- HF with improved EF (HFimpEF): HF with a baseline LVEF of 40% or less, an increase of at least 10 points from baseline LVEF, and a second measurement of LVEF of greater than 40%.
HFmrEF is usually a transition period, noted Dr. Bozkurt. “Patients with HF in this range may represent a population whose EF is likely to change, either increase or decrease over time and it’s important to be cognizant of that trajectory. Understanding where your patient is headed is crucial for prognosis and optimization of guideline-directed treatment,” she said.
Improved, not recovered, HF
The last classification of heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) represents an important change to the current classification scheme.
“We want to clarify what terms to use but also which not to use. For example, we don’t want people to use recovered heart failure or heart failure in remission, partly because we don’t want the medication to be stopped. We don’t want to give the false message that there has been full recovery,” said Dr. Bozkurt.
As seen in the TRED-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy should be continued in patients with HF with improved EF regardless of whether it has improved to a normal range of above 50% in subsequent measurements.
“This is a distinct group of people, and for a while the guidelines were lumping them in with HFpEF, which I think is totally wrong,” said Dr. Mann.
“I think it’s very important that we emphasize heart failure as a continuum, rather than a one-way street of [inevitable] progression. Because we do see improvements in ejection fraction and we do see that we can prevent heart failure if we do the right things, and this should be reflected in the terminology we use,” he added.
Dr. Bozkurt stressed that HFimpEF only applies if the EF improves to above 40%. A move from an EF of 10%-20% would still see the patient classified as having HFrEF, but a patient whose EF improved from, say, 30% to 45% would be classified as HFimpEF.
“The reason for this, again, is because a transition from, say an EF of 10%-20% does not change therapy, but a move upward over 40% might, especially regarding decisions for device therapies, so the trajectory as well as the absolute EF is important,” she added.
“Particularly in the early stages, people are responsive to therapy and it’s possible in some cases to reverse heart failure, so I think this change helps us understand when that’s happened,” said Dr. Braunwald.
One step toward universality
“The implementation of this terminology and nomenclature into practice will require a variety of tactics,” said Dr. Bozkurt. “For example, the current ICD 10 codes need to incorporate the at-risk and pre–heart failure categories, as well as the mid-range EF, preserved, and improved EF classifications, because the treatment differs between those three domains.”
In terms of how these proposed changes will be worked into practice guidelines, Dr. Bozkurt declined to comment on this to avoid any perception of conflict of interest as she is the cochair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF guideline writing committee.
Dr. Braunwald and Dr. Antman suggest it may be premature to call the new terminology and classifications “universal.” In an interview, Dr. Braunwald lamented the absence of the World Heart Federation, the ACC, and the AHA as active participants in this effort and suggested this paper is only the first step of a multistep process that requires input from many stakeholders.
“It’s important that these organizations be involved, not just to bless it, but to contribute their expertise to the process,” he said.
For his part, Dr. Mann hopes these changes will gain widespread acceptance and clinical traction. “The problem sometimes with guidelines is that they’re so data driven that you just can’t come out and say the obvious, so making a position statement is a good first step. And they got good international representation on this, so I think these changes will be accepted in the next heart failure guidelines.”
To encourage further discussion and acceptance, Robert J. Mentz, MD, and Anuradha Lala, MD, editor-in-chief and deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure, respectively, announced a series of multidisciplinary perspective pieces to be published in the journal monthly, starting in May with editorials from Dr. Clyde W Yancy, MD, MSc, and Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, both of whom were authors of the consensus statement.
Dr. Bozkurt reports being a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Baxter, Bristol Myers Squibb, Liva Nova Relypsa/Vifor Pharma, Respicardia, and being on the registry steering committee for Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Braunwald reports research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis; and consulting for Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, and Verve. Dr. Mann has been a consultant to Novartis, is on the steering committee for the PARADISE trial, and is on the scientific advisory board for MyoKardia/Bristol Myers Squibb.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE
More from DAPA-HF: Dapagliflozin quickly reduces heart failure events
Dapagliflozin’s benefits in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction appeared quickly after treatment began, and patients who had been hospitalized for heart failure within the prior year got the biggest boost from the drug, according to secondary analyses of the more than 4,700-patient DAPA-HF trial.
Dapagliflozin’s significant reduction of the incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure became apparent in DAPA-HF within 28 days after patients started treatment, by which time those on the study drug had a 49% cut in this combined endpoint, compared with patients on placebo, David D. Berg, MD, and associates said in a recent report published in JAMA Cardiology.
Their analyses also showed that the absolute reduction linked with dapagliflozin treatment for this primary endpoint of the study (which classified worsening heart failure as either hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit because of heart failure that required intravenous therapy) was greatest, 10% during 2 years of follow-up, among the roughly one-quarter of enrolled patients who had been hospitalized for heart failure within 12 months of entering the study. Patients previously hospitalized for heart failure more than 12 months before they entered DAPA-HF had a 4% absolute cut in their primary-outcome events during the trial, and those who had never been hospitalized for heart failure had a 2% absolute benefit, compared with placebo, during 2 years of follow-up.
These findings were consistent with the timing of benefits for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in recent studies of two other drugs from the same class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors, including empagliflozin (Jardiance, which inhibits SGLT-2) in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, and sotagliflozin (Zynquista, which inhibits both SGLT1 and -2) in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, noted Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, and Clyde W. Yancy, MD, in an editor’s note that accompanied the new report.
The new findings show “the opportunity to expeditiously implement this remarkable class of therapy for HFrEF is now compelling and deserves disruptive efforts to ensure comprehensive treatment and the best patient outcomes,” wrote Dr. Fonarow, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Dr. Yancy, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
But despite these new findings, their exact meaning remains unclear in terms of when to start dapagliflozin (or a different drug from the same class), compared with the other drug classes that have proven highly effective in patients with HFrEF, and exactly how long after hospitalization for heart failure dapagliflozin can safely and effectively begin.
Data needed on starting an SGLT inhibitor soon after hospitalization in patients without diabetes
“DAPA-HF showed that, in patients with or without diabetes, an SGLT2 inhibitor reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with stable HFrEF. SOLOIST-WHF looked strictly at patients with diabetes, and showed that a combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor could reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with recently decompensated heart failure,” Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted in an interview. “What we don’t have is a trial focused exclusively on enrolling patients while hospitalized with acute heart failure, irrespective of whether they have diabetes, and testing the immediate clinical efficacy and safety of starting an SGLT2 inhibitor. That is what we are testing with the ongoing DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 trial.”
In addition, updated recommendations from the American College of Cardiology on initiating drug therapy in patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF that appeared in early 2021 promoted a sequence that starts most patients on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) and a beta-blocker, followed by a diuretic (when needed), a mineralocorticoid receptor agonist, and then an SGLT inhibitor. The recommendations note that starting a patient on all these drug classes could take 3-6 months.
“There are intense debates about the optimal sequence for introducing these therapies, and I don’t think we have solid data to suggest that one sequence is clearly better than another,” noted Dr. Berg. “A one-size-fits-all approach probably doesn’t make sense. For example, each of these therapies has a different set of effects on heart rate and blood pressure, and each has a unique side effect profile, so clinicians will often need to tailor the treatment approach to the patient. And, of course, cost is an important consideration. Although the optimal time to start an SGLT2 inhibitor remains uncertain, the results of our analysis suggest that waiting may result in preventable adverse heart failure events.”
DAPA-HF randomized 4,744 patients with HFrEF and in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV at 410 sites in 20 countries. The incidence of the primary, combined endpoint fell by 26% with dapagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, during a median 18-month follow-up. Among the study cohort 27% of patients had been hospitalized for heart failure within a year of their entry, 20% had been hospitalized for heart failure more than 1 year before entry, and 53% had no history of a hospitalization for heart failure.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Berg has received research support through his institution from AstraZeneca. Dr. Fonarow has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and from numerous other companies. Dr. Yancy’s spouse works for Abbott Laboratories.
Dapagliflozin’s benefits in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction appeared quickly after treatment began, and patients who had been hospitalized for heart failure within the prior year got the biggest boost from the drug, according to secondary analyses of the more than 4,700-patient DAPA-HF trial.
Dapagliflozin’s significant reduction of the incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure became apparent in DAPA-HF within 28 days after patients started treatment, by which time those on the study drug had a 49% cut in this combined endpoint, compared with patients on placebo, David D. Berg, MD, and associates said in a recent report published in JAMA Cardiology.
Their analyses also showed that the absolute reduction linked with dapagliflozin treatment for this primary endpoint of the study (which classified worsening heart failure as either hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit because of heart failure that required intravenous therapy) was greatest, 10% during 2 years of follow-up, among the roughly one-quarter of enrolled patients who had been hospitalized for heart failure within 12 months of entering the study. Patients previously hospitalized for heart failure more than 12 months before they entered DAPA-HF had a 4% absolute cut in their primary-outcome events during the trial, and those who had never been hospitalized for heart failure had a 2% absolute benefit, compared with placebo, during 2 years of follow-up.
These findings were consistent with the timing of benefits for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in recent studies of two other drugs from the same class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors, including empagliflozin (Jardiance, which inhibits SGLT-2) in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, and sotagliflozin (Zynquista, which inhibits both SGLT1 and -2) in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, noted Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, and Clyde W. Yancy, MD, in an editor’s note that accompanied the new report.
The new findings show “the opportunity to expeditiously implement this remarkable class of therapy for HFrEF is now compelling and deserves disruptive efforts to ensure comprehensive treatment and the best patient outcomes,” wrote Dr. Fonarow, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Dr. Yancy, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
But despite these new findings, their exact meaning remains unclear in terms of when to start dapagliflozin (or a different drug from the same class), compared with the other drug classes that have proven highly effective in patients with HFrEF, and exactly how long after hospitalization for heart failure dapagliflozin can safely and effectively begin.
Data needed on starting an SGLT inhibitor soon after hospitalization in patients without diabetes
“DAPA-HF showed that, in patients with or without diabetes, an SGLT2 inhibitor reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with stable HFrEF. SOLOIST-WHF looked strictly at patients with diabetes, and showed that a combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor could reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with recently decompensated heart failure,” Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted in an interview. “What we don’t have is a trial focused exclusively on enrolling patients while hospitalized with acute heart failure, irrespective of whether they have diabetes, and testing the immediate clinical efficacy and safety of starting an SGLT2 inhibitor. That is what we are testing with the ongoing DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 trial.”
In addition, updated recommendations from the American College of Cardiology on initiating drug therapy in patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF that appeared in early 2021 promoted a sequence that starts most patients on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) and a beta-blocker, followed by a diuretic (when needed), a mineralocorticoid receptor agonist, and then an SGLT inhibitor. The recommendations note that starting a patient on all these drug classes could take 3-6 months.
“There are intense debates about the optimal sequence for introducing these therapies, and I don’t think we have solid data to suggest that one sequence is clearly better than another,” noted Dr. Berg. “A one-size-fits-all approach probably doesn’t make sense. For example, each of these therapies has a different set of effects on heart rate and blood pressure, and each has a unique side effect profile, so clinicians will often need to tailor the treatment approach to the patient. And, of course, cost is an important consideration. Although the optimal time to start an SGLT2 inhibitor remains uncertain, the results of our analysis suggest that waiting may result in preventable adverse heart failure events.”
DAPA-HF randomized 4,744 patients with HFrEF and in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV at 410 sites in 20 countries. The incidence of the primary, combined endpoint fell by 26% with dapagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, during a median 18-month follow-up. Among the study cohort 27% of patients had been hospitalized for heart failure within a year of their entry, 20% had been hospitalized for heart failure more than 1 year before entry, and 53% had no history of a hospitalization for heart failure.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Berg has received research support through his institution from AstraZeneca. Dr. Fonarow has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and from numerous other companies. Dr. Yancy’s spouse works for Abbott Laboratories.
Dapagliflozin’s benefits in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction appeared quickly after treatment began, and patients who had been hospitalized for heart failure within the prior year got the biggest boost from the drug, according to secondary analyses of the more than 4,700-patient DAPA-HF trial.
Dapagliflozin’s significant reduction of the incidence of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure became apparent in DAPA-HF within 28 days after patients started treatment, by which time those on the study drug had a 49% cut in this combined endpoint, compared with patients on placebo, David D. Berg, MD, and associates said in a recent report published in JAMA Cardiology.
Their analyses also showed that the absolute reduction linked with dapagliflozin treatment for this primary endpoint of the study (which classified worsening heart failure as either hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit because of heart failure that required intravenous therapy) was greatest, 10% during 2 years of follow-up, among the roughly one-quarter of enrolled patients who had been hospitalized for heart failure within 12 months of entering the study. Patients previously hospitalized for heart failure more than 12 months before they entered DAPA-HF had a 4% absolute cut in their primary-outcome events during the trial, and those who had never been hospitalized for heart failure had a 2% absolute benefit, compared with placebo, during 2 years of follow-up.
These findings were consistent with the timing of benefits for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in recent studies of two other drugs from the same class, the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors, including empagliflozin (Jardiance, which inhibits SGLT-2) in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, and sotagliflozin (Zynquista, which inhibits both SGLT1 and -2) in the SOLOIST-WHF trial, noted Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, and Clyde W. Yancy, MD, in an editor’s note that accompanied the new report.
The new findings show “the opportunity to expeditiously implement this remarkable class of therapy for HFrEF is now compelling and deserves disruptive efforts to ensure comprehensive treatment and the best patient outcomes,” wrote Dr. Fonarow, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Dr. Yancy, a professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
But despite these new findings, their exact meaning remains unclear in terms of when to start dapagliflozin (or a different drug from the same class), compared with the other drug classes that have proven highly effective in patients with HFrEF, and exactly how long after hospitalization for heart failure dapagliflozin can safely and effectively begin.
Data needed on starting an SGLT inhibitor soon after hospitalization in patients without diabetes
“DAPA-HF showed that, in patients with or without diabetes, an SGLT2 inhibitor reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with stable HFrEF. SOLOIST-WHF looked strictly at patients with diabetes, and showed that a combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor could reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure in patients with recently decompensated heart failure,” Dr. Berg, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted in an interview. “What we don’t have is a trial focused exclusively on enrolling patients while hospitalized with acute heart failure, irrespective of whether they have diabetes, and testing the immediate clinical efficacy and safety of starting an SGLT2 inhibitor. That is what we are testing with the ongoing DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 trial.”
In addition, updated recommendations from the American College of Cardiology on initiating drug therapy in patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF that appeared in early 2021 promoted a sequence that starts most patients on sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) and a beta-blocker, followed by a diuretic (when needed), a mineralocorticoid receptor agonist, and then an SGLT inhibitor. The recommendations note that starting a patient on all these drug classes could take 3-6 months.
“There are intense debates about the optimal sequence for introducing these therapies, and I don’t think we have solid data to suggest that one sequence is clearly better than another,” noted Dr. Berg. “A one-size-fits-all approach probably doesn’t make sense. For example, each of these therapies has a different set of effects on heart rate and blood pressure, and each has a unique side effect profile, so clinicians will often need to tailor the treatment approach to the patient. And, of course, cost is an important consideration. Although the optimal time to start an SGLT2 inhibitor remains uncertain, the results of our analysis suggest that waiting may result in preventable adverse heart failure events.”
DAPA-HF randomized 4,744 patients with HFrEF and in New York Heart Association functional class II-IV at 410 sites in 20 countries. The incidence of the primary, combined endpoint fell by 26% with dapagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, during a median 18-month follow-up. Among the study cohort 27% of patients had been hospitalized for heart failure within a year of their entry, 20% had been hospitalized for heart failure more than 1 year before entry, and 53% had no history of a hospitalization for heart failure.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Berg has received research support through his institution from AstraZeneca. Dr. Fonarow has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and from numerous other companies. Dr. Yancy’s spouse works for Abbott Laboratories.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
Cardiovascular trials lose more women than men
A new analysis of 11 phase 3/4 cardiovascular clinical trials conducted by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) group shows that women are more likely than men to discontinue study medications, and to withdraw from trials. The differences could not be explained by different frequencies of reporting adverse events, or by baseline differences.
The findings are significant, since cardiovascular drugs are routinely prescribed to women based on clinical trials that are populated largely by men, according to lead study author Emily Lau, MD, who is an advanced cardiology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “It highlights an important disparity in clinical research in cardiology, because if women are already not represented well in clinical trials, and if once in clinical trials they don’t complete the study, it’s very hard to extrapolate the clinical trial findings to our female population in an accurate way,” Dr. Lau said in an interview. She also noted that sex-specific and reproductive factors are increasingly recognized as being important in the development and progression of cardiovascular disease.
The study was published in the journal Circulation.
The study refutes previously advanced explanations for higher withdrawal among women, including sex difference and comorbidities, according to an accompanying editorial by Sofia Sederholm Lawesson, MD, PhD, Eva Swahn, MD, PhD, and Joakim Alfredsson, MD, PhD, of Linköping University, Sweden. They also pointed out that the study found a larger between-sex difference in failure to adhere to study drug in North America (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.41), but a more moderate difference among participants in Europe/Middle East/Africa (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.17) and Asia/Pacific (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23) regions. And there were no sex differences at all among South/Central American populations.
They noted that high rates of nonadherence increase the chances of a false negative finding and overestimation of drug safety. “We know the associations between nonadherence and clinical outcomes. The next step should be to better understand the underlying reasons for, as well as consistent reporting of, nonadherence, and discontinuation in RCTs,” the editorial authors wrote.
Dr. Lau suggested a simple method to better understand reasons for withdrawal: Addition of questions to the case report form that asks about reasons for drug discontinuation or study withdrawal. “Was it an adverse event? Was it because I’m a mother of three and I can’t get to the clinical trial site after work and also pick up my kids? Are there societal barriers for women, or was it the experience of the clinical trial that was maybe less favorable for women compared to men? Or maybe there are medical reasons we simply don’t know. Something as simple as asking those questions can help us better understand the barriers to female retention,” said Dr. Lau.
The analysis included data from 135,879 men (72%) and 51,812 women (28%) enrolled in the trials. After adjustment for baseline differences, women were more likely than were men to permanently discontinue study drug (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22: P < .001), which did not vary by study duration. The finding was consistent regardless of the type of drug studied, as well as across placebo and active study arms.
Women also were more likely to prematurely discontinue study drug (trial-adjusted OR, 1.18; P < .001). The rate of drug discontinuation due to adverse event was identical in both men and women, at 36%.
Women were more likely to withdraw consent than were men in a meta-analysis and when individual patient-level results were pooled (aOR, 1.26; P < .001 for both).
Dr. Lau received funding from the National Institutes of Health and has no relevant financial disclosures. The editorial authors had various disclosures, including lecture fees from Bayer, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and they served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and MSD.
A new analysis of 11 phase 3/4 cardiovascular clinical trials conducted by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) group shows that women are more likely than men to discontinue study medications, and to withdraw from trials. The differences could not be explained by different frequencies of reporting adverse events, or by baseline differences.
The findings are significant, since cardiovascular drugs are routinely prescribed to women based on clinical trials that are populated largely by men, according to lead study author Emily Lau, MD, who is an advanced cardiology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “It highlights an important disparity in clinical research in cardiology, because if women are already not represented well in clinical trials, and if once in clinical trials they don’t complete the study, it’s very hard to extrapolate the clinical trial findings to our female population in an accurate way,” Dr. Lau said in an interview. She also noted that sex-specific and reproductive factors are increasingly recognized as being important in the development and progression of cardiovascular disease.
The study was published in the journal Circulation.
The study refutes previously advanced explanations for higher withdrawal among women, including sex difference and comorbidities, according to an accompanying editorial by Sofia Sederholm Lawesson, MD, PhD, Eva Swahn, MD, PhD, and Joakim Alfredsson, MD, PhD, of Linköping University, Sweden. They also pointed out that the study found a larger between-sex difference in failure to adhere to study drug in North America (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.41), but a more moderate difference among participants in Europe/Middle East/Africa (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.17) and Asia/Pacific (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23) regions. And there were no sex differences at all among South/Central American populations.
They noted that high rates of nonadherence increase the chances of a false negative finding and overestimation of drug safety. “We know the associations between nonadherence and clinical outcomes. The next step should be to better understand the underlying reasons for, as well as consistent reporting of, nonadherence, and discontinuation in RCTs,” the editorial authors wrote.
Dr. Lau suggested a simple method to better understand reasons for withdrawal: Addition of questions to the case report form that asks about reasons for drug discontinuation or study withdrawal. “Was it an adverse event? Was it because I’m a mother of three and I can’t get to the clinical trial site after work and also pick up my kids? Are there societal barriers for women, or was it the experience of the clinical trial that was maybe less favorable for women compared to men? Or maybe there are medical reasons we simply don’t know. Something as simple as asking those questions can help us better understand the barriers to female retention,” said Dr. Lau.
The analysis included data from 135,879 men (72%) and 51,812 women (28%) enrolled in the trials. After adjustment for baseline differences, women were more likely than were men to permanently discontinue study drug (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22: P < .001), which did not vary by study duration. The finding was consistent regardless of the type of drug studied, as well as across placebo and active study arms.
Women also were more likely to prematurely discontinue study drug (trial-adjusted OR, 1.18; P < .001). The rate of drug discontinuation due to adverse event was identical in both men and women, at 36%.
Women were more likely to withdraw consent than were men in a meta-analysis and when individual patient-level results were pooled (aOR, 1.26; P < .001 for both).
Dr. Lau received funding from the National Institutes of Health and has no relevant financial disclosures. The editorial authors had various disclosures, including lecture fees from Bayer, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and they served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and MSD.
A new analysis of 11 phase 3/4 cardiovascular clinical trials conducted by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) group shows that women are more likely than men to discontinue study medications, and to withdraw from trials. The differences could not be explained by different frequencies of reporting adverse events, or by baseline differences.
The findings are significant, since cardiovascular drugs are routinely prescribed to women based on clinical trials that are populated largely by men, according to lead study author Emily Lau, MD, who is an advanced cardiology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “It highlights an important disparity in clinical research in cardiology, because if women are already not represented well in clinical trials, and if once in clinical trials they don’t complete the study, it’s very hard to extrapolate the clinical trial findings to our female population in an accurate way,” Dr. Lau said in an interview. She also noted that sex-specific and reproductive factors are increasingly recognized as being important in the development and progression of cardiovascular disease.
The study was published in the journal Circulation.
The study refutes previously advanced explanations for higher withdrawal among women, including sex difference and comorbidities, according to an accompanying editorial by Sofia Sederholm Lawesson, MD, PhD, Eva Swahn, MD, PhD, and Joakim Alfredsson, MD, PhD, of Linköping University, Sweden. They also pointed out that the study found a larger between-sex difference in failure to adhere to study drug in North America (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.41), but a more moderate difference among participants in Europe/Middle East/Africa (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.17) and Asia/Pacific (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23) regions. And there were no sex differences at all among South/Central American populations.
They noted that high rates of nonadherence increase the chances of a false negative finding and overestimation of drug safety. “We know the associations between nonadherence and clinical outcomes. The next step should be to better understand the underlying reasons for, as well as consistent reporting of, nonadherence, and discontinuation in RCTs,” the editorial authors wrote.
Dr. Lau suggested a simple method to better understand reasons for withdrawal: Addition of questions to the case report form that asks about reasons for drug discontinuation or study withdrawal. “Was it an adverse event? Was it because I’m a mother of three and I can’t get to the clinical trial site after work and also pick up my kids? Are there societal barriers for women, or was it the experience of the clinical trial that was maybe less favorable for women compared to men? Or maybe there are medical reasons we simply don’t know. Something as simple as asking those questions can help us better understand the barriers to female retention,” said Dr. Lau.
The analysis included data from 135,879 men (72%) and 51,812 women (28%) enrolled in the trials. After adjustment for baseline differences, women were more likely than were men to permanently discontinue study drug (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22: P < .001), which did not vary by study duration. The finding was consistent regardless of the type of drug studied, as well as across placebo and active study arms.
Women also were more likely to prematurely discontinue study drug (trial-adjusted OR, 1.18; P < .001). The rate of drug discontinuation due to adverse event was identical in both men and women, at 36%.
Women were more likely to withdraw consent than were men in a meta-analysis and when individual patient-level results were pooled (aOR, 1.26; P < .001 for both).
Dr. Lau received funding from the National Institutes of Health and has no relevant financial disclosures. The editorial authors had various disclosures, including lecture fees from Bayer, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and they served on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and MSD.
FROM CIRCULATION
FDA expands sacubitril/valsartan indication to embrace some HFpEF
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a groundbreaking expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), making it the first drug in the United States indicated for chronic heart failure not specifically characterized by ejection fraction.
The new labeling, as provided by Novartis, grants physicians a good deal of discretion in prescribing sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HF beyond those with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), for which the drug was approved in 2015 primarily on the basis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.
The indication now reads, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.”
Of note, the labeling cautions that “LVEF is a variable measure, so use clinical judgment in deciding whom to treat.”
The expanded indication essentially extends the sacubitril/valsartan option to many patients with HF and preserved LVEF (HFpEF), who in practice are most likely to have an LVEF in the range adjacent to “reduced,” long defined as “preserved” but lately categorized as “mid-range.”
But the FDA did not get so specific. In granting the expanded indication, which Novartis announced Feb. 16 in a press release, the agency accommodated the Dec. 15 majority recommendation of its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee that the PARAGON-HF trial “provided sufficient evidence to support” an indication beyond HFrEF.
The nature of the PARAGON-HF trial, along with detailed discussion among committee members after their vote tally, made it clear that the 12-to-1 majority favored an indication that would include clinically appropriate patients with “below normal” LVEF.
PARAGON-HF had assigned more than 4,800 patients whose LVEF was 45% or higher and were in NYHA class 2-4 to receive sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan only. Those taking the combo drug showed a 13% drop in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths over an average of 3 years, which narrowly missed significance (P = .059).
But a subgroup analysis garnered attention for its hint of benefit for patients with “mid-range” LVEF, in this case, below the median of 57%. The finding was supported by a later PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF meta-analysis that pointed to a significant benefit for patients with HFpEF at its lowest LVEF levels, especially in women.
The expanded approval “is a significant advancement, providing a treatment to many patients who were not eligible for treatment before, because their ejection fraction was above the region we normally considered reduced,” Scott Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the Novartis press release. “We can now offer a treatment to a wider range of patients who have an LVEF below normal,” added Dr. Solomon, PARAGON-HF executive committee cochair.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a groundbreaking expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), making it the first drug in the United States indicated for chronic heart failure not specifically characterized by ejection fraction.
The new labeling, as provided by Novartis, grants physicians a good deal of discretion in prescribing sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HF beyond those with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), for which the drug was approved in 2015 primarily on the basis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.
The indication now reads, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.”
Of note, the labeling cautions that “LVEF is a variable measure, so use clinical judgment in deciding whom to treat.”
The expanded indication essentially extends the sacubitril/valsartan option to many patients with HF and preserved LVEF (HFpEF), who in practice are most likely to have an LVEF in the range adjacent to “reduced,” long defined as “preserved” but lately categorized as “mid-range.”
But the FDA did not get so specific. In granting the expanded indication, which Novartis announced Feb. 16 in a press release, the agency accommodated the Dec. 15 majority recommendation of its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee that the PARAGON-HF trial “provided sufficient evidence to support” an indication beyond HFrEF.
The nature of the PARAGON-HF trial, along with detailed discussion among committee members after their vote tally, made it clear that the 12-to-1 majority favored an indication that would include clinically appropriate patients with “below normal” LVEF.
PARAGON-HF had assigned more than 4,800 patients whose LVEF was 45% or higher and were in NYHA class 2-4 to receive sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan only. Those taking the combo drug showed a 13% drop in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths over an average of 3 years, which narrowly missed significance (P = .059).
But a subgroup analysis garnered attention for its hint of benefit for patients with “mid-range” LVEF, in this case, below the median of 57%. The finding was supported by a later PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF meta-analysis that pointed to a significant benefit for patients with HFpEF at its lowest LVEF levels, especially in women.
The expanded approval “is a significant advancement, providing a treatment to many patients who were not eligible for treatment before, because their ejection fraction was above the region we normally considered reduced,” Scott Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the Novartis press release. “We can now offer a treatment to a wider range of patients who have an LVEF below normal,” added Dr. Solomon, PARAGON-HF executive committee cochair.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a groundbreaking expanded indication for sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), making it the first drug in the United States indicated for chronic heart failure not specifically characterized by ejection fraction.
The new labeling, as provided by Novartis, grants physicians a good deal of discretion in prescribing sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HF beyond those with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), for which the drug was approved in 2015 primarily on the basis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.
The indication now reads, “to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in adult patients with chronic heart failure. Benefits are most clearly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below normal.”
Of note, the labeling cautions that “LVEF is a variable measure, so use clinical judgment in deciding whom to treat.”
The expanded indication essentially extends the sacubitril/valsartan option to many patients with HF and preserved LVEF (HFpEF), who in practice are most likely to have an LVEF in the range adjacent to “reduced,” long defined as “preserved” but lately categorized as “mid-range.”
But the FDA did not get so specific. In granting the expanded indication, which Novartis announced Feb. 16 in a press release, the agency accommodated the Dec. 15 majority recommendation of its Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee that the PARAGON-HF trial “provided sufficient evidence to support” an indication beyond HFrEF.
The nature of the PARAGON-HF trial, along with detailed discussion among committee members after their vote tally, made it clear that the 12-to-1 majority favored an indication that would include clinically appropriate patients with “below normal” LVEF.
PARAGON-HF had assigned more than 4,800 patients whose LVEF was 45% or higher and were in NYHA class 2-4 to receive sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan only. Those taking the combo drug showed a 13% drop in risk for HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths over an average of 3 years, which narrowly missed significance (P = .059).
But a subgroup analysis garnered attention for its hint of benefit for patients with “mid-range” LVEF, in this case, below the median of 57%. The finding was supported by a later PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF meta-analysis that pointed to a significant benefit for patients with HFpEF at its lowest LVEF levels, especially in women.
The expanded approval “is a significant advancement, providing a treatment to many patients who were not eligible for treatment before, because their ejection fraction was above the region we normally considered reduced,” Scott Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in the Novartis press release. “We can now offer a treatment to a wider range of patients who have an LVEF below normal,” added Dr. Solomon, PARAGON-HF executive committee cochair.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More Americans hospitalized, readmitted for heart failure
Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.
Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.
Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).
“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.
“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.
Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”
As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.
In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.
The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.
“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.
The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.
A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.
The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.
“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.
One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.
Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.
Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).
“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.
“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.
Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”
As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.
In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.
The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.
“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.
The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.
A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.
The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.
“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.
One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall primary HF hospitalization rates per 1,000 adults declined from 4.4 in 2010 to 4.1 in 2013, and then increased from 4.2 in 2014 to 4.9 in 2017.
Rates of unique patient visits for HF were also on the way down – falling from 3.4 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2013 and 2014 – before climbing to 3.8 in 2017.
Similar trends were observed for rates of postdischarge HF readmissions (from 1.0 in 2010 to 0.9 in 2014 to 1.1 in 2017) and all-cause 30-day readmissions (from 0.8 in 2010 to 0.7 in 2014 to 0.9 in 2017).
“We should be emphasizing the things we know work to reduce heart failure hospitalization, which is, No. 1, prevention,” senior author Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Comorbidities that can lead to heart failure crept up over the study period, such that by 2017, hypertension was present in 91.4% of patients, diabetes in 48.9%, and lipid disorders in 53.1%, up from 76.5%, 44.9%, and 40.4%, respectively, in 2010. Half of all patients had coronary artery disease at both time points. Renal disease shot up from 45.9% to 60.6% by 2017.
“If we did a better job of controlling our known risk factors, we would really cut down on the incidence of heart failure being developed and then, among those estimated 6.6 million heart failure patients, we need to get them on our cornerstone therapies,” said Dr. Ziaeian, of the Veterans Affairts Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the University of California, Los Angeles.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have shown clear efficacy and safety in trials like DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced, provide a “huge opportunity” to add on to standard therapies, he noted. Competition for VA contracts has brought the price down to about $50 a month for veterans, compared with a cash price of about $500-$600 a month.
Yet in routine practice, only 8% of veterans with HF at his center are on an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with 80% on ACE inhibitors or beta blockers, observed Dr. Ziaeian. “This medication has been indicated for the last year and a half and we’re only at 8% in a system where we have pretty easy access to medications.”
As reported online Feb. 10 in JAMA Cardiology, notable sex differences were found in hospitalization, with higher rates per 1,000 persons among men.
In contrast, a 2020 report on HF trends in the VA system showed a 2% decrease in unadjusted 30-day readmissions from 2007 to 2017 and a decline in the adjusted 30-day readmission risk.
The present study did not risk-adjust readmission risk and included a population that was 51% male, compared with about 98% male in the VA, the investigators noted.
“The increasing hospitalization rate in our study may represent an actual increase in HF hospitalizations or shifts in administrative coding practices, increased use of HF biomarkers, or lower thresholds for diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction,” they wrote.
The analysis was based on data from the Nationwide Readmission Database, which included 35,197,725 hospitalizations with a primary or secondary diagnosis of HF and 8,273,270 primary HF hospitalizations from January 2010 to December 2017.
A single primary HF admission occurred in 5,092,626 unique patients and 1,269,109 had two or more HF hospitalizations. The mean age was 72.1 years.
The administrative database did not include clinical data, so it wasn’t possible to differentiate between HF with preserved or reduced ejection fraction, the authors noted. Patient race and ethnicity data also were not available.
“Future studies are needed to verify our findings to better develop and improve individualized strategies for HF prevention, management, and surveillance for men and women,” the investigators concluded.
One coauthor reporting receiving personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. No other disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Coffee lowers heart failure risk in unique study
Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.
“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”
The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.
“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said
The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
Mathematics, not hypotheses
To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.
The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.
Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
Heart failure and risk reduced
In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.
When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).
While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”
She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
Machine learning mines observational trials
Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”
He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.
“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”
He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”
The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.
Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.
“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”
The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.
“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said
The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
Mathematics, not hypotheses
To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.
The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.
Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
Heart failure and risk reduced
In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.
When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).
While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”
She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
Machine learning mines observational trials
Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”
He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.
“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”
He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”
The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.
Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.
“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”
The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.
“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said
The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
Mathematics, not hypotheses
To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.
The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.
Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
Heart failure and risk reduced
In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.
When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).
While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”
She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
Machine learning mines observational trials
Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”
He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.
“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”
He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”
The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.
FROM CIRCULATION: HEART FAILURE
Cardiac activity not uncommon after lifesaving measures stop
Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.
Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.
“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.
“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”
About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.
Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.
The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.
As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.
A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.
The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.
Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.
In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.
“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”
In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”
The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.
“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”
He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.
“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”
Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.
“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.
Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.
“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.
“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”
About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.
Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.
The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.
As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.
A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.
The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.
Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.
In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.
“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”
In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”
The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.
“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”
He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.
“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”
Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.
“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among critically ill patients pulseless after planned withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, cardiac activity restarted in 14% of cases, research shows.
Reassuringly, most resumption of heart activity happened in the first 1-2 minutes and most lasted 1 or 2 seconds.
“The reason we wanted to look at death determination specifically is we know that the stories persist about people coming back to life following death, and that’s not just in the public, it’s in the medical community as well,” lead author Sonny Dhanani, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, said in an interview.
“We thought that if we provided scientific evidence of whether this happened or not, we might dispel some myths and misunderstanding, which would hopefully promote organ donation.”
About 70% of organ donations occur after brain death, but an increasing number follow circulatory determination of death, he noted. Most protocols recommend 5 minutes of apnea and pulselessness by arterial catheter monitor before declaring death. But practices vary from 10 minutes in some European countries to 75 seconds in infant heart donors at one Colorado hospital.
Reports of patients recovering 10 minutes after pulselessness have raised concerns about the Lazarus phenomenon, or autoresuscitation, but are based in patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation was terminated.
The present study, known as Death Prediction and Physiology after Removal of Therapy (DePParRT), enrolled patients at 20 intensive care sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands, only if surrogate decision-makers agreed on withdrawal of life-sustaining measures without CPR and imminent death was anticipated.
As reported Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine, physicians observed resumption of circulation or cardiac activity prospectively in 1% of 631 patients based on bedside ECG, arterial pressure catheter monitors, palpated arterial pulse, breaths, or physical movements.
A retrospective review of data from 480 patients with complete ECG and arterial waveforms and at least 5 minutes of continuous waveform monitoring after pulselessness showed resumption of cardiac activity in 14% of patients.
The longest period of pulselessness before the heart showed signs of activity again was 4 minutes and 20 seconds. “So that was a reassuring number, because that’s within our 5-minute window that we currently use,” Dr. Dhanani said.
Importantly, “nobody woke up, nobody ended up being resuscitated, and all of these individuals died. And I think that’s going to be very helpful in this context,” he added.
In all, there were 77 cessations and resumptions in 67 of the 480 patients. The median duration of resumed cardiac activity was 3.9 seconds but, notably, ranged from 1 second to 13 minutes and 14 seconds.
“Though surprising, I think maybe not unreasonable,” observed Dr. Dhanani. “The heart is a very robust organ, and we maybe should anticipate these things happening, where at the end of life the heart may restart for minutes.”
In this situation, it’s important to wait the 13 minutes for the heart to stop again and then “wait another 5 minutes to make sure it doesn’t restart before determining death,” he said. “I think that’s where this study is going to now inform policy makers and guidelines, especially in the context of donations.”
The findings will be taken as strong support for the 5-minute window, said Robert Truog, MD, director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics and the Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics, Boston.
“I think it’s a safe point, I think people will refer to it, and it will be used to support the 5-minute window, and that’s probably reasonable,” he told this news organization. “Certainly, if it’s read in Europe it will cut the time from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, and that’s a good thing because 10 minutes is a very long time to wait.”
He noted that the 5-minute window provides reasonable assurance to the public and, with new technologies, permits most organs to be usable for donation after cardiac death. That said, there’s nothing magical about the number.
“In some ways I see this paper as providing interesting data but not actually providing an answer, because from the patient’s perspective and from the recipient’s perspective, waiting until the heart has made its last squeeze may not be the most relevant ethical question,” Dr. Truog said. “It may be, once we know this patient is not going to have return of cardiorespiratory function, is not going to wake up, that’s the point at which we ought to focus on organ preservation and organ retrieval, and that can be much sooner than 5 minutes.”
Dr. Dhanani and colleagues note that the generalizability of the results might be limited because patients without arterial pressure catheters were excluded, and 24% of enrolled patients could not be included in the retrospective waveform analysis owing to incomplete data.
“Our study definition of cardiac activity used an arbitrary threshold of pulse pressure (less than 5 mm Hg) that does not imply meaningful circulation,” they add. “This conservative consensus definition may have been partially responsible for the ostensibly high incidence (14%) of transient resumptions of cardiac activity identified through waveform adjudication.”
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research as part of the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, CHEO Research Institute, and Karel Pavlík Foundation. Dr. Dhanani has consulted for Canadian Blood Services. Dr. Truog reports no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study flags cardiovascular disease in men with breast cancer
.
Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.
Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.
Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.
“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.
The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.
Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.
To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.
Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.
Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.
A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.
Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.
Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.
The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.
In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).
An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.
Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.
In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.
“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.
Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.
Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.
“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.
The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.
Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.
To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.
Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.
Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.
A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.
Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.
Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.
The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.
In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).
An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.
Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.
In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.
“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.
Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.
Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.
“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.
The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.
Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.
To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.
Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.
Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.
A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.
Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.
Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.
The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.
In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).
An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.
Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.
In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.
“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Newer iPhones disable implanted defibrillators
Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.
The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.
The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.
The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.
Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.
Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.
With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.
More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.
This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.
On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.
Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”
Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.
“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”
The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.
However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”
Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.
Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.
The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.
The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.
The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.
Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.
Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.
With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.
More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.
This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.
On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.
Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”
Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.
“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”
The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.
However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”
Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.
Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be warned that some newer models of smartphones equipped with magnets, such as the iPhone 12, can disable their device, inhibiting its lifesaving functions, according to investigators who tested and confirmed this effect.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted which persisted for the duration of the test,” reported the investigating team led by Joshua C. Greenberg, MD, who is an electrophysiology fellow at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The results were published in Heart Rhythm.
The American Heart Association has already cautioned that magnetic fields can inhibit the pulse generators for ICDs and pacemakers. On the AHA website, there is a list of devices and their potential for functional interference, but cell phones and other common devices are identified as posing a low risk.
The most recent iPhone and perhaps other advanced smartphones appear to be different. According to the authors of a study that tested the iPhone 12, this model has a circular array of magnets around a central charging coil. This array interacts with Apple’s proprietary MagSafe technology, which accelerates charging. The magnets also serve to orient the phone on the charger and enable other MagSafe accessories.
The authors of the new study were concerned that this array of magnets might be sufficiently strong to interfere with ICDs or other devices at risk. In a previously published study, the strength of a magnetic field sufficient to interfere with implantable cardiac devices was estimated to be at least 10 gauss.
Tests were performed on a patient wearing a Medtronic ICD.
“Once the iPhone was brought close to the ICD over the left chest area, immediate suspension of ICD therapies was noted,” according to the authors of the study. The functional loss of the ICS persisted for the duration of proximity. It was reproduced multiple times and with multiple phone positions.
Previous studies have provided evidence that earlier models do not share this risk. In a study testing the iPhone 6 and an Apple Watch in 148 patients with various types of implantable electronic devices, including pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, resynchronization defibrillators, and resynchronization pacemakers, only one instance of interference was observed in 1,352 tests.
With wand telemetry, iPhone-induced interferences could be detected with the iPhone 6 in 14% of the patients, but these did not appear to be clinically meaningful, and this type of interference could not be detected with the Apple Watch, according to the report. The single observed interaction, which was between an iPhone 6 and a dual-chamber pacemaker, suggested device-device interactions are uncommon.
More recently, a woman with a single-chamber Medtronic ICD who went to sleep wearing an Apple Watch was awoken by warning beeps from her cardiac device, according to a case report published online. The Apple watch became the prime suspect in causing the ICD warning when proximity of the watch reproduced the warning during clinical examination. However, the magnetic interference was ultimately found to be emanating from the wristband, not the watch.
This case prompted additional studies with Fitbit and other Apple Watch wristbands. Both wristbands contain magnets used to track heart rate. Both were found capable of deactivating ICDs at distances of approximately 2 cm. On the basis of these results, the authors concluded that patients should be counseled about the risk posed by wristbands used in fitness tracking, concluding that they should be kept at least 6 inches away from ICDs and not worn while sleeping.
On their website, Apple maintains a page that specifically warns about the potential for interactions between iPhone 12s and medical devices . Although there is an acknowledgment that the iPhone12 contains more magnets than prior iPhone models, it is stated that iPhone 12 models are “not expected to pose a greater risk of magnetic interference to medical devices than prior iPhone models.” Nevertheless, the Apple instructions advise keeping the iPhone and MagSafe accessories more than 6 inches away from medical devices.
Dr. Greenberg and coinvestigators concluded that the iPhone 12 does pose a greater risk to the dysfunction of ICDs and other medical devices because of the more powerful magnets. As a result, the study brings forward “an important public health issue concerning the newer generation iPhone 12.”
Well aware of this issue and this study, Bruce L. Wilkoff, MD, director of cardiac pacing and tachyarrhythmia devices, Cleveland Clinic, agreed. He said the focus should not be restricted to the iPhone 12 series but other wearable devices as alluded to in the study.
“Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are designed to respond to magnets for important reasons, but magnets have many common uses,” he said. These can change the function of the implantable cardiac devise, but “it is temporary and only when placed in close proximity.”
The solution is simple. “Patients should be careful to avoid locating these objects near these devices,” Dr. Wilkoff said.
However, the first step is awareness. According to the study authors, devices with magnets powerful enough to impair function of implantable devices, such as the iPhone 12 “can potentially inhibit lifesaving therapy.”
Patients should be counseled and provided with practical steps, according to the authors. This includes keeping these devices out of pockets near implantable devices. They called for more noise from makers of smartphones and other devices with strong enough magnets to alter pacemaker and ICD function, and they advised physicians to draw awareness to this issue.
Dr. Greenberg reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM HEART RHYTHM