User login
Low copays drive better adherence to new diabetes drugs
TOPLINE:
The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.
METHODOLOGY:
- Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
- Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
- Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
- Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAYS:
- U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
- These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
- After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.
IN PRACTICE:
“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.
LIMITATIONS:
Study could not exclude residual confounding.
Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.
Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.
Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.
Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.
METHODOLOGY:
- Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
- Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
- Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
- Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAYS:
- U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
- These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
- After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.
IN PRACTICE:
“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.
LIMITATIONS:
Study could not exclude residual confounding.
Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.
Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.
Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.
Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.
METHODOLOGY:
- Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
- Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
- Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
- Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAYS:
- U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
- These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
- After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.
IN PRACTICE:
“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.
LIMITATIONS:
Study could not exclude residual confounding.
Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.
Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.
Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.
Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BMI ‘vastly underestimates’ true obesity
CHICAGO – , a finding that highlights the shortcomings of BMI and adds to the growing case that BMI alone should not be the default gauge for obesity.
“BMI vastly underestimates true obesity,” Aayush Visaria, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
His findings highlight that “BMI should be supplemented with other measures of obesity” for the management of individual patients, with assessments that could include a bioelectrical impedance scale or waist circumference, said Dr. Visaria, a researcher at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.
Dr. Visaria cited a new policy issued by the American Medical Association a couple of days before his presentation, which advises that BMI “be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.”
“We’re at the start of the end of BMI,” Dr. Visaria declared during a press briefing at the meeting.
He said DEXA is not practical or cost-effective for obesity screening in routine practice. Therefore, he predicts that waist circumference, often expressed as waist-to-height ratio, will be measured more often, although he acknowledged that waist measurement can be difficult. However, better physician training on the measure should help it become the norm.
Another useful tool for obesity measurement he foresees quickly becoming widespread is bathroom scales that record both weight and body fat percentage using a small electric current to make a bioelectrical impedance measure of adiposity.
Bioimpedance scales will provide more standardized measurements than waist circumference and “revolutionize how we measure obesity,” Dr. Visaria predicted. They are “very accessible and cheap,” he noted, with many models sold for less than $100.
Obesity prevalence of 74%
The study by Dr. Visaria and colleagues used data from 9,784 U.S. adults aged 20-59 years (average age, 39 years) collected in several National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys during 2011-2018. All these participants underwent DEXA assessment of their total body fat as well as a BMI calculation.
Using standard obesity cutoffs for both BMI and total body fat, Dr. Visaria found that DEXA rated 74% of participants as having obesity based on body fat compared with 36% based on BMI.
Among the 64% of the study group who were not obese by BMI, DEXA scans showed 53% of this subgroup did have obesity based on body fat content. Among those with a normal BMI, 43% had obesity by DEXA result.
Further analysis showed that when Dr. Visaria added waist circumference to BMI to enlarge the diagnostic net for obesity it cut the percentage of adults missed as having obesity by BMI alone nearly in half.
Additional analyses showed that the rate of missed diagnoses of obesity by BMI was most common only among people of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, with both groups showing a 49% rate of obesity by DEXA among those with normal-range BMIs.
The rate of missed obesity diagnoses was highest among all women, with a 59% prevalence of obesity by DEXA among women with a normal-range BMI.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Visaria has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , a finding that highlights the shortcomings of BMI and adds to the growing case that BMI alone should not be the default gauge for obesity.
“BMI vastly underestimates true obesity,” Aayush Visaria, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
His findings highlight that “BMI should be supplemented with other measures of obesity” for the management of individual patients, with assessments that could include a bioelectrical impedance scale or waist circumference, said Dr. Visaria, a researcher at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.
Dr. Visaria cited a new policy issued by the American Medical Association a couple of days before his presentation, which advises that BMI “be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.”
“We’re at the start of the end of BMI,” Dr. Visaria declared during a press briefing at the meeting.
He said DEXA is not practical or cost-effective for obesity screening in routine practice. Therefore, he predicts that waist circumference, often expressed as waist-to-height ratio, will be measured more often, although he acknowledged that waist measurement can be difficult. However, better physician training on the measure should help it become the norm.
Another useful tool for obesity measurement he foresees quickly becoming widespread is bathroom scales that record both weight and body fat percentage using a small electric current to make a bioelectrical impedance measure of adiposity.
Bioimpedance scales will provide more standardized measurements than waist circumference and “revolutionize how we measure obesity,” Dr. Visaria predicted. They are “very accessible and cheap,” he noted, with many models sold for less than $100.
Obesity prevalence of 74%
The study by Dr. Visaria and colleagues used data from 9,784 U.S. adults aged 20-59 years (average age, 39 years) collected in several National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys during 2011-2018. All these participants underwent DEXA assessment of their total body fat as well as a BMI calculation.
Using standard obesity cutoffs for both BMI and total body fat, Dr. Visaria found that DEXA rated 74% of participants as having obesity based on body fat compared with 36% based on BMI.
Among the 64% of the study group who were not obese by BMI, DEXA scans showed 53% of this subgroup did have obesity based on body fat content. Among those with a normal BMI, 43% had obesity by DEXA result.
Further analysis showed that when Dr. Visaria added waist circumference to BMI to enlarge the diagnostic net for obesity it cut the percentage of adults missed as having obesity by BMI alone nearly in half.
Additional analyses showed that the rate of missed diagnoses of obesity by BMI was most common only among people of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, with both groups showing a 49% rate of obesity by DEXA among those with normal-range BMIs.
The rate of missed obesity diagnoses was highest among all women, with a 59% prevalence of obesity by DEXA among women with a normal-range BMI.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Visaria has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , a finding that highlights the shortcomings of BMI and adds to the growing case that BMI alone should not be the default gauge for obesity.
“BMI vastly underestimates true obesity,” Aayush Visaria, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
His findings highlight that “BMI should be supplemented with other measures of obesity” for the management of individual patients, with assessments that could include a bioelectrical impedance scale or waist circumference, said Dr. Visaria, a researcher at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J.
Dr. Visaria cited a new policy issued by the American Medical Association a couple of days before his presentation, which advises that BMI “be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.”
“We’re at the start of the end of BMI,” Dr. Visaria declared during a press briefing at the meeting.
He said DEXA is not practical or cost-effective for obesity screening in routine practice. Therefore, he predicts that waist circumference, often expressed as waist-to-height ratio, will be measured more often, although he acknowledged that waist measurement can be difficult. However, better physician training on the measure should help it become the norm.
Another useful tool for obesity measurement he foresees quickly becoming widespread is bathroom scales that record both weight and body fat percentage using a small electric current to make a bioelectrical impedance measure of adiposity.
Bioimpedance scales will provide more standardized measurements than waist circumference and “revolutionize how we measure obesity,” Dr. Visaria predicted. They are “very accessible and cheap,” he noted, with many models sold for less than $100.
Obesity prevalence of 74%
The study by Dr. Visaria and colleagues used data from 9,784 U.S. adults aged 20-59 years (average age, 39 years) collected in several National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys during 2011-2018. All these participants underwent DEXA assessment of their total body fat as well as a BMI calculation.
Using standard obesity cutoffs for both BMI and total body fat, Dr. Visaria found that DEXA rated 74% of participants as having obesity based on body fat compared with 36% based on BMI.
Among the 64% of the study group who were not obese by BMI, DEXA scans showed 53% of this subgroup did have obesity based on body fat content. Among those with a normal BMI, 43% had obesity by DEXA result.
Further analysis showed that when Dr. Visaria added waist circumference to BMI to enlarge the diagnostic net for obesity it cut the percentage of adults missed as having obesity by BMI alone nearly in half.
Additional analyses showed that the rate of missed diagnoses of obesity by BMI was most common only among people of Hispanic or Asian ethnicity, with both groups showing a 49% rate of obesity by DEXA among those with normal-range BMIs.
The rate of missed obesity diagnoses was highest among all women, with a 59% prevalence of obesity by DEXA among women with a normal-range BMI.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Visaria has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ENDO 2023
Anabolic-steroid withdrawal regimens show promise in men
Men who illicitly used anabolic-androgenic steroids to bulk up and then turned to illegal, web-based regimens for treating their steroid withdrawal complications have provided important clues for new approaches to treating a growing worldwide population of men who abuse steroids.
A retrospective, observational study at one steroid addiction center in Glasgow examined 641 men who had stopped using steroids within the prior 3 years in 2015-2022 and who had self-administered certain agents, collectively known as post-cycle therapy (PCT) – within 3 months of stopping steroids.
They had a significant 3.8-fold increased rate of normalization of their levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), compared with men who either never used PCT or began it more than 3 months after stopping steroids, Channa N. Jayasena, PhD, MRCP, FRCPath, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
These testosterone, LH, and FSH levels served as a “surrogate marker of biochemical recovery from hypogonadism,” he explained. Normalization also occurred “slightly sooner” in men who began using PCT early after steroid cessation, added Dr. Jayasena, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College, London.
When men recovered their endogenous testosterone-producing capacity, it occurred after an average of about 13 weeks on PCT and after an average of about 19 weeks without PCT, a significant difference.
“There is a vacuum of medical advice on what to do” when men stop taking steroids, said Dr. Jayasena during a press briefing at the meeting. “We can’t recommend anything yet because [our studies] have not proven causality” between the post-cycle therapy that many men start after stopping steroids and any symptom improvement they experience.”
The next step is to test the PCT agents in a prospective, controlled study, an investigation Dr. Jayasena and colleagues are eager to launch. The goal is to determine whether PCT is truly effective, the optimal doses, and whether the treatments are safe.
‘Incredibly sophisticated’ online community
The agents that constitute PCT include human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, the “pregnancy hormone”), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). SERMs and AIs are licensed only for use in women, the former for osteoporosis and breast cancer and the latter for breast cancer.
All of these agents, as well as others, are advertised by various illegal websites as treatments that can restore endogenous testosterone production in men whose native testosterone shut down during their steroid self-medication.
Restored testosterone resolves many of the adverse effects of steroid withdrawal such as diminished libido and erections, and depressed mood and energy.
Men buy PCT agents illegally from various websites. “There is an enormous, incredibly sophisticated community online that influences” PCT, and an “incredibly refined worldwide distribution network,” Dr. Jayasena explained.
His study included 410 men who turned to PCT after steroid cessation and 170 who did not.
Largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids
In a further multivariate analysis of the observational data, men who had used four or more different steroid treatments fared worse – with a significant 75% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT – compared with men who had used a single steroid agent.
And men who had been on a steroid regimen for more than 6 months also fared badly – with a significant 66% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT, compared with men on a steroid regimen for 3 months or less.
“This is the largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids,” Dr. Jayasena noted.
And the data “require corroboration within an interventional study to determine causality.”
“We need further studies to help doctors and other health care professionals advise men about the risks of anabolic steroid use and support those who are motivated to stop,” Dr. Jayasena said.
He cautioned that the study has several limitations: biases were potentially introduced based on recruitment and on recall by participants; clinicians drew blood specimens used to measure hormone levels at random times; and participants may have engaged in concealed drug use and used steroid and PCT agents that did not contain the substances advertised.
Nevertheless,, and they “may have important therapeutic implications for the future treatment of men who are motivated to stop” steroids.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jayasena has received research funding from Logixx Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Men who illicitly used anabolic-androgenic steroids to bulk up and then turned to illegal, web-based regimens for treating their steroid withdrawal complications have provided important clues for new approaches to treating a growing worldwide population of men who abuse steroids.
A retrospective, observational study at one steroid addiction center in Glasgow examined 641 men who had stopped using steroids within the prior 3 years in 2015-2022 and who had self-administered certain agents, collectively known as post-cycle therapy (PCT) – within 3 months of stopping steroids.
They had a significant 3.8-fold increased rate of normalization of their levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), compared with men who either never used PCT or began it more than 3 months after stopping steroids, Channa N. Jayasena, PhD, MRCP, FRCPath, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
These testosterone, LH, and FSH levels served as a “surrogate marker of biochemical recovery from hypogonadism,” he explained. Normalization also occurred “slightly sooner” in men who began using PCT early after steroid cessation, added Dr. Jayasena, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College, London.
When men recovered their endogenous testosterone-producing capacity, it occurred after an average of about 13 weeks on PCT and after an average of about 19 weeks without PCT, a significant difference.
“There is a vacuum of medical advice on what to do” when men stop taking steroids, said Dr. Jayasena during a press briefing at the meeting. “We can’t recommend anything yet because [our studies] have not proven causality” between the post-cycle therapy that many men start after stopping steroids and any symptom improvement they experience.”
The next step is to test the PCT agents in a prospective, controlled study, an investigation Dr. Jayasena and colleagues are eager to launch. The goal is to determine whether PCT is truly effective, the optimal doses, and whether the treatments are safe.
‘Incredibly sophisticated’ online community
The agents that constitute PCT include human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, the “pregnancy hormone”), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). SERMs and AIs are licensed only for use in women, the former for osteoporosis and breast cancer and the latter for breast cancer.
All of these agents, as well as others, are advertised by various illegal websites as treatments that can restore endogenous testosterone production in men whose native testosterone shut down during their steroid self-medication.
Restored testosterone resolves many of the adverse effects of steroid withdrawal such as diminished libido and erections, and depressed mood and energy.
Men buy PCT agents illegally from various websites. “There is an enormous, incredibly sophisticated community online that influences” PCT, and an “incredibly refined worldwide distribution network,” Dr. Jayasena explained.
His study included 410 men who turned to PCT after steroid cessation and 170 who did not.
Largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids
In a further multivariate analysis of the observational data, men who had used four or more different steroid treatments fared worse – with a significant 75% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT – compared with men who had used a single steroid agent.
And men who had been on a steroid regimen for more than 6 months also fared badly – with a significant 66% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT, compared with men on a steroid regimen for 3 months or less.
“This is the largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids,” Dr. Jayasena noted.
And the data “require corroboration within an interventional study to determine causality.”
“We need further studies to help doctors and other health care professionals advise men about the risks of anabolic steroid use and support those who are motivated to stop,” Dr. Jayasena said.
He cautioned that the study has several limitations: biases were potentially introduced based on recruitment and on recall by participants; clinicians drew blood specimens used to measure hormone levels at random times; and participants may have engaged in concealed drug use and used steroid and PCT agents that did not contain the substances advertised.
Nevertheless,, and they “may have important therapeutic implications for the future treatment of men who are motivated to stop” steroids.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jayasena has received research funding from Logixx Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Men who illicitly used anabolic-androgenic steroids to bulk up and then turned to illegal, web-based regimens for treating their steroid withdrawal complications have provided important clues for new approaches to treating a growing worldwide population of men who abuse steroids.
A retrospective, observational study at one steroid addiction center in Glasgow examined 641 men who had stopped using steroids within the prior 3 years in 2015-2022 and who had self-administered certain agents, collectively known as post-cycle therapy (PCT) – within 3 months of stopping steroids.
They had a significant 3.8-fold increased rate of normalization of their levels of testosterone, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), compared with men who either never used PCT or began it more than 3 months after stopping steroids, Channa N. Jayasena, PhD, MRCP, FRCPath, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
These testosterone, LH, and FSH levels served as a “surrogate marker of biochemical recovery from hypogonadism,” he explained. Normalization also occurred “slightly sooner” in men who began using PCT early after steroid cessation, added Dr. Jayasena, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College, London.
When men recovered their endogenous testosterone-producing capacity, it occurred after an average of about 13 weeks on PCT and after an average of about 19 weeks without PCT, a significant difference.
“There is a vacuum of medical advice on what to do” when men stop taking steroids, said Dr. Jayasena during a press briefing at the meeting. “We can’t recommend anything yet because [our studies] have not proven causality” between the post-cycle therapy that many men start after stopping steroids and any symptom improvement they experience.”
The next step is to test the PCT agents in a prospective, controlled study, an investigation Dr. Jayasena and colleagues are eager to launch. The goal is to determine whether PCT is truly effective, the optimal doses, and whether the treatments are safe.
‘Incredibly sophisticated’ online community
The agents that constitute PCT include human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, the “pregnancy hormone”), selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs). SERMs and AIs are licensed only for use in women, the former for osteoporosis and breast cancer and the latter for breast cancer.
All of these agents, as well as others, are advertised by various illegal websites as treatments that can restore endogenous testosterone production in men whose native testosterone shut down during their steroid self-medication.
Restored testosterone resolves many of the adverse effects of steroid withdrawal such as diminished libido and erections, and depressed mood and energy.
Men buy PCT agents illegally from various websites. “There is an enormous, incredibly sophisticated community online that influences” PCT, and an “incredibly refined worldwide distribution network,” Dr. Jayasena explained.
His study included 410 men who turned to PCT after steroid cessation and 170 who did not.
Largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids
In a further multivariate analysis of the observational data, men who had used four or more different steroid treatments fared worse – with a significant 75% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT – compared with men who had used a single steroid agent.
And men who had been on a steroid regimen for more than 6 months also fared badly – with a significant 66% reduced rate of testosterone normalization with PCT, compared with men on a steroid regimen for 3 months or less.
“This is the largest study of hormone recovery when men stop taking steroids,” Dr. Jayasena noted.
And the data “require corroboration within an interventional study to determine causality.”
“We need further studies to help doctors and other health care professionals advise men about the risks of anabolic steroid use and support those who are motivated to stop,” Dr. Jayasena said.
He cautioned that the study has several limitations: biases were potentially introduced based on recruitment and on recall by participants; clinicians drew blood specimens used to measure hormone levels at random times; and participants may have engaged in concealed drug use and used steroid and PCT agents that did not contain the substances advertised.
Nevertheless,, and they “may have important therapeutic implications for the future treatment of men who are motivated to stop” steroids.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Jayasena has received research funding from Logixx Pharma.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ENDO 2023
Troponin to ID diabetes patients with silent heart disease?
– based on data from a representative sample of more than 10,000 U.S. adults.
The finding suggests hs-cTnT maybe a useful marker for adults with diabetes who could benefit from more aggressive CVD risk reduction despite having no clinical indications of CVD.
The results “highlight the substantial burden of subclinical CVD in persons with diabetes and emphasize the importance of early detection and treatment of CVD for this high-risk population,” say the authors of the research, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
“This is the first study to examine subclinical CVD, defined by elevated cardiac biomarkers, in a nationally representative population of adults with or without diabetes. It provides novel information on the high burden of subclinical CVD [in American adults with diabetes] and the potential utility of hs-cTnT for monitoring this risk in people with diabetes,” said Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, senior author and a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“What we are seeing is that many people with type 2 diabetes who have not had a heart attack or a history of cardiovascular disease are at high risk for cardiovascular complications,” added Dr. Selvin in an AHA press release. “When we look at the whole population of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, about 27 million adults in the U.S., according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], some are at low risk and some are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, so the open question is: ‘Who is most at risk?’ These cardiac biomarkers give us a window into cardiovascular risk in people who otherwise might not be recognized as highest risk.”
“Our results provide evidence to support use of cardiac biomarkers for routine risk monitoring in high-risk populations such as people with diabetes,” Dr. Selvin noted in an interview.
Need for aggressive CVD risk reduction
The findings also indicate that people with diabetes and an elevated hs-cTnT “should be targeted for aggressive cardiovascular risk reduction, including lifestyle interventions, weight loss, and treatment with statins, blood pressure medications, and cardioprotective therapies such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists,” Dr. Selvin added.
“Cholesterol is often the factor that we target to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes,” she observed. “However, type 2 diabetes may have a direct effect on the heart not related to cholesterol levels. If type 2 diabetes is directly causing damage to the small vessels in the heart unrelated to cholesterol plaque buildup, then cholesterol-lowering medications are not going to prevent cardiac damage,” Dr. Selvin explained. “Our research suggests that additional non–statin-related therapies are needed to lower the cardiovascular disease risk in people with type 2 diabetes.”
However, she noted that a necessary step prior to formally recommending such a strategy is to run clinical trials to assess the efficacy of specific treatments, such as SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, in people with diabetes and elevated hs-cTnT.
“Randomized controlled trials would be best to test the relevance of measuring these biomarkers to assess risk in asymptomatic people with diabetes,” as well as prospective study of the value of hs-cTnT to guide treatment, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“I doubt measurements [of hs-cTnT] would be reimbursed [by third-party payers] if carried out without such outcome data,” he added.
Dr. Eckel also highlights the need to further validate in additional cohorts the link between elevations in hs-cTnT and CVD events in adults with diabetes, and to confirm that elevated levels of another cardiac biomarker – N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – do not work as well as troponin as a risk marker for people with diabetes, another finding of the study.
ADA report already recommends testing these biomarkers for HF
However, a consensus report published in 2022 by the American Diabetes Association laid out the case for routinely and regularly measuring levels of both high sensitivity cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptides in people with diabetes for early identification of incident heart failure.
“Among individuals with diabetes, measurement of a natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure,” noted the ADA consensus report on heart failure.
The new study run by Dr. Selvin and coauthors used data collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004 from U.S. adults who were at least 20 years old and had no history of CVD: myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary heart disease, or heart failure. This included 9,273 people without diabetes and 1,031 with diabetes, defined as a prior diagnosis or hemoglobin A1c of at least 6.5%.
“Cardiovascular risk varies substantially in adults with type 2 diabetes, highlighting the need for accurate risk stratification,” the authors observed.
All study participants had recorded measures of hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP.
The researchers considered an hs-cTnT level of greater than 14 ng/L and an NT-proBNP level of greater than 125 pg/mL as indicators of subclinical CVD.
The crude prevalence of elevated NT-proBNP was 33.4% among those with diabetes and 16.1% in those without diabetes. Elevated hs-cTnT occurred in 19% of those with diabetes and in 5% of those without diabetes. Elevated levels of both markers existed in 9% of those with diabetes and in 3% of those without diabetes.
“Approximately one in three adults with diabetes had subclinical CVD, with 19% having elevated levels of hs-cTnT, 23% having elevated NT-proBNP, and 9% having elevations in both cardiac biomarkers,” the researchers noted.
Diabetes linked with a doubled prevalence of elevated hs-cTnT
After adjustment for several demographic variables as well as traditional CVD risk factors, people with diabetes had a significant 98% higher rate of elevated hs-cTnT, compared with those without diabetes. But after similar adjustments, the rate of elevated NT-proBNP was significantly lower among people with diabetes, compared with controls, by a relative reduction of 24%.
“Our findings suggest that, in people with diabetes, hs-cTnT may be more useful [than NT-proBNP] for general risk monitoring, as its interpretation is less complicated,” said Dr. Selvin, who explained that “NT-proBNP is affected by overweight and obesity.”
In people with diabetes, the age-adjusted prevalence of elevated hs-cTnT ran higher in those with longer duration diabetes, and in those with less well-controlled diabetes based on a higher level of A1c. Neither of these factors showed any significant relationship with measured levels of NT-proBNP.
Further analysis linked the NHANES findings during 1999-2004 with U.S. national death records through the end of 2019. This showed that elevated levels of both hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP significantly linked with subsequently higher rates of all-cause mortality among people with diabetes. Elevated hs-cTnT linked with a 77% increased mortality and NT-proBNP linked with a 78% increased rate, compared with people with diabetes and no elevations in these markers, after adjustment for demographic variables and CVD risk factors.
However, for the outcome of cardiovascular death, elevated hs-cTnT linked with a nonsignificant 54% relative increase, while elevated NT-proBNP linked with a significant 2.46-fold relative increase.
The study “adds new data on biomarkers that are not routinely measured in asymptomatic people with or without diabetes” and the relationships of these markers to CVD mortality and all-cause mortality, Dr. Eckel concluded.
The study received no commercial funding, but used reagents donated by Abbott Laboratories, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics. Dr. Selvin and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– based on data from a representative sample of more than 10,000 U.S. adults.
The finding suggests hs-cTnT maybe a useful marker for adults with diabetes who could benefit from more aggressive CVD risk reduction despite having no clinical indications of CVD.
The results “highlight the substantial burden of subclinical CVD in persons with diabetes and emphasize the importance of early detection and treatment of CVD for this high-risk population,” say the authors of the research, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
“This is the first study to examine subclinical CVD, defined by elevated cardiac biomarkers, in a nationally representative population of adults with or without diabetes. It provides novel information on the high burden of subclinical CVD [in American adults with diabetes] and the potential utility of hs-cTnT for monitoring this risk in people with diabetes,” said Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, senior author and a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“What we are seeing is that many people with type 2 diabetes who have not had a heart attack or a history of cardiovascular disease are at high risk for cardiovascular complications,” added Dr. Selvin in an AHA press release. “When we look at the whole population of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, about 27 million adults in the U.S., according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], some are at low risk and some are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, so the open question is: ‘Who is most at risk?’ These cardiac biomarkers give us a window into cardiovascular risk in people who otherwise might not be recognized as highest risk.”
“Our results provide evidence to support use of cardiac biomarkers for routine risk monitoring in high-risk populations such as people with diabetes,” Dr. Selvin noted in an interview.
Need for aggressive CVD risk reduction
The findings also indicate that people with diabetes and an elevated hs-cTnT “should be targeted for aggressive cardiovascular risk reduction, including lifestyle interventions, weight loss, and treatment with statins, blood pressure medications, and cardioprotective therapies such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists,” Dr. Selvin added.
“Cholesterol is often the factor that we target to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes,” she observed. “However, type 2 diabetes may have a direct effect on the heart not related to cholesterol levels. If type 2 diabetes is directly causing damage to the small vessels in the heart unrelated to cholesterol plaque buildup, then cholesterol-lowering medications are not going to prevent cardiac damage,” Dr. Selvin explained. “Our research suggests that additional non–statin-related therapies are needed to lower the cardiovascular disease risk in people with type 2 diabetes.”
However, she noted that a necessary step prior to formally recommending such a strategy is to run clinical trials to assess the efficacy of specific treatments, such as SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, in people with diabetes and elevated hs-cTnT.
“Randomized controlled trials would be best to test the relevance of measuring these biomarkers to assess risk in asymptomatic people with diabetes,” as well as prospective study of the value of hs-cTnT to guide treatment, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“I doubt measurements [of hs-cTnT] would be reimbursed [by third-party payers] if carried out without such outcome data,” he added.
Dr. Eckel also highlights the need to further validate in additional cohorts the link between elevations in hs-cTnT and CVD events in adults with diabetes, and to confirm that elevated levels of another cardiac biomarker – N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – do not work as well as troponin as a risk marker for people with diabetes, another finding of the study.
ADA report already recommends testing these biomarkers for HF
However, a consensus report published in 2022 by the American Diabetes Association laid out the case for routinely and regularly measuring levels of both high sensitivity cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptides in people with diabetes for early identification of incident heart failure.
“Among individuals with diabetes, measurement of a natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure,” noted the ADA consensus report on heart failure.
The new study run by Dr. Selvin and coauthors used data collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004 from U.S. adults who were at least 20 years old and had no history of CVD: myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary heart disease, or heart failure. This included 9,273 people without diabetes and 1,031 with diabetes, defined as a prior diagnosis or hemoglobin A1c of at least 6.5%.
“Cardiovascular risk varies substantially in adults with type 2 diabetes, highlighting the need for accurate risk stratification,” the authors observed.
All study participants had recorded measures of hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP.
The researchers considered an hs-cTnT level of greater than 14 ng/L and an NT-proBNP level of greater than 125 pg/mL as indicators of subclinical CVD.
The crude prevalence of elevated NT-proBNP was 33.4% among those with diabetes and 16.1% in those without diabetes. Elevated hs-cTnT occurred in 19% of those with diabetes and in 5% of those without diabetes. Elevated levels of both markers existed in 9% of those with diabetes and in 3% of those without diabetes.
“Approximately one in three adults with diabetes had subclinical CVD, with 19% having elevated levels of hs-cTnT, 23% having elevated NT-proBNP, and 9% having elevations in both cardiac biomarkers,” the researchers noted.
Diabetes linked with a doubled prevalence of elevated hs-cTnT
After adjustment for several demographic variables as well as traditional CVD risk factors, people with diabetes had a significant 98% higher rate of elevated hs-cTnT, compared with those without diabetes. But after similar adjustments, the rate of elevated NT-proBNP was significantly lower among people with diabetes, compared with controls, by a relative reduction of 24%.
“Our findings suggest that, in people with diabetes, hs-cTnT may be more useful [than NT-proBNP] for general risk monitoring, as its interpretation is less complicated,” said Dr. Selvin, who explained that “NT-proBNP is affected by overweight and obesity.”
In people with diabetes, the age-adjusted prevalence of elevated hs-cTnT ran higher in those with longer duration diabetes, and in those with less well-controlled diabetes based on a higher level of A1c. Neither of these factors showed any significant relationship with measured levels of NT-proBNP.
Further analysis linked the NHANES findings during 1999-2004 with U.S. national death records through the end of 2019. This showed that elevated levels of both hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP significantly linked with subsequently higher rates of all-cause mortality among people with diabetes. Elevated hs-cTnT linked with a 77% increased mortality and NT-proBNP linked with a 78% increased rate, compared with people with diabetes and no elevations in these markers, after adjustment for demographic variables and CVD risk factors.
However, for the outcome of cardiovascular death, elevated hs-cTnT linked with a nonsignificant 54% relative increase, while elevated NT-proBNP linked with a significant 2.46-fold relative increase.
The study “adds new data on biomarkers that are not routinely measured in asymptomatic people with or without diabetes” and the relationships of these markers to CVD mortality and all-cause mortality, Dr. Eckel concluded.
The study received no commercial funding, but used reagents donated by Abbott Laboratories, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics. Dr. Selvin and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
– based on data from a representative sample of more than 10,000 U.S. adults.
The finding suggests hs-cTnT maybe a useful marker for adults with diabetes who could benefit from more aggressive CVD risk reduction despite having no clinical indications of CVD.
The results “highlight the substantial burden of subclinical CVD in persons with diabetes and emphasize the importance of early detection and treatment of CVD for this high-risk population,” say the authors of the research, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
“This is the first study to examine subclinical CVD, defined by elevated cardiac biomarkers, in a nationally representative population of adults with or without diabetes. It provides novel information on the high burden of subclinical CVD [in American adults with diabetes] and the potential utility of hs-cTnT for monitoring this risk in people with diabetes,” said Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, senior author and a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“What we are seeing is that many people with type 2 diabetes who have not had a heart attack or a history of cardiovascular disease are at high risk for cardiovascular complications,” added Dr. Selvin in an AHA press release. “When we look at the whole population of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, about 27 million adults in the U.S., according to the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], some are at low risk and some are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, so the open question is: ‘Who is most at risk?’ These cardiac biomarkers give us a window into cardiovascular risk in people who otherwise might not be recognized as highest risk.”
“Our results provide evidence to support use of cardiac biomarkers for routine risk monitoring in high-risk populations such as people with diabetes,” Dr. Selvin noted in an interview.
Need for aggressive CVD risk reduction
The findings also indicate that people with diabetes and an elevated hs-cTnT “should be targeted for aggressive cardiovascular risk reduction, including lifestyle interventions, weight loss, and treatment with statins, blood pressure medications, and cardioprotective therapies such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists,” Dr. Selvin added.
“Cholesterol is often the factor that we target to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes,” she observed. “However, type 2 diabetes may have a direct effect on the heart not related to cholesterol levels. If type 2 diabetes is directly causing damage to the small vessels in the heart unrelated to cholesterol plaque buildup, then cholesterol-lowering medications are not going to prevent cardiac damage,” Dr. Selvin explained. “Our research suggests that additional non–statin-related therapies are needed to lower the cardiovascular disease risk in people with type 2 diabetes.”
However, she noted that a necessary step prior to formally recommending such a strategy is to run clinical trials to assess the efficacy of specific treatments, such as SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists, in people with diabetes and elevated hs-cTnT.
“Randomized controlled trials would be best to test the relevance of measuring these biomarkers to assess risk in asymptomatic people with diabetes,” as well as prospective study of the value of hs-cTnT to guide treatment, commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“I doubt measurements [of hs-cTnT] would be reimbursed [by third-party payers] if carried out without such outcome data,” he added.
Dr. Eckel also highlights the need to further validate in additional cohorts the link between elevations in hs-cTnT and CVD events in adults with diabetes, and to confirm that elevated levels of another cardiac biomarker – N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) – do not work as well as troponin as a risk marker for people with diabetes, another finding of the study.
ADA report already recommends testing these biomarkers for HF
However, a consensus report published in 2022 by the American Diabetes Association laid out the case for routinely and regularly measuring levels of both high sensitivity cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptides in people with diabetes for early identification of incident heart failure.
“Among individuals with diabetes, measurement of a natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is recommended on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure,” noted the ADA consensus report on heart failure.
The new study run by Dr. Selvin and coauthors used data collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2004 from U.S. adults who were at least 20 years old and had no history of CVD: myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary heart disease, or heart failure. This included 9,273 people without diabetes and 1,031 with diabetes, defined as a prior diagnosis or hemoglobin A1c of at least 6.5%.
“Cardiovascular risk varies substantially in adults with type 2 diabetes, highlighting the need for accurate risk stratification,” the authors observed.
All study participants had recorded measures of hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP.
The researchers considered an hs-cTnT level of greater than 14 ng/L and an NT-proBNP level of greater than 125 pg/mL as indicators of subclinical CVD.
The crude prevalence of elevated NT-proBNP was 33.4% among those with diabetes and 16.1% in those without diabetes. Elevated hs-cTnT occurred in 19% of those with diabetes and in 5% of those without diabetes. Elevated levels of both markers existed in 9% of those with diabetes and in 3% of those without diabetes.
“Approximately one in three adults with diabetes had subclinical CVD, with 19% having elevated levels of hs-cTnT, 23% having elevated NT-proBNP, and 9% having elevations in both cardiac biomarkers,” the researchers noted.
Diabetes linked with a doubled prevalence of elevated hs-cTnT
After adjustment for several demographic variables as well as traditional CVD risk factors, people with diabetes had a significant 98% higher rate of elevated hs-cTnT, compared with those without diabetes. But after similar adjustments, the rate of elevated NT-proBNP was significantly lower among people with diabetes, compared with controls, by a relative reduction of 24%.
“Our findings suggest that, in people with diabetes, hs-cTnT may be more useful [than NT-proBNP] for general risk monitoring, as its interpretation is less complicated,” said Dr. Selvin, who explained that “NT-proBNP is affected by overweight and obesity.”
In people with diabetes, the age-adjusted prevalence of elevated hs-cTnT ran higher in those with longer duration diabetes, and in those with less well-controlled diabetes based on a higher level of A1c. Neither of these factors showed any significant relationship with measured levels of NT-proBNP.
Further analysis linked the NHANES findings during 1999-2004 with U.S. national death records through the end of 2019. This showed that elevated levels of both hs-cTnT and NT-proBNP significantly linked with subsequently higher rates of all-cause mortality among people with diabetes. Elevated hs-cTnT linked with a 77% increased mortality and NT-proBNP linked with a 78% increased rate, compared with people with diabetes and no elevations in these markers, after adjustment for demographic variables and CVD risk factors.
However, for the outcome of cardiovascular death, elevated hs-cTnT linked with a nonsignificant 54% relative increase, while elevated NT-proBNP linked with a significant 2.46-fold relative increase.
The study “adds new data on biomarkers that are not routinely measured in asymptomatic people with or without diabetes” and the relationships of these markers to CVD mortality and all-cause mortality, Dr. Eckel concluded.
The study received no commercial funding, but used reagents donated by Abbott Laboratories, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics. Dr. Selvin and Dr. Eckel had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION
FDA approves new drug, sotagliflozin, for heart failure
Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.
This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.
Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.
They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half
An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.
In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.
Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)
Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’
“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.
Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.
“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”
At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.
Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.
In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
A clear MACE benefit
“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.
“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.
In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.
And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.
But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.
Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes
That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.
Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.
Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”
The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”
The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.
“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”
Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”
SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.
This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.
Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.
They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half
An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.
In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.
Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)
Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’
“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.
Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.
“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”
At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.
Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.
In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
A clear MACE benefit
“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.
“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.
In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.
And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.
But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.
Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes
That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.
Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.
Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”
The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”
The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.
“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”
Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”
SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.
This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.
Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.
They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half
An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.
In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.
Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)
Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’
“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.
Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.
“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”
At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.
Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.
In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
A clear MACE benefit
“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.
“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.
In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.
And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.
But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.
Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes
That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.
Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.
Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”
The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”
The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.
He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.
“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”
Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”
SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CKD Screening in all U.S. adults found cost effective
(UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”
A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening
“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.
“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.
Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”
The USPSTF starts a relook
The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.
Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”
A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
USPSTF recommendation could make a difference
Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.
“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”
“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”
“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases
The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.
Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.
Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.
“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.
The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.
(UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”
A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening
“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.
“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.
Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”
The USPSTF starts a relook
The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.
Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”
A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
USPSTF recommendation could make a difference
Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.
“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”
“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”
“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases
The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.
Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.
Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.
“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.
The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.
(UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”
A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening
“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.
“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.
Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”
The USPSTF starts a relook
The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.
Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”
A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
USPSTF recommendation could make a difference
Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.
“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”
“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”
“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases
The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.
Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.
Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.
“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.
The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Tirzepatide scores win in second obesity trial, SURMOUNT-2
The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.
The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.
Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.
The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.
For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.
For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.
In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.
So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.
Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.
Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June
Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.
Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.
Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.
SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.
The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.
Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.
The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.
For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.
For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.
In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.
So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.
Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.
Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June
Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.
Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.
Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.
SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro) has proven successful in SURMOUNT-2, the second pivotal trial for the drug as an antiobesity agent, according to top-line results reported April 27 by tirzepatide’s manufacturer, Lilly, in a press release. The company reveals that tirzepatide achieved both of its primary endpoints in the trial, as well as all its key secondary endpoints.
The findings pave the way for tirzepatide to likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval as a treatment for obesity, perhaps before the end of 2023.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval in May 2022 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults, under the brand name Mounjaro, and some people have already been using it off-label to treat obesity.
Tirzepatide is a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist. Several GLP-1 receptor agonists are already approved in the United States, including semaglutide, a once-weekly injection, which is approved as Wegovy for patients with obesity and as Ozempic for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
These agents have been incredibly popular among celebrity influencers, and with use of the #Ozempic hashtag and others on social media, this has led to unprecedented use of these products for weight loss, often among those who do not even have obesity or type 2 diabetes. Subsequently, patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who need them have often struggled to obtain them, owing to shortages following this phenomenon.
SURMOUNT-2: Weight loss around 15%, less than seen in SURMOUNT-1
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled 938 adults with overweight or obesity and type 2 diabetes and had dual primary endpoints that both focused on weight loss, compared with placebo.
The first completed pivotal trial of tirzepatide for weight loss, SURMOUNT-1, enrolled people with overweight or obesity but no diabetes and had its main results reported in 2022. At the time, the weight loss achieved with tirzepatide, was described as “unprecedented,” with those given the highest dose in that trial (15 mg subcutaneously per week) losing an average of 20%-22% of body weight over 72 weeks, depending on the specific statistical analysis used.
For SURMOUNT-2’s first primary endpoint, 72 weeks of weekly subcutaneous injections with tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg led to an average weight loss from baseline of 13.4% and 15.7%, respectively, compared with an average loss of 3.3% from baseline in the placebo-treated control arm.
For the second primary endpoint, 81.6% of people on the 10-mg dose and 86.4% on the 15-mg dose achieved at least 5% weight loss from baseline, compared with 30.5% of controls who had at least 5% weight loss from baseline.
In one key secondary endpoint, tirzepatide at dosages of 10 mg or 15 mg weekly produced at least a 15% cut in weight from baseline in 41.4% and 51.8% of participants, respectively, compared with a 2.6% rate of this endpoint in the placebo controls.
So the extent of weight loss seen in in SURMOUNT-2 was somewhat less than was reported in SURMOUNT-1, a finding consistent with many prior studies of incretin-based weight-loss agents, which seem to pack a more potent weight-loss punch in people without type 2 diabetes.
Lilly did not specifically report the treatment effect of tirzepatide on hemoglobin A1c in SURMOUNT-2, only saying that the effect was similar to what had been seen in the series of five SURPASS trials that led to the approval of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes.
Lilly also reported that the safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 generally matched what was seen in SURMOUNT-1 as well as in the SURPASS trials. The most common adverse events in SURMOUNT-2 involved gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and clustered during the dose-escalation phase at the start of treatment. Treatment discontinuations caused by adverse effects were 3.8% on the 10-mg dosage, 7.4% on the 15-mg dosage, and 3.8% on placebo.
SURMOUNT-2 enrolled patients in the United States, Puerto Rico, and five other countries. All participants also received interventions designed to reduce their calorie intake and increase their physical activity.
More SURMOUNT-2 results at ADA in June
Lilly also announced that researchers would report more complete results from SURMOUNT-2 at the 2023 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, being held in San Diego in late June, and publish the findings in a major medical journal.
Results from two additional phase 3 trials of tirzepatide in people with overweight or obesity, SURMOUNT-3 and SURMOUNT-4, are expected later in 2023.
Lilly started an application to the FDA for an indication for weight loss in October 2022 under a fast track designation by the agency, and the data collected in SURMOUNT-2 are expected to complete this application, which would then be subject to an FDA decision within about 6 months. Lilly said in its April 27 press release that it anticipates an FDA decision on this application may occur before the end of 2023.
SURMOUNT-2 and all of the other tirzepatide trials were sponsored by Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BMI is a flawed measure of obesity. What are alternatives?
“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.
BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.
an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.
Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.
Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.
“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.
“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
BMI Is ‘imperfect’
The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.
“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.
BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.
“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.
Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.
BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.
As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.
These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
The case for WHtR
Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.
The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”
Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.
In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”
NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m2. This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”
However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m2 are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”
This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.
Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.
The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
WHtR vs. BMI
Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.
WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.
The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.
The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.
This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.
The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
Measuring waist circumference is tricky
Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.
Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”
“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.
Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
The imaging option
“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”
But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.
“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.
“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.
“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
BMI’s limits mean adding on
Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.
“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.
The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”
“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.
“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”
Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.
BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.
an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.
Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.
Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.
“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.
“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
BMI Is ‘imperfect’
The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.
“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.
BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.
“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.
Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.
BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.
As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.
These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
The case for WHtR
Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.
The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”
Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.
In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”
NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m2. This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”
However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m2 are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”
This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.
Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.
The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
WHtR vs. BMI
Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.
WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.
The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.
The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.
This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.
The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
Measuring waist circumference is tricky
Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.
Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”
“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.
Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
The imaging option
“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”
But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.
“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.
“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.
“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
BMI’s limits mean adding on
Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.
“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.
The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”
“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.
“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”
Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“BMI is trash. Full stop.” This controversial tweet, which received thousands of likes and retweets, was cited in a recent article by one doctor on when physicians might stop using body mass index (BMI) to diagnose obesity.
BMI has for years been the consensus default method for assessing whether a person is overweight or has obesity, and is still widely used as the gatekeeper metric for treatment eligibility for certain weight-loss agents and bariatric surgery.
an important determinant of the cardiometabolic consequences of fat.
Alternative metrics include waist circumference and/or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR); imaging methods such as CT, MRI, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA); and bioelectrical impedance to assess fat volume and location. All have made some inroads on the tight grip BMI has had on obesity assessment.
Chances are, however, that BMI will not fade away anytime soon given how entrenched it has become in clinical practice and for insurance coverage, as well as its relative simplicity and precision.
“BMI is embedded in a wide range of guidelines on the use of medications and surgery. It’s embedded in Food and Drug Administration regulations and for billing and insurance coverage. It would take extremely strong data and years of work to undo the infrastructure built around BMI and replace it with something else. I don’t see that happening [anytime soon],” commented Daniel H. Bessesen, MD, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology for Denver Health.
“It would be almost impossible to replace all the studies that have used BMI with investigations using some other measure,” he said.
BMI Is ‘imperfect’
The entrenched position of BMI as the go-to metric doesn’t keep detractors from weighing in. As noted in a commentary on current clinical challenges surrounding obesity recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, and senior deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, listed six top issues clinicians must deal with, one of which, they say, is the need for a better measure of obesity than BMI.
“Unfortunately, BMI is an imperfect measure of body composition that differs with ethnicity, sex, body frame, and muscle mass,” noted Dr. Laine and Dr. Wee.
BMI is based on a person’s weight in kilograms divided by the square of their height in meters. A “healthy” BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, overweight is 25-29.9, and 30 or greater is considered to represent obesity. However, certain ethnic groups have lower cutoffs for overweight or obesity because of evidence that such individuals can be at higher risk of obesity-related comorbidities at lower BMIs.
“BMI was chosen as the initial screening tool [for obesity] not because anyone thought it was perfect or the best measure but because of its simplicity. All you need is height, weight, and a calculator,” Dr. Wee said in an interview.
Numerous online calculators are available, including one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where height in feet and inches and weight in pounds can be entered to generate the BMI.
BMI is also inherently limited by being “a proxy for adiposity” and not a direct measure, added Dr. Wee, who is also director of the Obesity Research Program of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.
As such, BMI can’t distinguish between fat and muscle because it relies on weight only to gauge adiposity, noted Tiffany Powell-Wiley, MD, an obesity researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. Another shortcoming of BMI is that it “is good for distinguishing population-level risk for cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases, but it does not help as much for distinguishing risk at an individual level,” she said in an interview.
These and other drawbacks have prompted researchers to look for other useful metrics. WHtR, for example, has recently made headway as a potential BMI alternative or complement.
The case for WHtR
Concern about overreliance on BMI despite its limitations is not new. In 2015, an American Heart Association scientific statement from the group’s Obesity Committee concluded that “BMI alone, even with lower thresholds, is a useful but not an ideal tool for identification of obesity or assessment of cardiovascular risk,” especially for people from Asian, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander populations.
The writing panel also recommended that clinicians measure waist circumference annually and use that information along with BMI “to better gauge cardiovascular risk in diverse populations.”
Momentum for moving beyond BMI alone has continued to build following the AHA statement.
In September 2022, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which sets policies for the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, revised its guidancefor assessment and management of people with obesity. The updated guidance recommends that when clinicians assess “adults with BMI below 35 kg/m2, measure and use their WHtR, as well as their BMI, as a practical estimate of central adiposity and use these measurements to help to assess and predict health risks.”
NICE released an extensive literature review with the revision, and based on the evidence, said that “using waist-to-height ratio as well as BMI would help give a practical estimate of central adiposity in adults with BMI under 35 kg/m2. This would in turn help professionals assess and predict health risks.”
However, the review added that, “because people with a BMI over 35 kg/m2 are always likely to have a high WHtR, the committee recognized that it may not be a useful addition for predicting health risks in this group.” The 2022 NICE review also said that it is “important to estimate central adiposity when assessing future health risks, including for people whose BMI is in the healthy-weight category.”
This new emphasis by NICE on measuring and using WHtR as part of obesity assessment “represents an important change in population health policy,” commented Dr. Powell-Wiley. “I expect more professional organizations will endorse use of waist circumference or waist-to-height ratio now that NICE has taken this step,” she predicted.
Waist circumference and WHtR may become standard measures of adiposity in clinical practice over the next 5-10 years.
The recent move by NICE to highlight a complementary role for WHtR “is another acknowledgment that BMI is an imperfect tool for stratifying cardiometabolic risk in a diverse population, especially in people with lower BMIs” because of its variability, commented Jamie Almandoz, MD, medical director of the weight wellness program at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
WHtR vs. BMI
Another recent step forward for WHtR came with the publication of a post hoc analysis of data collected in the PARADIGM-HF trial, a study that had the primary purpose of comparing two medications for improving outcomes in more than 8,000 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
The new analysis showed that “two indices that incorporate waist circumference and height, but not weight, showed a clearer association between greater adiposity and a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization,” compared with BMI.
WHtR was one of the two indices identified as being a better correlate for the adverse effect of excess adiposity compared with BMI.
The authors of the post hoc analysis did not design their analysis to compare WHtR with BMI. Instead, their goal was to better understand what’s known as the “obesity paradox” in people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The recurring observation that, when these patients with heart failure have lower BMIs they fare worse, with higher rates of mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with patients with higher BMIs.
The new analysis showed that this paradox disappeared when WHtR was substituted for BMI as the obesity metric.
This “provides meaningful data about the superiority of WHtR, compared with BMI, for predicting heart failure outcomes,” said Dr. Powell-Wiley, although she cautioned that the analysis was limited by scant data in diverse populations and did not look at other important cardiovascular disease outcomes. While Dr. Powell-Wiley does not think that WHtR needs assessment in a prospective, controlled trial, she called for analysis of pooled prospective studies with more diverse populations to better document the advantages of WHtR over BMI.
The PARADIGM-HF post hoc analysis shows again how flawed BMI is for health assessment and the relative importance of an individualized understanding of a person’s body composition, Dr. Almandoz said in an interview. “As we collect more data, there is increasing awareness of how imperfect BMI is.”
Measuring waist circumference is tricky
Although WHtR looks promising as a substitute for or add-on to BMI, it has its own limitations, particularly the challenge of accurately measuring waist circumference.
Measuring waist circumference “not only takes more time but requires the assessor to be well trained about where to put the tape measure and making sure it’s measured at the same place each time,” even when different people take serial measurements from individual patients, noted Dr. Wee. Determining waist circumference can also be technically difficult when done on larger people, she added, and collectively these challenges make waist circumference “less reproducible from measurement to measurement.”
“It’s relatively clear how to standardize measurement of weight and height, but there is a huge amount of variability when the waist is measured,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. “And waist circumference also differs by ethnicity, race, sex, and body frame. There are significant differences in waist circumference levels that associate with increased health risks” between, for example, White and South Asian people.
Another limitation of waist circumference and WHtR is that they “cannot differentiate between visceral and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue, which are vastly different regarding cardiometabolic risk, commented Ian Neeland, MD, director of cardiovascular prevention at the University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, Cleveland.
The imaging option
“Waist-to-height ratio is not the ultimate answer,” Dr. Neeland said in an interview. He instead endorsed “advanced imaging for body fat distribution,” such as CT or MRI scans, as his pick for what should be the standard obesity metric, “given that it is much more specific and actionable for both risk assessment and response to therapy. I expect slow but steady advancements that move away from BMI cutoffs, for example for bariatric surgery, given that BMI is an imprecise and crude tool.”
But although imaging with methods like CT and MRI may provide the best accuracy and precision for tracking the volume of a person’s cardiometabolically dangerous fat, they are also hampered by relatively high cost and, for CT and DXA, the issue of radiation exposure.
“CT, MRI, and DXA scans give more in-depth assessment of body composition, but should we expose people to the radiation and the cost?” Dr. Almandoz wondered.
“Height, weight, and waist circumference cost nothing to obtain,” creating a big relative disadvantage for imaging, said Naveed Sattar, MD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow.
“Data would need to show that imaging gives clinicians substantially more information about future risk” to justify its price, Dr. Sattar emphasized.
BMI’s limits mean adding on
Regardless of whichever alternatives to BMI end up getting used most, experts generally agree that BMI alone is looking increasingly inadequate.
“Over the next 5 years, BMI will come to be seen as a screening tool that categorizes people into general risk groups” that also needs “other metrics and variables, such as age, race, ethnicity, family history, blood glucose, and blood pressure to better describe health risk in an individual,” predicted Dr. Bessesen.
The endorsement of WHtR by NICE “will lead to more research into how to incorporate WHtR into routine practice. We need more evidence to translate what NICE said into practice,” said Dr. Sattar. “I don’t think we’ll see a shift away from BMI, but we’ll add alternative measures that are particularly useful in certain patients.”
“Because we live in diverse societies, we need to individualize risk assessment and couple that with technology that makes analysis of body composition more accessible,” agreed Dr. Almandoz. He noted that the UT Southwestern weight wellness program where he practices has, for about the past decade, routinely collected waist circumference and bioelectrical impedance data as well as BMI on all people seen in the practice for obesity concerns. Making these additional measurements on a routine basis also helps strengthen patient engagement.
“We get into trouble when we make rigid health policy and clinical decisions based on BMI alone without looking at the patient holistically,” said Dr. Wee. “Patients are more than arbitrary numbers, and clinicians should make clinical decisions based on the totality of evidence for each individual patient.”
Dr. Bessesen, Dr. Wee, Dr. Powell-Wiley, and Dr. Almandoz reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neeland has reported being a consultant for Merck. Dr. Sattar has reported being a consultant or speaker for Abbott Laboratories, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Dapagliflozin’s HFpEF benefit tied to lower filling pressure
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.
The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.
Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.
The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF
“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.
“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.
“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype
The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.
Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.
An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.
The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.
The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.
Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.
The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF
“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.
“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.
“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype
The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.
Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.
An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.
The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for 24 weeks produced significant and beneficial reductions in left-heart filling pressures in a mechanistic, randomized clinical study.
The findings “provide new insight into the mechanisms underlying the favorable clinical effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HFpEF,” Barry A. Borlaug, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. “Elevations in left heart filling pressures at rest and during exercise are fundamental pathophysiologic features of HFpEF,” he noted.
Results from prior studies documented the benefit of dapagliflozin for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF in the DELIVER trial, and for the related sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. The new findings presented by Dr. Borlaug provide evidence from a placebo-controlled, prospective study for one way by which these SGLT2 inhibitors exert this benefit in patients with HFpEF.
The results of his single-center study showed that, in patients with HFpEF who also exhibited “severe” elevations in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise, 24 weeks of treatment with dapagliflozin led to a significant reduction in PCWP during exercise. The treatment produced an average 6.1–mm Hg drop from baseline compared with control patients who received placebo. A similar pattern occurred when these patients were at rest, when dapagliflozin treatment linked with a significant average reduction in PCWP from baseline of 3.5 mm Hg compared with controls.
Improving a ‘specific and fundamental’ feature of HFpEF
“This fantastic study looked at one of the fundamental aspects of HFpEF,” said John R. Teerlink, MD, designated discussant for the study. “You’ve shown that dapagliflozin targets a specific and fundamental” manifestation of HFpEF by lowering PCWP, said Dr. Teerlink, director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
However, Dr. Teerlink added, the study did not directly address the related question of what physiologic action of dapagliflozin produces this notable drop in PCWP.
“We’re just starting to look at that,” replied Dr. Borlaug, a cardiologist and professor at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He reported finding an intriguing correlate in the current study linked to the cut in PCWP with dapagliflozin treatment. The SGLT2 inhibitor at a standard daily 10-mg dose produced an average 3.5-kg drop in body weight in the dapagliflozin-treated patients that significantly linked with the changes in PCWP both at rest and during exercise. Dapagliflozin-treated patients also showed a significant reduction from their baseline plasma volume compared with placebo-treated patients, but this “poorly correlated” with the dapagliflozin-linked cuts in PCWP, Dr. Borlaug said.
“I don’t think this means weight loss is the cause of the hemodynamic benefit, but maybe it’s an indicator. When patients [with HFpEF] lose weight, they are in a metabolic state that leads to good changes in hemodynamics,” he suggested. “My guess is that there is probably a combination of many different little things [caused by dapagliflozin treatment of patients with HFpEF] that together result in the 20%-25% relative improvement we see in filling pressure.”
An ‘obese, cardiometabolic’ HFpEF phenotype
The study enrolled patients with HFpEF and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, a New York Heart Association functional class of 2 or 3, and a PCWP during exercise of at least 25 mm Hg. Of the 37 evaluable patients, about two-thirds of the patients were women, more than two-thirds were in functional class 3, about 70% were obese, and their average ejection fraction was about 62%. The study excluded patients with HFpEF who also had type 1 diabetes, cardiomyopathy, pericardial disease, or other causes of dyspnea or heart failure.
Dr. Teerlink asked about the generalizability of the findings, as the study cohort seemed to differ in certain respects from the patients enrolled in the DELIVER trial, and because of the many apparently distinct patient phenotypes that exist within the scope of HFpEF.
An “obese, cardiometabolic phenotype” predominated the study cohort, Dr. Borlaug said. “The patients we enrolled look like the HFpEF patients seen in U.S. clinics.” However, he added that “in reality, many [HFpEF phenotypes] coexist in one patient. It’s not that simple,” that every patient with HFpEF can be categorized into a single HFpEF phenotype.
The researchers monitored PCWP invasively with high-fidelity micromanometer catheters.
The study was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Borlaug has received research funding from AstraZeneca, as well as from Corvia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, and Tenax. Dr. Teerlink has had financial relationships with AstraZeneca, as well as with Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Servier, and Windtree Therapeutics.
AT ACC 2023
‘Unheard of’ PAH improvement with novel drug: STELLAR
NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.
Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,
“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm−5 reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.
“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.
Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH
Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.
“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.
But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.
The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%
STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.
In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.
The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.
The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.
The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.
“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.
Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH
Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.
“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”
Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.
Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.
STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.
Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,
“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm−5 reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.
“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.
Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH
Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.
“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.
But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.
The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%
STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.
In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.
The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.
The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.
The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.
“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.
Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH
Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.
“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”
Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.
Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.
STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.
Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,
“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm−5 reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.
“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.
Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH
Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.
“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.
But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.
The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%
STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.
In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.
The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.
The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.
The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.
“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.
Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH
Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.
“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”
Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.
Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.
STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.
At ACC 2023