Mitchel L. Zoler, PhD

PHOENIX – A prosthetic conduit that contains a porcine valve showed excellent intermediate-term durability for repairing the right ventricular outflow tract in 100 teenagers and young adults at a single U.S. center.

“The Carpentier-Edwards xenograft for right ventricular outflow tract [RVOT] reconstruction provides excellent freedom from reoperation and valve dysfunction, as well as sustained improvement in right-ventricular chamber size at intermediate-term follow-up,” Dr. Heidi B. Schubmehl said at the Society of Thoracic Surgeons annual meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Schubmehl reported a 92% rate of freedom from valve dysfunction with follow-up out to about 10 years, and significant reductions in right ventricular size at follow-up, compared with baseline, as measured by both echocardiography and by MRI.

The Carpentier-Edwards porcine valve and conduit “seemed to hold up better than a lot of other [prosthetic] valves,” said Dr. George M. Alfieris, director of pediatric cardiac surgery at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and senior author for the study. In addition to the valve’s durability over approximately the first 10 years following placement, the results also showed the positive impact the valve had on right ventricular size, an important result of the repair’s efficacy, Dr. Alfieris said.

“It’s a mistake to allow the right ventricle to be under high pressure or to reach a large volume. We now focus on preserving the right ventricle,” he said in an interview. “I’ve become very concerned about preventing right ventricular dilation and preserving right ventricular function.”

Dr. Alfieris noted that his prior experience using other types of valves in the pulmonary valve and RVOT position showed those valves “did great for the first 10 years and then failed. What’s different in this series is that after 10 years, we have not seen the same dysfunction as with the prior generation of valves. I will be very interested to see what happens to them” as follow-up continues beyond 10 years. He also expressed dismay that recently the company that had been marketing the valve and conduit used in the current study, the Carpentier-Edwards, stopped selling them. He expects that as his supply of conduits runs out he’ll have to start using a different commercial valve and conduit that he believes will not perform as well or create his own conduits with a porcine valve from a different supplier.

The series of 100 patients comprised individuals aged 17 or older who received a pulmonary artery and had RVOT reconstruction at the University of Rochester during 2000-2010, Dr. Schubmehl reported. The series included 78 patients with a history of tetralogy of Fallot, 8 patients born with transposition of their great arteries, 8 patients with truncus arteriosus, and 6 patients with other congenital heart diseases. Their median age at the time they received the RVOT conduit was 24 years, 59% were men, and 99 had undergone a prior sternotomy. At the time they received the conduit, 55 had pulmonary valve insufficiency, 30 had valve stenosis, and 15 had both. Follow-up occurred an average of 7 years after conduit placement.

Two recipients died: One death occurred perioperatively in a 41-year old who had a massive cerebrovascular event, and the second death was in a 39-year old who died 2.6 years after conduit placement from respiratory failure. Two additional patients required a reintervention during follow-up, said Dr. Schubmehl, a general surgeon at the University of Rochester. One reintervention occurred after 11 years to treat endocarditis, and the second after 11 years to perform balloon valvuloplasty because of valve stenosis.

The results reported by Dr. Schubmehl for echocardiography examinations showed that the patients had a statistically significant reduction in their RVOT pressure gradient from baseline to 1-year follow-up that was sustained through their intermediate-term follow-up. Seventy-seven patients had pulmonary valve insufficiency at baseline that resolved in all patients at 1-year follow-up and remained resolved in all but one patient at extended follow-up. Nineteen patients underwent additional imaging with MRI at an average follow-up of 7 years, and these findings confirmed the echo results.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – A prosthetic conduit that contains a porcine valve showed excellent intermediate-term durability for repairing the right ventricular outflow tract in 100 teenagers and young adults at a single U.S. center.

“The Carpentier-Edwards xenograft for right ventricular outflow tract [RVOT] reconstruction provides excellent freedom from reoperation and valve dysfunction, as well as sustained improvement in right-ventricular chamber size at intermediate-term follow-up,” Dr. Heidi B. Schubmehl said at the Society of Thoracic Surgeons annual meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Schubmehl reported a 92% rate of freedom from valve dysfunction with follow-up out to about 10 years, and significant reductions in right ventricular size at follow-up, compared with baseline, as measured by both echocardiography and by MRI.

The Carpentier-Edwards porcine valve and conduit “seemed to hold up better than a lot of other [prosthetic] valves,” said Dr. George M. Alfieris, director of pediatric cardiac surgery at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and senior author for the study. In addition to the valve’s durability over approximately the first 10 years following placement, the results also showed the positive impact the valve had on right ventricular size, an important result of the repair’s efficacy, Dr. Alfieris said.

“It’s a mistake to allow the right ventricle to be under high pressure or to reach a large volume. We now focus on preserving the right ventricle,” he said in an interview. “I’ve become very concerned about preventing right ventricular dilation and preserving right ventricular function.”

Dr. Alfieris noted that his prior experience using other types of valves in the pulmonary valve and RVOT position showed those valves “did great for the first 10 years and then failed. What’s different in this series is that after 10 years, we have not seen the same dysfunction as with the prior generation of valves. I will be very interested to see what happens to them” as follow-up continues beyond 10 years. He also expressed dismay that recently the company that had been marketing the valve and conduit used in the current study, the Carpentier-Edwards, stopped selling them. He expects that as his supply of conduits runs out he’ll have to start using a different commercial valve and conduit that he believes will not perform as well or create his own conduits with a porcine valve from a different supplier.

The series of 100 patients comprised individuals aged 17 or older who received a pulmonary artery and had RVOT reconstruction at the University of Rochester during 2000-2010, Dr. Schubmehl reported. The series included 78 patients with a history of tetralogy of Fallot, 8 patients born with transposition of their great arteries, 8 patients with truncus arteriosus, and 6 patients with other congenital heart diseases. Their median age at the time they received the RVOT conduit was 24 years, 59% were men, and 99 had undergone a prior sternotomy. At the time they received the conduit, 55 had pulmonary valve insufficiency, 30 had valve stenosis, and 15 had both. Follow-up occurred an average of 7 years after conduit placement.

Two recipients died: One death occurred perioperatively in a 41-year old who had a massive cerebrovascular event, and the second death was in a 39-year old who died 2.6 years after conduit placement from respiratory failure. Two additional patients required a reintervention during follow-up, said Dr. Schubmehl, a general surgeon at the University of Rochester. One reintervention occurred after 11 years to treat endocarditis, and the second after 11 years to perform balloon valvuloplasty because of valve stenosis.

The results reported by Dr. Schubmehl for echocardiography examinations showed that the patients had a statistically significant reduction in their RVOT pressure gradient from baseline to 1-year follow-up that was sustained through their intermediate-term follow-up. Seventy-seven patients had pulmonary valve insufficiency at baseline that resolved in all patients at 1-year follow-up and remained resolved in all but one patient at extended follow-up. Nineteen patients underwent additional imaging with MRI at an average follow-up of 7 years, and these findings confirmed the echo results.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – A prosthetic conduit that contains a porcine valve showed excellent intermediate-term durability for repairing the right ventricular outflow tract in 100 teenagers and young adults at a single U.S. center.

“The Carpentier-Edwards xenograft for right ventricular outflow tract [RVOT] reconstruction provides excellent freedom from reoperation and valve dysfunction, as well as sustained improvement in right-ventricular chamber size at intermediate-term follow-up,” Dr. Heidi B. Schubmehl said at the Society of Thoracic Surgeons annual meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Schubmehl reported a 92% rate of freedom from valve dysfunction with follow-up out to about 10 years, and significant reductions in right ventricular size at follow-up, compared with baseline, as measured by both echocardiography and by MRI.

The Carpentier-Edwards porcine valve and conduit “seemed to hold up better than a lot of other [prosthetic] valves,” said Dr. George M. Alfieris, director of pediatric cardiac surgery at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and senior author for the study. In addition to the valve’s durability over approximately the first 10 years following placement, the results also showed the positive impact the valve had on right ventricular size, an important result of the repair’s efficacy, Dr. Alfieris said.

“It’s a mistake to allow the right ventricle to be under high pressure or to reach a large volume. We now focus on preserving the right ventricle,” he said in an interview. “I’ve become very concerned about preventing right ventricular dilation and preserving right ventricular function.”

Dr. Alfieris noted that his prior experience using other types of valves in the pulmonary valve and RVOT position showed those valves “did great for the first 10 years and then failed. What’s different in this series is that after 10 years, we have not seen the same dysfunction as with the prior generation of valves. I will be very interested to see what happens to them” as follow-up continues beyond 10 years. He also expressed dismay that recently the company that had been marketing the valve and conduit used in the current study, the Carpentier-Edwards, stopped selling them. He expects that as his supply of conduits runs out he’ll have to start using a different commercial valve and conduit that he believes will not perform as well or create his own conduits with a porcine valve from a different supplier.

The series of 100 patients comprised individuals aged 17 or older who received a pulmonary artery and had RVOT reconstruction at the University of Rochester during 2000-2010, Dr. Schubmehl reported. The series included 78 patients with a history of tetralogy of Fallot, 8 patients born with transposition of their great arteries, 8 patients with truncus arteriosus, and 6 patients with other congenital heart diseases. Their median age at the time they received the RVOT conduit was 24 years, 59% were men, and 99 had undergone a prior sternotomy. At the time they received the conduit, 55 had pulmonary valve insufficiency, 30 had valve stenosis, and 15 had both. Follow-up occurred an average of 7 years after conduit placement.

Two recipients died: One death occurred perioperatively in a 41-year old who had a massive cerebrovascular event, and the second death was in a 39-year old who died 2.6 years after conduit placement from respiratory failure. Two additional patients required a reintervention during follow-up, said Dr. Schubmehl, a general surgeon at the University of Rochester. One reintervention occurred after 11 years to treat endocarditis, and the second after 11 years to perform balloon valvuloplasty because of valve stenosis.

The results reported by Dr. Schubmehl for echocardiography examinations showed that the patients had a statistically significant reduction in their RVOT pressure gradient from baseline to 1-year follow-up that was sustained through their intermediate-term follow-up. Seventy-seven patients had pulmonary valve insufficiency at baseline that resolved in all patients at 1-year follow-up and remained resolved in all but one patient at extended follow-up. Nineteen patients underwent additional imaging with MRI at an average follow-up of 7 years, and these findings confirmed the echo results.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

The U.S. program to develop biosimilar agents – somewhat akin to generic drugs for complex, biologic molecules that have come off patent protection – is gathering momentum, with the first U.S. biosimilar, Zarxio, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2015 and with the second, a biosimilar to infliximab, recommended by an FDA advisory committee on Feb. 9 of this year.

What’s striking about the burgeoning biosimilar development process, created by the Affordable Care Act, is how it has morphed the FDA from its traditional role as an objective arbiter of a drug’s safety and efficacy into an active partner in shepherding biosimilars onto the market.

As explained on Feb. 4 in testimony before a Congressional committee by Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act that was part of the Affordable Care Act launched a new U.S. drug-development pathway expressly for biosimilars. To implement that law, the FDA created an entirely new infrastructure within the agency – the Biosimilar Product Development Program – to help guide prospective manufacturers (called sponsors) of biosimilars through the regulatory and research hurdles to get a new biosimilar approved and into the hands of U.S. patients.

According to Dr. Woodcock, this program involves many steps where FDA staffers provide “review” and “advice” to sponsors on the studies they need to conduct and the analysis they need to perform to get their new products to market. The sponsor joins this program by paying an upfront fee that the FDA uses to keep the program running. Once a sponsor of a prospective biosimilar is in the program, the FDA’s staff helps guide the biosimilar development to a smooth conclusion.

To some extent, the FDA staff fills a similar role for conventional drug-development enterprises, conferring with manufacturers from the outset on matters such as the types and design of studies needed to insure success. What’s different about the biosimilar program is that conventional-drug development went on well before the FDA (or its predecessor) entered the scene, and the U.S. government created the FDA to police and regulate the drug production industry and protect the public against unscrupulous manufacturers of ineffective or dangerous drugs.

In contrast, the FDA itself created this new biosimilar development structure, and Dr. Woodcock noted that the in-depth review and advice meetings that the FDA offers to prospective biosimilar sponsors “has no counterpart in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act program and is unique” to the biosimilar program.

The consequence of having the FDA create the biosimilar development program from the ground up and structure it to provide such intimate input from the agency to sponsors at every step of the way seems to give the agency a notable and somewhat unnerving investment in the program’s success.

Dr. Woodcock called the approval of Zarxio an “exciting accomplishment,” and in her testimony before Congress she trumpeted the fact that as of January 2016 the biosimilar program was working on 59 proposed products that would mimic 18 different reference-product biologics. She also said that the FDA is “excited about the growing demand” for biosimilar-oriented meetings and marketing applications.

Don’t get me wrong: I think that the biosimilar concept is great, and has the potential to make what have become life-changing treatments more affordable and more available. And making the FDA such an active participant in getting biosimilar drugs created and approved is undoubtedly the most efficient way to accomplish this.

But in the process, the biosimilar program has changed the FDA from its more disengaged role as objective pharmaceutical judge into an active and seemingly not completely neutral codeveloper, risking at least the appearance of lost impartiality. Given that the FDA now wears two very different hats, we need to trust that the integrity and dedication of its staff will keep them from confusing their roles as proponent and gatekeeper.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

The U.S. program to develop biosimilar agents – somewhat akin to generic drugs for complex, biologic molecules that have come off patent protection – is gathering momentum, with the first U.S. biosimilar, Zarxio, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2015 and with the second, a biosimilar to infliximab, recommended by an FDA advisory committee on Feb. 9 of this year.

What’s striking about the burgeoning biosimilar development process, created by the Affordable Care Act, is how it has morphed the FDA from its traditional role as an objective arbiter of a drug’s safety and efficacy into an active partner in shepherding biosimilars onto the market.

As explained on Feb. 4 in testimony before a Congressional committee by Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act that was part of the Affordable Care Act launched a new U.S. drug-development pathway expressly for biosimilars. To implement that law, the FDA created an entirely new infrastructure within the agency – the Biosimilar Product Development Program – to help guide prospective manufacturers (called sponsors) of biosimilars through the regulatory and research hurdles to get a new biosimilar approved and into the hands of U.S. patients.

According to Dr. Woodcock, this program involves many steps where FDA staffers provide “review” and “advice” to sponsors on the studies they need to conduct and the analysis they need to perform to get their new products to market. The sponsor joins this program by paying an upfront fee that the FDA uses to keep the program running. Once a sponsor of a prospective biosimilar is in the program, the FDA’s staff helps guide the biosimilar development to a smooth conclusion.

To some extent, the FDA staff fills a similar role for conventional drug-development enterprises, conferring with manufacturers from the outset on matters such as the types and design of studies needed to insure success. What’s different about the biosimilar program is that conventional-drug development went on well before the FDA (or its predecessor) entered the scene, and the U.S. government created the FDA to police and regulate the drug production industry and protect the public against unscrupulous manufacturers of ineffective or dangerous drugs.

In contrast, the FDA itself created this new biosimilar development structure, and Dr. Woodcock noted that the in-depth review and advice meetings that the FDA offers to prospective biosimilar sponsors “has no counterpart in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act program and is unique” to the biosimilar program.

The consequence of having the FDA create the biosimilar development program from the ground up and structure it to provide such intimate input from the agency to sponsors at every step of the way seems to give the agency a notable and somewhat unnerving investment in the program’s success.

Dr. Woodcock called the approval of Zarxio an “exciting accomplishment,” and in her testimony before Congress she trumpeted the fact that as of January 2016 the biosimilar program was working on 59 proposed products that would mimic 18 different reference-product biologics. She also said that the FDA is “excited about the growing demand” for biosimilar-oriented meetings and marketing applications.

Don’t get me wrong: I think that the biosimilar concept is great, and has the potential to make what have become life-changing treatments more affordable and more available. And making the FDA such an active participant in getting biosimilar drugs created and approved is undoubtedly the most efficient way to accomplish this.

But in the process, the biosimilar program has changed the FDA from its more disengaged role as objective pharmaceutical judge into an active and seemingly not completely neutral codeveloper, risking at least the appearance of lost impartiality. Given that the FDA now wears two very different hats, we need to trust that the integrity and dedication of its staff will keep them from confusing their roles as proponent and gatekeeper.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

The U.S. program to develop biosimilar agents – somewhat akin to generic drugs for complex, biologic molecules that have come off patent protection – is gathering momentum, with the first U.S. biosimilar, Zarxio, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2015 and with the second, a biosimilar to infliximab, recommended by an FDA advisory committee on Feb. 9 of this year.

What’s striking about the burgeoning biosimilar development process, created by the Affordable Care Act, is how it has morphed the FDA from its traditional role as an objective arbiter of a drug’s safety and efficacy into an active partner in shepherding biosimilars onto the market.

As explained on Feb. 4 in testimony before a Congressional committee by Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act that was part of the Affordable Care Act launched a new U.S. drug-development pathway expressly for biosimilars. To implement that law, the FDA created an entirely new infrastructure within the agency – the Biosimilar Product Development Program – to help guide prospective manufacturers (called sponsors) of biosimilars through the regulatory and research hurdles to get a new biosimilar approved and into the hands of U.S. patients.

According to Dr. Woodcock, this program involves many steps where FDA staffers provide “review” and “advice” to sponsors on the studies they need to conduct and the analysis they need to perform to get their new products to market. The sponsor joins this program by paying an upfront fee that the FDA uses to keep the program running. Once a sponsor of a prospective biosimilar is in the program, the FDA’s staff helps guide the biosimilar development to a smooth conclusion.

To some extent, the FDA staff fills a similar role for conventional drug-development enterprises, conferring with manufacturers from the outset on matters such as the types and design of studies needed to insure success. What’s different about the biosimilar program is that conventional-drug development went on well before the FDA (or its predecessor) entered the scene, and the U.S. government created the FDA to police and regulate the drug production industry and protect the public against unscrupulous manufacturers of ineffective or dangerous drugs.

In contrast, the FDA itself created this new biosimilar development structure, and Dr. Woodcock noted that the in-depth review and advice meetings that the FDA offers to prospective biosimilar sponsors “has no counterpart in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act program and is unique” to the biosimilar program.

The consequence of having the FDA create the biosimilar development program from the ground up and structure it to provide such intimate input from the agency to sponsors at every step of the way seems to give the agency a notable and somewhat unnerving investment in the program’s success.

Dr. Woodcock called the approval of Zarxio an “exciting accomplishment,” and in her testimony before Congress she trumpeted the fact that as of January 2016 the biosimilar program was working on 59 proposed products that would mimic 18 different reference-product biologics. She also said that the FDA is “excited about the growing demand” for biosimilar-oriented meetings and marketing applications.

Don’t get me wrong: I think that the biosimilar concept is great, and has the potential to make what have become life-changing treatments more affordable and more available. And making the FDA such an active participant in getting biosimilar drugs created and approved is undoubtedly the most efficient way to accomplish this.

But in the process, the biosimilar program has changed the FDA from its more disengaged role as objective pharmaceutical judge into an active and seemingly not completely neutral codeveloper, risking at least the appearance of lost impartiality. Given that the FDA now wears two very different hats, we need to trust that the integrity and dedication of its staff will keep them from confusing their roles as proponent and gatekeeper.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

A biosimilar agent to Remicade, the brand-name and reference form of infliximab, stayed on track to become the second biosimilar drug to enter the U.S. market when the Arthritis Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted overwhelmingly in favor of licensure of the biosimilar at a meeting on Feb. 9.

The vote was 21 in favor and 3 against, with no abstentions.

Because of the way the FDA staff worded the question that the Advisory Committee voted on, the panel not only was in favor of approving biosimilar licensure but also recommended that license for six of the seven diverse indications that Remicade currently has: treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and adult ulcerative colitis. The panel did not vote on licensing the biosimilar for treatment of pediatric ulcerative colitis because that specific indication for Remicade remains on patent for a few more years.

The broad range of indications for which the Committee recommended approval was notable because the formulation of biosimilar infliximab under review, manufactured by Celltrion and known in the United States as CT-P13, had been clinically studied only in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. The other four recommended indications represented extrapolations, based on the totality of biosimilar evidence presented at the meeting by both Celltrion staffers and consultants as well as analyses presented by FDA staff members.

The overall thrust of the extrapolation issue was that if biosimilarity to Remicade was proven by a range of preclinical and clinical testing, and if safety and efficacy similar to Remicade was shown in trials that enrolled only patients with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, then the safety and efficacy previously proven for Remicade for the other indications could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to CT-P13 also, even though CT-P13 was never tested on patients with those conditions. This turned out to often be the key issue that panel members grappled with as they decided whether to vote in favor of the question the FDA asked them to address.

“Many of us are uncomfortable with this new pathway” of extrapolation, said panel member Dr. Beth L. Jonas, a rheumatologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“I feel we’re taking a risk” with the extrapolations, said Dr. Mary E. Maloney, professor of medicine and chief of dermatology at the University of Massachusetts in Worcester. “We have a responsibility to take a risk to provide biosimilars to patients and to reduce their cost” for needed treatments, she said during the Committee’s discussion of their votes.

“Biosimilar is a new concept, but it’s the future of how we will look at drugs,” explained panel member Dr. Wilma Bergfeld, professor of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

CT-P13 is currently marketed in many other countries worldwide under the brand names Remsima or Inflectra.

The FDA’s staff was clearly behind this application. After summarizing the agency’s internal analysis of the data submitted by Celltrion, Dr. Nikolay Nikolov, clinical team leader for the FDA’s Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Rheumatology Products, concluded that “the totality of evidence provided by the applicant supports a conclusion that CT-P13 is biosimilar to U.S.-licensed Remicade,” and that “scientific justification for extrapolating the clinical data supports a finding of biosimilarity for all indications for which U.S.-licensed Remicade is licensed.” The FDA’s position makes it seem very likely that the agency will accept the Advisory Committee’s vote and grant CT-P13 license for U.S. marketing in the near future.

CT-P13 also received support during the public comment period of the Committee’s deliberations. At that time, Dr. Gideon P. Smith, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston spoke on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology Association. “Biologics are some of the most important recent developments in treating plaque psoriasis, but cost is an important issue. We hope that biosimilars will decrease the cost of this treatment,” Dr. Smith said. “Infliximab is a complex molecule with a complex production process. We are concerned about the safety and efficacy of treatment. The AADA supports approval based on reducing cost and improving patient access. However, we strongly recommend caution through long-term postmarketing surveillance and using registry data to identify issues of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety that were not seen in the clinical trials.”

The drug also received support from Dr. Angus B. Worthing, who represented the American College of Rheumatology. “Biosimilars may be the only tool to keep prices of biologics within reason,” said Dr. Worthing, a rheumatologist in Washington. But he also stressed that “extrapolation should be done with caution and not routinely granted.”

CT-P13 has the potential to make a fairly widely used biologic significantly more affordable. In countries where it has come onto the market, it’s been priced at roughly 30% below the prevailing cost of Remicade prior to this competition.

“Infliximab is an extremely important tool in our armamentarium for treatment of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease,” commented Dr. Stephen B. Hanauer, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Biologic therapies account for an increasing proportion of health care costs for chronic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease and reducing these costs will be important as increasing numbers of patients are benefiting from long-term biologic therapies. Having reviewed the extensive preclinical and clinical data with CT-P13, I am comfortable with potential substitution or switching as long as physicians are aware of the change and can track any potential reactions to the administered product,” he said in an interview.

“Infliximab is currently used by U.S. rheumatologists to treat certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is not the most-widely used tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, which is adalimumab, but it is often used. After FDA approval, biosimilar infliximab is anticipated to be priced lower than Remicade and that would likely increase use of infliximab for rheumatologic conditions,” said Dr. Jonathan Kay, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts in Worcester. “The clinical experience with CT-P13 in trials and in routine use in other countries show no significant loss of efficacy or any other major problem when changing patients from Remicade to CT-P13. All the data suggest that CT-P13 is highly similar to the reference product. It’s almost akin to comparing one lot of Remicade to another lot of Remicade. I personally would not have a problem initiating a patient on CT-P13 if infliximab was the appropriate drug to use,” Dr. Kay said in an interview.

Dr. Hanauer has been a consultant to Celltrion. Dr. Kay has been a consultant to several drug companies.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

A biosimilar agent to Remicade, the brand-name and reference form of infliximab, stayed on track to become the second biosimilar drug to enter the U.S. market when the Arthritis Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted overwhelmingly in favor of licensure of the biosimilar at a meeting on Feb. 9.

The vote was 21 in favor and 3 against, with no abstentions.

Because of the way the FDA staff worded the question that the Advisory Committee voted on, the panel not only was in favor of approving biosimilar licensure but also recommended that license for six of the seven diverse indications that Remicade currently has: treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and adult ulcerative colitis. The panel did not vote on licensing the biosimilar for treatment of pediatric ulcerative colitis because that specific indication for Remicade remains on patent for a few more years.

The broad range of indications for which the Committee recommended approval was notable because the formulation of biosimilar infliximab under review, manufactured by Celltrion and known in the United States as CT-P13, had been clinically studied only in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. The other four recommended indications represented extrapolations, based on the totality of biosimilar evidence presented at the meeting by both Celltrion staffers and consultants as well as analyses presented by FDA staff members.

The overall thrust of the extrapolation issue was that if biosimilarity to Remicade was proven by a range of preclinical and clinical testing, and if safety and efficacy similar to Remicade was shown in trials that enrolled only patients with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, then the safety and efficacy previously proven for Remicade for the other indications could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to CT-P13 also, even though CT-P13 was never tested on patients with those conditions. This turned out to often be the key issue that panel members grappled with as they decided whether to vote in favor of the question the FDA asked them to address.

“Many of us are uncomfortable with this new pathway” of extrapolation, said panel member Dr. Beth L. Jonas, a rheumatologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“I feel we’re taking a risk” with the extrapolations, said Dr. Mary E. Maloney, professor of medicine and chief of dermatology at the University of Massachusetts in Worcester. “We have a responsibility to take a risk to provide biosimilars to patients and to reduce their cost” for needed treatments, she said during the Committee’s discussion of their votes.

“Biosimilar is a new concept, but it’s the future of how we will look at drugs,” explained panel member Dr. Wilma Bergfeld, professor of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

CT-P13 is currently marketed in many other countries worldwide under the brand names Remsima or Inflectra.

The FDA’s staff was clearly behind this application. After summarizing the agency’s internal analysis of the data submitted by Celltrion, Dr. Nikolay Nikolov, clinical team leader for the FDA’s Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Rheumatology Products, concluded that “the totality of evidence provided by the applicant supports a conclusion that CT-P13 is biosimilar to U.S.-licensed Remicade,” and that “scientific justification for extrapolating the clinical data supports a finding of biosimilarity for all indications for which U.S.-licensed Remicade is licensed.” The FDA’s position makes it seem very likely that the agency will accept the Advisory Committee’s vote and grant CT-P13 license for U.S. marketing in the near future.

CT-P13 also received support during the public comment period of the Committee’s deliberations. At that time, Dr. Gideon P. Smith, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston spoke on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology Association. “Biologics are some of the most important recent developments in treating plaque psoriasis, but cost is an important issue. We hope that biosimilars will decrease the cost of this treatment,” Dr. Smith said. “Infliximab is a complex molecule with a complex production process. We are concerned about the safety and efficacy of treatment. The AADA supports approval based on reducing cost and improving patient access. However, we strongly recommend caution through long-term postmarketing surveillance and using registry data to identify issues of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety that were not seen in the clinical trials.”

The drug also received support from Dr. Angus B. Worthing, who represented the American College of Rheumatology. “Biosimilars may be the only tool to keep prices of biologics within reason,” said Dr. Worthing, a rheumatologist in Washington. But he also stressed that “extrapolation should be done with caution and not routinely granted.”

CT-P13 has the potential to make a fairly widely used biologic significantly more affordable. In countries where it has come onto the market, it’s been priced at roughly 30% below the prevailing cost of Remicade prior to this competition.

“Infliximab is an extremely important tool in our armamentarium for treatment of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease,” commented Dr. Stephen B. Hanauer, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Biologic therapies account for an increasing proportion of health care costs for chronic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease and reducing these costs will be important as increasing numbers of patients are benefiting from long-term biologic therapies. Having reviewed the extensive preclinical and clinical data with CT-P13, I am comfortable with potential substitution or switching as long as physicians are aware of the change and can track any potential reactions to the administered product,” he said in an interview.

“Infliximab is currently used by U.S. rheumatologists to treat certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is not the most-widely used tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, which is adalimumab, but it is often used. After FDA approval, biosimilar infliximab is anticipated to be priced lower than Remicade and that would likely increase use of infliximab for rheumatologic conditions,” said Dr. Jonathan Kay, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts in Worcester. “The clinical experience with CT-P13 in trials and in routine use in other countries show no significant loss of efficacy or any other major problem when changing patients from Remicade to CT-P13. All the data suggest that CT-P13 is highly similar to the reference product. It’s almost akin to comparing one lot of Remicade to another lot of Remicade. I personally would not have a problem initiating a patient on CT-P13 if infliximab was the appropriate drug to use,” Dr. Kay said in an interview.

Dr. Hanauer has been a consultant to Celltrion. Dr. Kay has been a consultant to several drug companies.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

A biosimilar agent to Remicade, the brand-name and reference form of infliximab, stayed on track to become the second biosimilar drug to enter the U.S. market when the Arthritis Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted overwhelmingly in favor of licensure of the biosimilar at a meeting on Feb. 9.

The vote was 21 in favor and 3 against, with no abstentions.

Because of the way the FDA staff worded the question that the Advisory Committee voted on, the panel not only was in favor of approving biosimilar licensure but also recommended that license for six of the seven diverse indications that Remicade currently has: treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, adult and pediatric Crohn’s disease, and adult ulcerative colitis. The panel did not vote on licensing the biosimilar for treatment of pediatric ulcerative colitis because that specific indication for Remicade remains on patent for a few more years.

The broad range of indications for which the Committee recommended approval was notable because the formulation of biosimilar infliximab under review, manufactured by Celltrion and known in the United States as CT-P13, had been clinically studied only in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis. The other four recommended indications represented extrapolations, based on the totality of biosimilar evidence presented at the meeting by both Celltrion staffers and consultants as well as analyses presented by FDA staff members.

The overall thrust of the extrapolation issue was that if biosimilarity to Remicade was proven by a range of preclinical and clinical testing, and if safety and efficacy similar to Remicade was shown in trials that enrolled only patients with rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, then the safety and efficacy previously proven for Remicade for the other indications could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to CT-P13 also, even though CT-P13 was never tested on patients with those conditions. This turned out to often be the key issue that panel members grappled with as they decided whether to vote in favor of the question the FDA asked them to address.

“Many of us are uncomfortable with this new pathway” of extrapolation, said panel member Dr. Beth L. Jonas, a rheumatologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“I feel we’re taking a risk” with the extrapolations, said Dr. Mary E. Maloney, professor of medicine and chief of dermatology at the University of Massachusetts in Worcester. “We have a responsibility to take a risk to provide biosimilars to patients and to reduce their cost” for needed treatments, she said during the Committee’s discussion of their votes.

“Biosimilar is a new concept, but it’s the future of how we will look at drugs,” explained panel member Dr. Wilma Bergfeld, professor of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.

CT-P13 is currently marketed in many other countries worldwide under the brand names Remsima or Inflectra.

The FDA’s staff was clearly behind this application. After summarizing the agency’s internal analysis of the data submitted by Celltrion, Dr. Nikolay Nikolov, clinical team leader for the FDA’s Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Rheumatology Products, concluded that “the totality of evidence provided by the applicant supports a conclusion that CT-P13 is biosimilar to U.S.-licensed Remicade,” and that “scientific justification for extrapolating the clinical data supports a finding of biosimilarity for all indications for which U.S.-licensed Remicade is licensed.” The FDA’s position makes it seem very likely that the agency will accept the Advisory Committee’s vote and grant CT-P13 license for U.S. marketing in the near future.

CT-P13 also received support during the public comment period of the Committee’s deliberations. At that time, Dr. Gideon P. Smith, a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston spoke on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology Association. “Biologics are some of the most important recent developments in treating plaque psoriasis, but cost is an important issue. We hope that biosimilars will decrease the cost of this treatment,” Dr. Smith said. “Infliximab is a complex molecule with a complex production process. We are concerned about the safety and efficacy of treatment. The AADA supports approval based on reducing cost and improving patient access. However, we strongly recommend caution through long-term postmarketing surveillance and using registry data to identify issues of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety that were not seen in the clinical trials.”

The drug also received support from Dr. Angus B. Worthing, who represented the American College of Rheumatology. “Biosimilars may be the only tool to keep prices of biologics within reason,” said Dr. Worthing, a rheumatologist in Washington. But he also stressed that “extrapolation should be done with caution and not routinely granted.”

CT-P13 has the potential to make a fairly widely used biologic significantly more affordable. In countries where it has come onto the market, it’s been priced at roughly 30% below the prevailing cost of Remicade prior to this competition.

“Infliximab is an extremely important tool in our armamentarium for treatment of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease,” commented Dr. Stephen B. Hanauer, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Biologic therapies account for an increasing proportion of health care costs for chronic diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease and reducing these costs will be important as increasing numbers of patients are benefiting from long-term biologic therapies. Having reviewed the extensive preclinical and clinical data with CT-P13, I am comfortable with potential substitution or switching as long as physicians are aware of the change and can track any potential reactions to the administered product,” he said in an interview.

“Infliximab is currently used by U.S. rheumatologists to treat certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is not the most-widely used tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, which is adalimumab, but it is often used. After FDA approval, biosimilar infliximab is anticipated to be priced lower than Remicade and that would likely increase use of infliximab for rheumatologic conditions,” said Dr. Jonathan Kay, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Massachusetts in Worcester. “The clinical experience with CT-P13 in trials and in routine use in other countries show no significant loss of efficacy or any other major problem when changing patients from Remicade to CT-P13. All the data suggest that CT-P13 is highly similar to the reference product. It’s almost akin to comparing one lot of Remicade to another lot of Remicade. I personally would not have a problem initiating a patient on CT-P13 if infliximab was the appropriate drug to use,” Dr. Kay said in an interview.

Dr. Hanauer has been a consultant to Celltrion. Dr. Kay has been a consultant to several drug companies.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Clinical study of mitochondrial replacement techniques for human reproduction is ethically permissible, concluded a special panel formed by the Institute of Medicine and charged by the Food and Drug Administration to study the issue.

If the FDA accepts the recommendations, issued Feb. 3, the agency could proceed with approving investigational new drug (IND) applications from U.S. research groups to test mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) with the goal of allowing couples to bear children who would not inherit mitochondrial DNA diseases affecting the mother.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Archaeogenetics/Creative Commons License

MRT, also termed mitochondrial transfer, involves creating an embryo with nuclear DNA from the intended mother and mitochondrial DNA from a healthy donor through modification of either an oocyte or zygote. The mitochondrial transfer techniques currently being considered are maternal spindle transfer, which uses oocytes, and pronuclear transfer, which uses zygotes. Critics of the controversial techniques have labeled MRTs as “three parent” IVF and assert that allowing their use will create a slippery slope toward enabling modification of nuclear DNA and germ-line modification.

While the IOM report, which had been in the works since late 2014, helps clear the ethical pathway to clinical testing of these novel methods, lawmakers created a new roadblock with the passage of the fiscal 2016 omnibus budget legislation, which specifically barred the FDA from using budgeted funds to evaluate proposals for therapies that involve embryo modification.

The IOM committee’s report noted that the FDA should consider approval of initial clinical investigations of MRTs “only if and when” several conditions are met, including establishment of safety and minimized risks, an adequate background of likely efficacy through preclinical research, limiting of research to women at risk for transmitting a mitochondrial DNA disease, and limiting of studies to investigators and centers with demonstrated expertise in relevant technologies.

Another key qualification the panel recommended is that initial studies be limited to male embryos so that when they become adults they would not pass their engineered mitochondrial genome to a next generation because mitochondrial inheritance occurs only via oocytes. The committee recommended that modification of mitochondrial DNA in oocytes or zygotes destined to become women be permitted in the future, but only after the procedure proved its safety in men.

The recommendations also stressed that the “health and well-being of any future children born as a result of clinical investigation protocols of MRT should have priority.”

“The main conclusion of the report is that it is ethically permissible to conduct investigations into MRT as long as significant conditions and parameters are met,” said Dr. Marni Falk, director of the mitochondrial-genetic disease clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the IOM committee.

Dr. Bruce H. Cohen, director of the neurodevelopmental science center and pediatric neurology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said he was pleased with the IOM report.

“There is nothing in the report that will stop this human research from going ahead in the United States. That’s the bottom line,” said Dr. Cohen, who has done clinical research in and drug development for children with mitochondrial disease. “They took everything into consideration, including the science and the pulse of the American public, and came up with a plan that will move this treatment forward.”

Dr. Cohen singled out the MRT research program at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) as the U.S. effort closest to launching a clinical trial, and a senior research official at OHSU agreed that the panel’s recommendations represented a significant step forward.

“We feel the panel did a good job,” said Daniel Dorsa, Ph.D., senior vice president for research at OHSU in Portland. “They put in some restrictions, such as only using male embryos to start, but that is an understandable caution. We’re pleased the report is now out because we’ve been waiting for it. We’ve been in discussions with the FDA for an IND for mitochondrial transfer for quite a while, and the FDA said that we should wait for this report.”

The OHSU research team that works on MRT, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov, Ph.D., already successfully used “maternal spindle transfer” to produce two macaque embryos that received donor mitochondrial DNA, said Dr. Dorsa. The two macaques remain in gestation with their delivery anticipated soon.

The next step for the OHSU group is to test the same technique with human oocytes, and they have identified several women with either Leigh syndrome or mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and strokelike episodes (MELAS) who are interested in assisted reproduction using MRT.

“We’re anxiously waiting to see what the FDA will now do with the new recommendations in hand but with the congressional prohibition also in place,” Dr. Dorsa said. “With the recommendations now out, we anticipate that pressure will mount for Congress to change its position because for now U.S. women with mitochondrial DNA disease will be precluded from this cutting-edge technology that could ensure they give birth to healthy children.”

Dr. Dorsa said that OHSU holds several patents related to MRT, but these patents have not been licensed to any commercial entity.*

Dr. Falk cited results from a 2015 survey of 92 women with mitochondrial DNA disease or at-risk carriers of mutated mitochondrial DNA who expressed their interest in MRT. Among the 92 respondents, 21 said that they were interested in having children. Of that smaller group, 90% said they would be interested in MRT when becoming pregnant.

Dr. Falk also noted that roughly 30,000-60,000 Americans have a mitochondrial disease, although many others might be affected but have never been diagnosed or undergone confirmatory sequencing of their mitochondrial DNA.* Many affected patients have a mutation in 1 of the 200 nuclear genes that can produce mitochondrial dysfunction and not in 1 of the 37 genes contained in mitochondrial DNA. Only women with a mutation in their mitochondrial DNA can benefit from MRT.

*Correction, 2/5/2016: An earlier version of this story failed to correctly distinguish all forms of mitochondrial disease from mitochondrial DNA disease. 

*This story was updated 2/8/2016.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter@mitchelzoler

Clinical study of mitochondrial replacement techniques for human reproduction is ethically permissible, concluded a special panel formed by the Institute of Medicine and charged by the Food and Drug Administration to study the issue.

If the FDA accepts the recommendations, issued Feb. 3, the agency could proceed with approving investigational new drug (IND) applications from U.S. research groups to test mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) with the goal of allowing couples to bear children who would not inherit mitochondrial DNA diseases affecting the mother.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Archaeogenetics/Creative Commons License

MRT, also termed mitochondrial transfer, involves creating an embryo with nuclear DNA from the intended mother and mitochondrial DNA from a healthy donor through modification of either an oocyte or zygote. The mitochondrial transfer techniques currently being considered are maternal spindle transfer, which uses oocytes, and pronuclear transfer, which uses zygotes. Critics of the controversial techniques have labeled MRTs as “three parent” IVF and assert that allowing their use will create a slippery slope toward enabling modification of nuclear DNA and germ-line modification.

While the IOM report, which had been in the works since late 2014, helps clear the ethical pathway to clinical testing of these novel methods, lawmakers created a new roadblock with the passage of the fiscal 2016 omnibus budget legislation, which specifically barred the FDA from using budgeted funds to evaluate proposals for therapies that involve embryo modification.

The IOM committee’s report noted that the FDA should consider approval of initial clinical investigations of MRTs “only if and when” several conditions are met, including establishment of safety and minimized risks, an adequate background of likely efficacy through preclinical research, limiting of research to women at risk for transmitting a mitochondrial DNA disease, and limiting of studies to investigators and centers with demonstrated expertise in relevant technologies.

Another key qualification the panel recommended is that initial studies be limited to male embryos so that when they become adults they would not pass their engineered mitochondrial genome to a next generation because mitochondrial inheritance occurs only via oocytes. The committee recommended that modification of mitochondrial DNA in oocytes or zygotes destined to become women be permitted in the future, but only after the procedure proved its safety in men.

The recommendations also stressed that the “health and well-being of any future children born as a result of clinical investigation protocols of MRT should have priority.”

“The main conclusion of the report is that it is ethically permissible to conduct investigations into MRT as long as significant conditions and parameters are met,” said Dr. Marni Falk, director of the mitochondrial-genetic disease clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the IOM committee.

Dr. Bruce H. Cohen, director of the neurodevelopmental science center and pediatric neurology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said he was pleased with the IOM report.

“There is nothing in the report that will stop this human research from going ahead in the United States. That’s the bottom line,” said Dr. Cohen, who has done clinical research in and drug development for children with mitochondrial disease. “They took everything into consideration, including the science and the pulse of the American public, and came up with a plan that will move this treatment forward.”

Dr. Cohen singled out the MRT research program at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) as the U.S. effort closest to launching a clinical trial, and a senior research official at OHSU agreed that the panel’s recommendations represented a significant step forward.

“We feel the panel did a good job,” said Daniel Dorsa, Ph.D., senior vice president for research at OHSU in Portland. “They put in some restrictions, such as only using male embryos to start, but that is an understandable caution. We’re pleased the report is now out because we’ve been waiting for it. We’ve been in discussions with the FDA for an IND for mitochondrial transfer for quite a while, and the FDA said that we should wait for this report.”

The OHSU research team that works on MRT, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov, Ph.D., already successfully used “maternal spindle transfer” to produce two macaque embryos that received donor mitochondrial DNA, said Dr. Dorsa. The two macaques remain in gestation with their delivery anticipated soon.

The next step for the OHSU group is to test the same technique with human oocytes, and they have identified several women with either Leigh syndrome or mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and strokelike episodes (MELAS) who are interested in assisted reproduction using MRT.

“We’re anxiously waiting to see what the FDA will now do with the new recommendations in hand but with the congressional prohibition also in place,” Dr. Dorsa said. “With the recommendations now out, we anticipate that pressure will mount for Congress to change its position because for now U.S. women with mitochondrial DNA disease will be precluded from this cutting-edge technology that could ensure they give birth to healthy children.”

Dr. Dorsa said that OHSU holds several patents related to MRT, but these patents have not been licensed to any commercial entity.*

Dr. Falk cited results from a 2015 survey of 92 women with mitochondrial DNA disease or at-risk carriers of mutated mitochondrial DNA who expressed their interest in MRT. Among the 92 respondents, 21 said that they were interested in having children. Of that smaller group, 90% said they would be interested in MRT when becoming pregnant.

Dr. Falk also noted that roughly 30,000-60,000 Americans have a mitochondrial disease, although many others might be affected but have never been diagnosed or undergone confirmatory sequencing of their mitochondrial DNA.* Many affected patients have a mutation in 1 of the 200 nuclear genes that can produce mitochondrial dysfunction and not in 1 of the 37 genes contained in mitochondrial DNA. Only women with a mutation in their mitochondrial DNA can benefit from MRT.

*Correction, 2/5/2016: An earlier version of this story failed to correctly distinguish all forms of mitochondrial disease from mitochondrial DNA disease. 

*This story was updated 2/8/2016.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter@mitchelzoler

Clinical study of mitochondrial replacement techniques for human reproduction is ethically permissible, concluded a special panel formed by the Institute of Medicine and charged by the Food and Drug Administration to study the issue.

If the FDA accepts the recommendations, issued Feb. 3, the agency could proceed with approving investigational new drug (IND) applications from U.S. research groups to test mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) with the goal of allowing couples to bear children who would not inherit mitochondrial DNA diseases affecting the mother.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Archaeogenetics/Creative Commons License

MRT, also termed mitochondrial transfer, involves creating an embryo with nuclear DNA from the intended mother and mitochondrial DNA from a healthy donor through modification of either an oocyte or zygote. The mitochondrial transfer techniques currently being considered are maternal spindle transfer, which uses oocytes, and pronuclear transfer, which uses zygotes. Critics of the controversial techniques have labeled MRTs as “three parent” IVF and assert that allowing their use will create a slippery slope toward enabling modification of nuclear DNA and germ-line modification.

While the IOM report, which had been in the works since late 2014, helps clear the ethical pathway to clinical testing of these novel methods, lawmakers created a new roadblock with the passage of the fiscal 2016 omnibus budget legislation, which specifically barred the FDA from using budgeted funds to evaluate proposals for therapies that involve embryo modification.

The IOM committee’s report noted that the FDA should consider approval of initial clinical investigations of MRTs “only if and when” several conditions are met, including establishment of safety and minimized risks, an adequate background of likely efficacy through preclinical research, limiting of research to women at risk for transmitting a mitochondrial DNA disease, and limiting of studies to investigators and centers with demonstrated expertise in relevant technologies.

Another key qualification the panel recommended is that initial studies be limited to male embryos so that when they become adults they would not pass their engineered mitochondrial genome to a next generation because mitochondrial inheritance occurs only via oocytes. The committee recommended that modification of mitochondrial DNA in oocytes or zygotes destined to become women be permitted in the future, but only after the procedure proved its safety in men.

The recommendations also stressed that the “health and well-being of any future children born as a result of clinical investigation protocols of MRT should have priority.”

“The main conclusion of the report is that it is ethically permissible to conduct investigations into MRT as long as significant conditions and parameters are met,” said Dr. Marni Falk, director of the mitochondrial-genetic disease clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the IOM committee.

Dr. Bruce H. Cohen, director of the neurodevelopmental science center and pediatric neurology at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital, said he was pleased with the IOM report.

“There is nothing in the report that will stop this human research from going ahead in the United States. That’s the bottom line,” said Dr. Cohen, who has done clinical research in and drug development for children with mitochondrial disease. “They took everything into consideration, including the science and the pulse of the American public, and came up with a plan that will move this treatment forward.”

Dr. Cohen singled out the MRT research program at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) as the U.S. effort closest to launching a clinical trial, and a senior research official at OHSU agreed that the panel’s recommendations represented a significant step forward.

“We feel the panel did a good job,” said Daniel Dorsa, Ph.D., senior vice president for research at OHSU in Portland. “They put in some restrictions, such as only using male embryos to start, but that is an understandable caution. We’re pleased the report is now out because we’ve been waiting for it. We’ve been in discussions with the FDA for an IND for mitochondrial transfer for quite a while, and the FDA said that we should wait for this report.”

The OHSU research team that works on MRT, led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov, Ph.D., already successfully used “maternal spindle transfer” to produce two macaque embryos that received donor mitochondrial DNA, said Dr. Dorsa. The two macaques remain in gestation with their delivery anticipated soon.

The next step for the OHSU group is to test the same technique with human oocytes, and they have identified several women with either Leigh syndrome or mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and strokelike episodes (MELAS) who are interested in assisted reproduction using MRT.

“We’re anxiously waiting to see what the FDA will now do with the new recommendations in hand but with the congressional prohibition also in place,” Dr. Dorsa said. “With the recommendations now out, we anticipate that pressure will mount for Congress to change its position because for now U.S. women with mitochondrial DNA disease will be precluded from this cutting-edge technology that could ensure they give birth to healthy children.”

Dr. Dorsa said that OHSU holds several patents related to MRT, but these patents have not been licensed to any commercial entity.*

Dr. Falk cited results from a 2015 survey of 92 women with mitochondrial DNA disease or at-risk carriers of mutated mitochondrial DNA who expressed their interest in MRT. Among the 92 respondents, 21 said that they were interested in having children. Of that smaller group, 90% said they would be interested in MRT when becoming pregnant.

Dr. Falk also noted that roughly 30,000-60,000 Americans have a mitochondrial disease, although many others might be affected but have never been diagnosed or undergone confirmatory sequencing of their mitochondrial DNA.* Many affected patients have a mutation in 1 of the 200 nuclear genes that can produce mitochondrial dysfunction and not in 1 of the 37 genes contained in mitochondrial DNA. Only women with a mutation in their mitochondrial DNA can benefit from MRT.

*Correction, 2/5/2016: An earlier version of this story failed to correctly distinguish all forms of mitochondrial disease from mitochondrial DNA disease. 

*This story was updated 2/8/2016.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter@mitchelzoler

Heart failure management has become increasingly complex over the past couple of decades, with new drugs and drug combinations, new uses for potentially life-saving implanted devices, and a more sophisticated appreciation of the ways that various comorbidities complicate a heart failure patient’s clinical status. These expanded dimensions of heart failure care resulted in the establishment in 2008 of a new secondary subspecialty, Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology, aimed at training and certifying physicians in all the nuances of complex heart failure diagnostics and care.

But as the 2009 manifesto announcing this new heart failure subspecialty detailed, care for the vast majority of U.S. patients with heart failure remains in the hands of internal medicine primary care physicians (PCPs) and general cardiologists (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Mar 10;53[10]:834-6). To some extent this is a manpower issue. The estimated number of Americans living with heart failure exceeds 5 million, a figure that dwarfs the very modest number of U.S. physicians and clinicians who are certified or self-identified heart failure specialists.

As of today, fewer than 1,000 U.S. physicians have received formal certification as heart failure subspecialists through the examination administered in 2010, 2012, and 2014, said Michele Blair, chief executive officer of the Heart Failure Society of America. A more liberal definition of a heart failure specialist might include the roughly 3,000 unique physicians (mostly cardiologists, but also some hospitalists and emergency physicians) who have recently attended an annual meeting of the HFSA, as well as the roughly 2,300 physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have shown a heart failure interest by coming to a recent HFSA meeting. But even these expanded estimates calculate out to about 1 clinician with a special interest in heart failure for each 1,000 heart failure patients, not a very reassuring ratio.

The burgeoning numbers of heart failure patients, compared with the relative scarcity of both heart failure experts and general cardiologists, raises issues of how primary-care internists best share this management responsibility. Recent interviews with several heart failure subspecialists and primary care internists provide some insight into how this division of labor is now playing out in routine U.S. practice. What often occurs is that primary care internists take exclusive responsibility for caring for heart failure patients until they feel they are getting in over their heads, at which time they’ll consult with a cardiology colleague or refer the patient to a cardiologist. That moment of recognition by the generalist – that the demands and complexity of the case exceed their comfort level – varies widely, with some PCPs referring patients as soon as heart failure symptoms appear while others stay comfortable as the primary care giver even as a patient’s disease deteriorates to a more advanced stage.

Heart failure specialists highlighted their reliance on PCPs to take an ongoing, active role even for patients with significantly advanced heart failure, as generalists are well suited to coordinating the multispecialty care that such patients usually require, with attention to their need for lifestyle modifications as well as management of their diabetes, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, and other comorbidities.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

As Dr. Michael K. Ong, a primary care internist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview, his heart failure specialist colleague manages patients’ heart failure; “I manage [or refer] everything else not directly related to the heart failure.”

The most successful U.S. care models seem to be some variation on a team-care approach, in which physicians collaborate with pharmacists, nurses, rehabilitation specialists, and social workers as well as specialists, a team that would include and perhaps be led by either a primary care internist, a cardiologist, or a heart failure specialist but would also broadly include physicians able to deal with all the morbidity facets of heart failure. It’s a model that remains unavailable in many U.S. settings or is just starting to emerge, as fee-for-service coverage of patients gets replaced by population-management models that better accommodate the upfront financial demands of coordinated team care. It makes financial sense a few years down the road when improved patient outcomes result in cost savings.

Primary care and patients with symptomatic heart failure

The heart failure definitions and staging system established in 2001 by a guidelines panel of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association defined stage A heart failure as starting before a patient exhibits any heart failure symptoms (the classic ones include dyspnea, rales, and peripheral edema). The panel designated symptomatic heart failure patients as stage C. Patients without heart failure symptoms but with one or more risk factors (such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease) plus structural heart disease (such as cardiomyopathy or other forms of heart remodeling) were designated stage B. The panel said that people at stage A had one or more risk factors but no structural heart changes and no heart failure symptoms.

Although stage-A heart failure patients are clearly the types of people most often seen and cared for by PCPs, many of these physicians, as well as many heart failure specialists, don’t consider patients who have only hypertension or only diabetes or only obesity as yet having heart failure. That paradox deserves more discussion, but the best way to begin talking about PCPs and heart failure patients is when patients are symptomatic and have what everyone would agree is heart failure.

Even though the ACC/AHA staging system places stage C patients well down the heart failure road, stage C is usually when patients are first diagnosed with heart failure. Although the diagnosis is often first made by a hospitalist or emergency-department physician when severe and sudden-onset heart failure symptoms drive the patient to a hospital, or the diagnosis originates with a cardiologist or heart failure specialist when the patient’s presentation and differential diagnosis isn’t straightforward, most commonly the diagnosis starts with a PCP in an office encounter with a patient who is symptomatic but not acutely ill.

“Patients with shortness of breath or other forms of effort intolerance most often seek care from PCPs. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea is long and complex. Recognition that a patient with dyspnea may have HF is crucial” for timely management and treatment, said Dr. Mary Norine Walsh, medical director of Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplantation at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

At the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., “most of the heart failure diagnoses are done by PCPs, usually first identified at stage C when a patient comes in with symptoms. Stage B heart failure is usually only identified as an incidental finding when echocardiography is done for some other reason,” said Dr. Paul M. McKie, a heart failure cardiologist who works closely with the primary-care staff at Mayo as an embedded consultant cardiologist.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

According to Dr. Mariell L. Jessup, a heart failure physician and professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, a key to PCPs promptly identifying patients with recent-onset, stage C heart failure is to keep the disease as well as its prominent risk factors at the top of their differential-diagnosis list for at-risk patients. “Heart failure is a common disorder,” Dr. Jessup said, and must be considered for patients with shortness of breath. “The leading causes of heart failure are hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. So keep heart failure in mind, especially for patients with one or more of these risk factors.”

Although PCPs might order an echocardiography examination or a lab test like measurement of brain natriuretic protein (BNP) to help nail down the diagnosis, they often leave reading the echocardiography results to a cardiologist colleague. “When a PCP orders an echo it’s automatically read by a cardiologist, and then we get the cardiologist’s report. I don’t read echos myself,” said Dr. Rebecca J. Cunningham, an internal medicine PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who frequently sees patients with heart failure as medical director of the hospital’s Integrated Care Management Program. “I had one PCP colleague who undertook additional training to learn to read echos himself, but that’s unusual.”

Dr. Mary Ann Bauman, an internal medicine PCP and medical director for Women’s Health and Community Relations at INTEGRIS Health in Oklahoma City, noted a similar division of labor. “If a patient has shortness of breath, maybe some edema, and I hear a few rales, but is totally functional, I always order an echo but I don’t read it. I refer the echo to a cardiologist who then sends me a report,” Dr. Bauman said in an interview. “If I think the patient may have heart failure I’ll also order a BNP or NT-proBNP test. If I suspect heart failure and the BNP is high, it’s a red flag. BNP is another tool for getting the diagnosis right.”

The next step seems much more variable. Some PCPs retain primary control of heart failure management for many of their patients, especially when stage C patients remain stable and functional on simple, straightforward treatment and particularly when they have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), usually defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction that is at least 40%-45%. Consultation or referral to a cardiologist or heart-failure physician seems much more common for patients with frequent decompensations and hospitalizations or patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But the main thread reported by both PCPs and cardiologists is that it all depends and varies for each patient and for each PCP depending on what patient responsibilities a PCP feels comfortable taking on.

Dr. Bauman sits at one end of the spectrum: “If it looks like a patient has heart failure, I refer them right away; I don’t wait for decompensation to occur. I want to be sure that there are no nuances in the patient that need something before I recognize it. Most of my PCP partners do the same. You don’t know what it is you don’t know. For me, it’s better to refer the patient right away so the patient has a cardiologist who already knows them who can be called if they start to decompensate.”

Dr. Bauman cited the increasing complexity of heart failure management as the main driver of her current approach, which she contrasted to how she dealt with heart failure patients 20 years ago. “It’s become so complicated that, as a PCP, I don’t feel that I can keep up” with the optimal ways to manage every heart failure patient. “I might not give my heart failure patients the best care they could receive.” The aspects of care that Dr. Bauman said she can provide to heart failure patients she has referred include “dealing with lifestyle changes, making sure patients are taking their medications and getting to their appointments, adjusting their heart-failure medication dosages as needed once they start on the drugs, and seeing that their diabetes and hypertension are well controlled. That is the role of the PCP. But when it comes to deciding which HF medications to use, that’s when I like to have a cardiologist involved.”

But the PCPs at Mayo Clinic often take a different tack, said Dr. McKie. “If the patient is a simple case of heart failure with no red flags and the patient is doing relatively well on treatment with simple diuretic treatment, then initiation of heart failure medications and ongoing management is often directed by the PCP with some cardiology backup as needed,” he said. But Dr. McKie conceded that a spectrum of PCP approaches exists at Mayo as well. “A lot depends on the patient and on the specific provider. Some patients we never get calls about; their PCPs are excellent at managing diuretics and uptitrating beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors. We may only get called if the patient decompensates, But other PCPs are very uncomfortable and they request that we get involved as soon as the diagnosis of stage C heart failure is made. So there is a wide range.” Dr. McKie noted that he thinks it is appropriate for himself or one of his cardiology colleagues to get more active when the HFrEF patient’s ejection fraction drops below 40% and certainly below 35%. That’s because at this stage, patients also need treatment with an aldosterone receptor antagonist such as spironolactone, and they undergo consideration for receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or a cardiac resynchronization therapy device.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“There is nothing magic about heart failure management; it is very well proscribed by guidelines. Nothing precludes a PCP from taking ownership” of heart failure patients, said Dr. Akshay S. Desai, a heart failure cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “I think there is some fear among PCPs that they intrude” by managing heart failure patients. But for patients with structural heart disease or even left ventricular dysfunction, “PCPs should feel empowered to start standard heart failure treatments, including ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, especially because half of heart failure patients have HFpEF, and PCPs often don’t refer HFpEF patients to cardiologists. It’s the patients with left ventricular dysfunction who end up in heart failure clinics,” Dr. Desai said.

On the other hand, Dr. Desai cautioned PCPs against waiting too long to bring more complex, sicker, and harder-to-manage patients to the attention of a heart failure specialist.

“What we worry about are late referrals, when patients are profoundly decompensated,” he said. “By the time they show up [at a heart failure clinic or emergency department] they have end-organ dysfunction,” which makes them much harder to treat and maybe irreversible. “Recognizing heart failure early is the key, and early referral is an obligation” when a heart failure patient is deteriorating or becomes too complex for a PCP to properly manage, Dr. Desai advised.

But even when heart failure patients develop more severe disease, with significantly depressed left ventricular function or frequent decompensations, PCPs continue to play a valuable role in coordinating the wide range of treatments patients need for their various comorbidities.

“Once a cardiologist or heart failure physician is involved there is still a role for PCPs” said Dr. Monica R. Shah, deputy chief of the Heart Failure and Arrhythmia Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. “Heart failure patients are complex, it’s not just one organ system that’s affected, and you need a partnership between cardiologists and PCPs to coordinate all of a patient’s care. A heart failure physician needs to work with a PCP to be sure that the patient’s health is optimal. Collaboration between cardiologists and PCPs is key to ensure that optimal care is effectively delivered to patients,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

“Keeping the PCP at the center of the care team is critical, especially with the multiple comorbidities that HF patients can have, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, renal failure, sleep apnea, atrial fibrillation, and degenerative joint disease. Before you know it you have a half-dozen subspecialists involved in care and it can become uncoordinated. Keeping the PCP at the center of the team and providing the PCP with support from specialists as needed is critical,” said Dr. McKie.

Even for the most severe heart failure patients, PCPs can still play an important role by providing palliative care and dealing with end-of-life issues, specialists said.

Primary care and heart failure’s antecedents

The other, obvious time in heart failure’s severity spectrum for PCPs to take a very active role is with presymptomatic, stage A patients. Perhaps the only controversial element of this is whether such patients really have a form of heart failure and whether is it important to conceptualize heart failure this way.

The notion of stage A heart failure dates back to the 2001 edition of heart failure diagnosis and management recommendations issued by a panel organized by the ACC and AHA (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Dec;38[7]:2101-13). The 2001 writing committee members said that they “decided to take a new approach to the classification of heart failure that emphasized both the evolution and progression of the disease.” They defined stage A patients as presymptomatic and without structural heart disease but with “conditions strongly associated with the development of heart failure,” specifically systemic hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, a history of cardiotoxic drug therapy or alcohol abuse, a history of rheumatic fever, or a family history of cardiomyopathy.

When the ACC and AHA panel members next updated the heart failure recommendations in 2005, they seemed to take a rhetorical step back, saying that stage A and B “are clearly not heart failure but are an attempt to help healthcare providers identify patients early who are at risk for developing heart failure. Stage A and B patients are best defined as those with risk factors that clearly predispose toward the development of HF.” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Sept. 46[6]:1116-43) In 2005, the panel also streamlined the list of risk factors that identify stage A heart failure patients: hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, patients who have taken cardiotoxins, or patients with a family history of cardiomyopathy. The 2009 recommendation update left this definition of stage A heart failure unchanged, but in 2013 the most recent update devoted less attention to explaining the significance of the stage-A heart failure, although it clearly highlighted the importance of controlling hypertension, diabetes, and obesity as ways to prevent patients from developing symptomatic heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-e239).

The subtle, official tweaking of the stage A (and B) heart failure concept during 2001-2013, as well establishment of stage A in the first place, seems to have left both PCPs and heart failure specialists unsure on exactly how to think about presymptomatic people with one or more of the prominent heart failure risk factors of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. While they uniformly agree that identifying these risk factors and then treating them according to contemporary guidelines is hugely important for stopping or deferring the onset of heart failure, and they also agree that this aspect of patient care is clearly a core responsibility for PCPs, many also say that they don’t think of presymptomatic patients as having heart failure of any type despite the stage A designation on the books.

One exception is St. Vincent’s Dr. Walsh. “I think the writers of the 2001 heart failure guidelines had an inspired approach. Identifying patients with hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, etc., as patients with heart failure has helped drive home the point that treatment and control of these diseases is crucial,” she said in an interview. “But I am not sure all physicians have adopted the concept. “Uncontrolled hypertension is prevalent, and not viewed by all as resulting in heart failure down the road. Diabetes and hypertension are very important risk factors for the development of heart failure in women,” she added. “I’m especially diligent in ensuring that women with one or both of these diseases get treated aggressively.”

Highlighting specifically the fundamental role that uncontrolled hypertension plays in causing heart failure, the University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Jessup estimated that controlling hypertension throughout the U.S. population could probably cut heart failure incidence in half.

Others draw a sharper contrast between the risk factor stage and the symptomatic stages of heart failure, though they all agree on the importance of risk factor management by PCPs. “Hypertension does not mean that a patient has heart failure; it means they have a risk factor for heart failure and the patient is in the prevention stage,” said the NHLBI’s Dr. Shah. ”The most important role for PCPs is to identify the risk factors and prevent development of [symptomatic] heart failure. This is where PCPs are critically important because patients present to them at the early stages.”

Dr. Bauman, the PCP with INTEGRIS in Oklahoma City, generally doesn’t conflate risk factors with stage A heart failure. “I look at every patient with hypertension or diabetes as a person at risk for cardiovascular disease. I push them to get their blood pressure and glycemia under control. But I don’t think of them as stage A heart failure patients. I think of them as patients at risk for heart failure, but also at risk for atrial fibrillation, MI, and stroke. I think about their risk, but I don’t label them in my mind as having stage A heart failure. I think that this is a patient at risk for cardiovascular disease and that I must do what I should to manage their risk factors.”

“I don’t personally think about patients having stage A heart failure,” agreed Dr. Cunningham, a PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “When I see patients with hypertension, I counsel them about what matters to them so that they will take their medications, because if they currently feel fine they may not understand the long-term risk they face. So I invest time in making the patient understand why their hypertension is important and the risks it poses, so that in the long-run they won’t have a stroke or MI or develop heart failure. But I don’t think that the stage A definition has changed my approach; I already think of hypertension as a precursor to a variety of bad downstream consequences. I don’t think of someone as a heart failure patient just because they have hypertension, and I don’t think that every patient with hypertension will develop heart failure.” Speaking of her colleagues, Dr. Cunningham added, “I don’t have a sense that the stages of heart failure have made much of an impact on how other PCPs talk with patients or plan their care.”

“The heart failure staging system is useful from the standpoint of emphasizing that the disease begins with primordial risk and progresses through a period of structural injury during which patients may not be symptomatic,” summed up Dr. Desai. “But practically, most of us confront the diagnosis of heart failure when patients become symptomatic and reach stage C.”

Can an intensified approach better slow stage A progression?

One of the inherent limitations right now in referring to patients as having stage A heart failure is that it adds little to how heart failure risk factors are managed. A patient with hypertension undergoing appropriate care will receive treatment to lower blood pressure to recommended goal levels. The antihypertensive treatment remains the same regardless of whether the patient is considered to have only hypertension or whether the treating physician also thinks of the patient as having stage A heart failure. The same applies to patients diagnosed with diabetes; their hyperglycemia-controlling treatment remains unchanged whether or not their physician labels them as stage A heart failure patients.

But what if an evidence-based way existed to not only identify patients with hypertension or diabetes, but to identify within those patients the subset who faced a particularly increased risk for developing heart failure? And what if an evidence-based intervention existed that could be added to standard blood pressure–lowering or hyperglycemia-controlling interventions and had proved to slow or stop progression of patients to heart failure?

Preliminary evidence that screening for stage A heart failure patients can successfully identify a subset at elevated risk for developing symptomatic heart failure and that intensified risk-factor control helped mitigate this risk appeared in two reports published in 2013. But both studies were relatively small, they ran in Europe, and neither has undergone replication in a U.S. study in the 2.5 years since their publication.

The larger study, STOP-HF (St. Vincent’s Screening to Prevent Heart Failure), included patients at 39 primary care practices in Ireland, a study organized by researchers at St. Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin. They enrolled people without symptoms of heart failure who were at least 41 years old and had at least one of these risk factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, vascular disease, diabetes, an arrhythmia, or valvular disease: In short, primarily stage A heart failure patients.

The researchers then tested 1,374 of these people for their baseline blood level of BNP and randomized them into two intervention arms. For those randomized to the active arm, the PCPs for these people received an unblinded report of the BNP results, and those with a level of 50 pg/mL or higher underwent further assessment by screening echocardiography and intensified risk-factor control, including risk-factor coaching by a nurse. Those randomized to this arm who had a lower BNP level at baseline underwent annual follow-up BNP screening, and if their level reached the 50 pg/ML threshold they switched to the more intensified protocol. Those randomized to the control arm received a more standard program of risk-factor modification and their BNP levels were never unblinded.

After an average follow-up of 4.2 years, people in the active intervention arm of STOP-HF had a 5% cumulative incidence of left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, while those in the control arm had a 9% rate, a 45% relative risk reduction from the active intervention that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (JAMA. 2013 July 3;310[1]:66-74).

The second study, PONTIAC (NT-proBNP Selected Prevention of Cardiac Events in a Population of Diabetic Patients Without a History of Cardiac Disease), ran in Austria and Germany and involved 300 patients who had type 2 diabetes and were free from cardiac disease at baseline. At baseline, all people considered for the study underwent a screening measure of their blood level of NT-proBNP (a physiologic precursor to BNP) and those with a level above 125 pg/mL were randomized to either a usual-care group or an arm that underwent more intensified up-titration treatment with a renin-angiotensin system antagonist drug and with a beta-blocker. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization or death due to cardiac disease after 2 years, which was a relative 65% lower in the intensified intervention group, a statistically significant difference (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 8;62[15]:1365-72).

Both studies focused on people with common risk factors seen in primary care practices and used BNP or a BNP-like blood marker to identify people with an elevated risk for developing heart failure or other cardiac disease, and both studies showed that application of a more aggressive risk-factor intervention program resulted in a significant reduction in heart failure or heart failure–related outcomes after 2-4 years. Both studies appeared to offer models for improving risk-factor management by PCPs for people with stage A heart failure, but at the end of 2015 neither model had undergone U.S. testing.

“The STOP-HF and PONTIAC studies were proofs of concept for using biomarkers to gain a better sense of cardiac health,” said Dr. Tariq Ahmad, a heart failure physician at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who is interested in developing biomarkers for guiding heart failure management. “Metrics like blood pressure and heart rate are relatively crude measures of cardiac health. We need to see in a large trial if we can use these more objective measures of cardiac health to decide how to treat patients,” In addition to BNP and NT-proBNP, Dr. Ahmad cited ST2 and galectin-3 as other promising biomarkers in the blood that may better gauge a person’s risk for developing heart failure and the need for intensified risk-factor control. The current inability of PCPs to better risk stratify people who meet the stage A heart failure definition so that those at highest risk could undergo more intensified interventions constitutes a missed opportunity for heart failure prevention, he said.

“The STOP-HF trial is really important and desperately needs replication,” said Dr. Margaret M. Redfield, professor of medicine and a heart failure physician at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

She, and her Mayo associates, including Dr. McKie, are planning to launch a research protocol this year to finally test a STOP-HF type of program in a U.S. setting. They are planning to measure NT-proBNP levels in patients with stage A heart failure and then randomize some to an intervention arm with intensified risk reduction treatments.

“The problem with stage A today is, if we apply it according to the ACC and AHA definition, it would include quite a large number of patients, and not all of them – in fact a minority – would go on to develop symptomatic heart failure,” said Dr. McKie. “How you can further risk stratify the stage A population with simple testing is an issue for ongoing research,” he said. “The STOP-HF and PONTIAC strategies need more testing. Both studies were done in Europe, and we haven’t studied this approach in the U.S. Their approach makes sense and is appealing but it needs more testing.”

The economic barrier to intensified stage-A management

Even if a U.S. based study could replicate the STOP-HF results and provide an evidence base for improved prevention of symptomatic heart failure by interventions instituted by PCPs, it’s not clear whether the U.S. health care system as it currently is structured provides a framework that is able to invest in intensified upfront management of risk factors to achieve a reduced incidence of symptomatic heart failure several years later.

“One of the interesting aspects of STOP-HF was its use of a nurse-based intervention. We don’t have the resources for that in our practices right now,” noted Dr. Cunningham, the PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is medical director of the hospital’s Integrated Care Management Program for medically complex patients. While that program uses nurse care coordinators to pull together the disparate elements of care for heart failure patients and others with more severe, chronic illnesses, the program currently serves only patients with advanced disease, not presymptomatic patients who face a potentially elevated risk for bad outcomes that would happen many years in the future.

“This speaks to the need for more population-based preventive management, which PCPs are trying to start to do, but currently we are nowhere near fulfilling that potential,” said Dr. Cunningham. The barrier is having clinical resources for help in managing lower-risk patients, to make sure they receive all the interventions they should. We’re now trying to start using care teams for patients with diabetes or other conditions. The biggest gap is that we don’t have the resources; we don’t have enough nurses on our staff to intervene” for all the patients who could potentially benefit. “Right now, we can only afford to use nurses for selected, high-risk patients.” The challenge is to have a care model that allows a lot of upfront costs to generate savings over a long-term time horizon, he said. “It’s very important for improving population health, but it’s hard to make it happen in our current health care system.”

Dr. Ahmad noted the enormous downside of a health system that is not proactive and often waits for heart failure patients to declare themselves with severe illness.

“The majority of heart failure patients I see drifted through the health care system” without recognition of their accumulating morbidity. “By the time they show heart failure symptoms, their disease is pretty advanced and we have real difficulty managing it. A lot of patients do not have their heart failure managed until they fall off the edge and their condition is much less modifiable. If we could identify these patients sooner, it would help both them and the health care system. It would be great to have objective measures that could help PCPs identify early abnormal patients who need more aggressive management. In much of U.S. practice, heart failure management is more specialty driven. It might be different in closed systems, but in many heart failure practices there is no PCP coordination. The health care system is not set up to allow PCPs to take care of these issues.”

Dr. Bauman said she sees some reason for optimism in looming reimbursement changes, where population management might help drive a shift toward more team care for heart failure and a focus on earlier identification of patients at risk and intervention at early stages of their disease.

“As we move toward population management it becomes more obvious that you need a team approach to managing heart failure, involving not just physicians but also pharmacists, nurses, social workers, and care coordinators. In my system, INTEGRIS, the whole-team management approach is beginning to happen. It’s new to primary care to apply a large team of clinicians; it takes a lot of resources. Being able to afford a team was a problem when we were paid by fee-for-service, it wasn’t practical. Population management will make it possible.”

Dr. Desai has been a consultant to Novartis, Merck, St. Jude, and Relypsa and has received research funding from Novartis and AtCor Medical. Dr. Redfield has been a consultant to Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Ahmad has been a consultant to Roche. Dr. Ong, Dr. Walsh, Dr. Jessup, Dr. McKie, Dr. Bauman, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Cunningham had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Heart failure management has become increasingly complex over the past couple of decades, with new drugs and drug combinations, new uses for potentially life-saving implanted devices, and a more sophisticated appreciation of the ways that various comorbidities complicate a heart failure patient’s clinical status. These expanded dimensions of heart failure care resulted in the establishment in 2008 of a new secondary subspecialty, Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology, aimed at training and certifying physicians in all the nuances of complex heart failure diagnostics and care.

But as the 2009 manifesto announcing this new heart failure subspecialty detailed, care for the vast majority of U.S. patients with heart failure remains in the hands of internal medicine primary care physicians (PCPs) and general cardiologists (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Mar 10;53[10]:834-6). To some extent this is a manpower issue. The estimated number of Americans living with heart failure exceeds 5 million, a figure that dwarfs the very modest number of U.S. physicians and clinicians who are certified or self-identified heart failure specialists.

As of today, fewer than 1,000 U.S. physicians have received formal certification as heart failure subspecialists through the examination administered in 2010, 2012, and 2014, said Michele Blair, chief executive officer of the Heart Failure Society of America. A more liberal definition of a heart failure specialist might include the roughly 3,000 unique physicians (mostly cardiologists, but also some hospitalists and emergency physicians) who have recently attended an annual meeting of the HFSA, as well as the roughly 2,300 physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have shown a heart failure interest by coming to a recent HFSA meeting. But even these expanded estimates calculate out to about 1 clinician with a special interest in heart failure for each 1,000 heart failure patients, not a very reassuring ratio.

The burgeoning numbers of heart failure patients, compared with the relative scarcity of both heart failure experts and general cardiologists, raises issues of how primary-care internists best share this management responsibility. Recent interviews with several heart failure subspecialists and primary care internists provide some insight into how this division of labor is now playing out in routine U.S. practice. What often occurs is that primary care internists take exclusive responsibility for caring for heart failure patients until they feel they are getting in over their heads, at which time they’ll consult with a cardiology colleague or refer the patient to a cardiologist. That moment of recognition by the generalist – that the demands and complexity of the case exceed their comfort level – varies widely, with some PCPs referring patients as soon as heart failure symptoms appear while others stay comfortable as the primary care giver even as a patient’s disease deteriorates to a more advanced stage.

Heart failure specialists highlighted their reliance on PCPs to take an ongoing, active role even for patients with significantly advanced heart failure, as generalists are well suited to coordinating the multispecialty care that such patients usually require, with attention to their need for lifestyle modifications as well as management of their diabetes, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, and other comorbidities.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

As Dr. Michael K. Ong, a primary care internist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview, his heart failure specialist colleague manages patients’ heart failure; “I manage [or refer] everything else not directly related to the heart failure.”

The most successful U.S. care models seem to be some variation on a team-care approach, in which physicians collaborate with pharmacists, nurses, rehabilitation specialists, and social workers as well as specialists, a team that would include and perhaps be led by either a primary care internist, a cardiologist, or a heart failure specialist but would also broadly include physicians able to deal with all the morbidity facets of heart failure. It’s a model that remains unavailable in many U.S. settings or is just starting to emerge, as fee-for-service coverage of patients gets replaced by population-management models that better accommodate the upfront financial demands of coordinated team care. It makes financial sense a few years down the road when improved patient outcomes result in cost savings.

Primary care and patients with symptomatic heart failure

The heart failure definitions and staging system established in 2001 by a guidelines panel of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association defined stage A heart failure as starting before a patient exhibits any heart failure symptoms (the classic ones include dyspnea, rales, and peripheral edema). The panel designated symptomatic heart failure patients as stage C. Patients without heart failure symptoms but with one or more risk factors (such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease) plus structural heart disease (such as cardiomyopathy or other forms of heart remodeling) were designated stage B. The panel said that people at stage A had one or more risk factors but no structural heart changes and no heart failure symptoms.

Although stage-A heart failure patients are clearly the types of people most often seen and cared for by PCPs, many of these physicians, as well as many heart failure specialists, don’t consider patients who have only hypertension or only diabetes or only obesity as yet having heart failure. That paradox deserves more discussion, but the best way to begin talking about PCPs and heart failure patients is when patients are symptomatic and have what everyone would agree is heart failure.

Even though the ACC/AHA staging system places stage C patients well down the heart failure road, stage C is usually when patients are first diagnosed with heart failure. Although the diagnosis is often first made by a hospitalist or emergency-department physician when severe and sudden-onset heart failure symptoms drive the patient to a hospital, or the diagnosis originates with a cardiologist or heart failure specialist when the patient’s presentation and differential diagnosis isn’t straightforward, most commonly the diagnosis starts with a PCP in an office encounter with a patient who is symptomatic but not acutely ill.

“Patients with shortness of breath or other forms of effort intolerance most often seek care from PCPs. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea is long and complex. Recognition that a patient with dyspnea may have HF is crucial” for timely management and treatment, said Dr. Mary Norine Walsh, medical director of Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplantation at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

At the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., “most of the heart failure diagnoses are done by PCPs, usually first identified at stage C when a patient comes in with symptoms. Stage B heart failure is usually only identified as an incidental finding when echocardiography is done for some other reason,” said Dr. Paul M. McKie, a heart failure cardiologist who works closely with the primary-care staff at Mayo as an embedded consultant cardiologist.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

According to Dr. Mariell L. Jessup, a heart failure physician and professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, a key to PCPs promptly identifying patients with recent-onset, stage C heart failure is to keep the disease as well as its prominent risk factors at the top of their differential-diagnosis list for at-risk patients. “Heart failure is a common disorder,” Dr. Jessup said, and must be considered for patients with shortness of breath. “The leading causes of heart failure are hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. So keep heart failure in mind, especially for patients with one or more of these risk factors.”

Although PCPs might order an echocardiography examination or a lab test like measurement of brain natriuretic protein (BNP) to help nail down the diagnosis, they often leave reading the echocardiography results to a cardiologist colleague. “When a PCP orders an echo it’s automatically read by a cardiologist, and then we get the cardiologist’s report. I don’t read echos myself,” said Dr. Rebecca J. Cunningham, an internal medicine PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who frequently sees patients with heart failure as medical director of the hospital’s Integrated Care Management Program. “I had one PCP colleague who undertook additional training to learn to read echos himself, but that’s unusual.”

Dr. Mary Ann Bauman, an internal medicine PCP and medical director for Women’s Health and Community Relations at INTEGRIS Health in Oklahoma City, noted a similar division of labor. “If a patient has shortness of breath, maybe some edema, and I hear a few rales, but is totally functional, I always order an echo but I don’t read it. I refer the echo to a cardiologist who then sends me a report,” Dr. Bauman said in an interview. “If I think the patient may have heart failure I’ll also order a BNP or NT-proBNP test. If I suspect heart failure and the BNP is high, it’s a red flag. BNP is another tool for getting the diagnosis right.”

The next step seems much more variable. Some PCPs retain primary control of heart failure management for many of their patients, especially when stage C patients remain stable and functional on simple, straightforward treatment and particularly when they have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), usually defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction that is at least 40%-45%. Consultation or referral to a cardiologist or heart-failure physician seems much more common for patients with frequent decompensations and hospitalizations or patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But the main thread reported by both PCPs and cardiologists is that it all depends and varies for each patient and for each PCP depending on what patient responsibilities a PCP feels comfortable taking on.

Dr. Bauman sits at one end of the spectrum: “If it looks like a patient has heart failure, I refer them right away; I don’t wait for decompensation to occur. I want to be sure that there are no nuances in the patient that need something before I recognize it. Most of my PCP partners do the same. You don’t know what it is you don’t know. For me, it’s better to refer the patient right away so the patient has a cardiologist who already knows them who can be called if they start to decompensate.”

Dr. Bauman cited the increasing complexity of heart failure management as the main driver of her current approach, which she contrasted to how she dealt with heart failure patients 20 years ago. “It’s become so complicated that, as a PCP, I don’t feel that I can keep up” with the optimal ways to manage every heart failure patient. “I might not give my heart failure patients the best care they could receive.” The aspects of care that Dr. Bauman said she can provide to heart failure patients she has referred include “dealing with lifestyle changes, making sure patients are taking their medications and getting to their appointments, adjusting their heart-failure medication dosages as needed once they start on the drugs, and seeing that their diabetes and hypertension are well controlled. That is the role of the PCP. But when it comes to deciding which HF medications to use, that’s when I like to have a cardiologist involved.”

But the PCPs at Mayo Clinic often take a different tack, said Dr. McKie. “If the patient is a simple case of heart failure with no red flags and the patient is doing relatively well on treatment with simple diuretic treatment, then initiation of heart failure medications and ongoing management is often directed by the PCP with some cardiology backup as needed,” he said. But Dr. McKie conceded that a spectrum of PCP approaches exists at Mayo as well. “A lot depends on the patient and on the specific provider. Some patients we never get calls about; their PCPs are excellent at managing diuretics and uptitrating beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors. We may only get called if the patient decompensates, But other PCPs are very uncomfortable and they request that we get involved as soon as the diagnosis of stage C heart failure is made. So there is a wide range.” Dr. McKie noted that he thinks it is appropriate for himself or one of his cardiology colleagues to get more active when the HFrEF patient’s ejection fraction drops below 40% and certainly below 35%. That’s because at this stage, patients also need treatment with an aldosterone receptor antagonist such as spironolactone, and they undergo consideration for receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or a cardiac resynchronization therapy device.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“There is nothing magic about heart failure management; it is very well proscribed by guidelines. Nothing precludes a PCP from taking ownership” of heart failure patients, said Dr. Akshay S. Desai, a heart failure cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “I think there is some fear among PCPs that they intrude” by managing heart failure patients. But for patients with structural heart disease or even left ventricular dysfunction, “PCPs should feel empowered to start standard heart failure treatments, including ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, especially because half of heart failure patients have HFpEF, and PCPs often don’t refer HFpEF patients to cardiologists. It’s the patients with left ventricular dysfunction who end up in heart failure clinics,” Dr. Desai said.

On the other hand, Dr. Desai cautioned PCPs against waiting too long to bring more complex, sicker, and harder-to-manage patients to the attention of a heart failure specialist.

“What we worry about are late referrals, when patients are profoundly decompensated,” he said. “By the time they show up [at a heart failure clinic or emergency department] they have end-organ dysfunction,” which makes them much harder to treat and maybe irreversible. “Recognizing heart failure early is the key, and early referral is an obligation” when a heart failure patient is deteriorating or becomes too complex for a PCP to properly manage, Dr. Desai advised.

But even when heart failure patients develop more severe disease, with significantly depressed left ventricular function or frequent decompensations, PCPs continue to play a valuable role in coordinating the wide range of treatments patients need for their various comorbidities.

“Once a cardiologist or heart failure physician is involved there is still a role for PCPs” said Dr. Monica R. Shah, deputy chief of the Heart Failure and Arrhythmia Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. “Heart failure patients are complex, it’s not just one organ system that’s affected, and you need a partnership between cardiologists and PCPs to coordinate all of a patient’s care. A heart failure physician needs to work with a PCP to be sure that the patient’s health is optimal. Collaboration between cardiologists and PCPs is key to ensure that optimal care is effectively delivered to patients,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

“Keeping the PCP at the center of the care team is critical, especially with the multiple comorbidities that HF patients can have, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, renal failure, sleep apnea, atrial fibrillation, and degenerative joint disease. Before you know it you have a half-dozen subspecialists involved in care and it can become uncoordinated. Keeping the PCP at the center of the team and providing the PCP with support from specialists as needed is critical,” said Dr. McKie.

Even for the most severe heart failure patients, PCPs can still play an important role by providing palliative care and dealing with end-of-life issues, specialists said.

Primary care and heart failure’s antecedents

The other, obvious time in heart failure’s severity spectrum for PCPs to take a very active role is with presymptomatic, stage A patients. Perhaps the only controversial element of this is whether such patients really have a form of heart failure and whether is it important to conceptualize heart failure this way.

The notion of stage A heart failure dates back to the 2001 edition of heart failure diagnosis and management recommendations issued by a panel organized by the ACC and AHA (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Dec;38[7]:2101-13). The 2001 writing committee members said that they “decided to take a new approach to the classification of heart failure that emphasized both the evolution and progression of the disease.” They defined stage A patients as presymptomatic and without structural heart disease but with “conditions strongly associated with the development of heart failure,” specifically systemic hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, a history of cardiotoxic drug therapy or alcohol abuse, a history of rheumatic fever, or a family history of cardiomyopathy.

When the ACC and AHA panel members next updated the heart failure recommendations in 2005, they seemed to take a rhetorical step back, saying that stage A and B “are clearly not heart failure but are an attempt to help healthcare providers identify patients early who are at risk for developing heart failure. Stage A and B patients are best defined as those with risk factors that clearly predispose toward the development of HF.” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Sept. 46[6]:1116-43) In 2005, the panel also streamlined the list of risk factors that identify stage A heart failure patients: hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, patients who have taken cardiotoxins, or patients with a family history of cardiomyopathy. The 2009 recommendation update left this definition of stage A heart failure unchanged, but in 2013 the most recent update devoted less attention to explaining the significance of the stage-A heart failure, although it clearly highlighted the importance of controlling hypertension, diabetes, and obesity as ways to prevent patients from developing symptomatic heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-e239).

The subtle, official tweaking of the stage A (and B) heart failure concept during 2001-2013, as well establishment of stage A in the first place, seems to have left both PCPs and heart failure specialists unsure on exactly how to think about presymptomatic people with one or more of the prominent heart failure risk factors of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. While they uniformly agree that identifying these risk factors and then treating them according to contemporary guidelines is hugely important for stopping or deferring the onset of heart failure, and they also agree that this aspect of patient care is clearly a core responsibility for PCPs, many also say that they don’t think of presymptomatic patients as having heart failure of any type despite the stage A designation on the books.

One exception is St. Vincent’s Dr. Walsh. “I think the writers of the 2001 heart failure guidelines had an inspired approach. Identifying patients with hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, etc., as patients with heart failure has helped drive home the point that treatment and control of these diseases is crucial,” she said in an interview. “But I am not sure all physicians have adopted the concept. “Uncontrolled hypertension is prevalent, and not viewed by all as resulting in heart failure down the road. Diabetes and hypertension are very important risk factors for the development of heart failure in women,” she added. “I’m especially diligent in ensuring that women with one or both of these diseases get treated aggressively.”

Highlighting specifically the fundamental role that uncontrolled hypertension plays in causing heart failure, the University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Jessup estimated that controlling hypertension throughout the U.S. population could probably cut heart failure incidence in half.

Others draw a sharper contrast between the risk factor stage and the symptomatic stages of heart failure, though they all agree on the importance of risk factor management by PCPs. “Hypertension does not mean that a patient has heart failure; it means they have a risk factor for heart failure and the patient is in the prevention stage,” said the NHLBI’s Dr. Shah. ”The most important role for PCPs is to identify the risk factors and prevent development of [symptomatic] heart failure. This is where PCPs are critically important because patients present to them at the early stages.”

Dr. Bauman, the PCP with INTEGRIS in Oklahoma City, generally doesn’t conflate risk factors with stage A heart failure. “I look at every patient with hypertension or diabetes as a person at risk for cardiovascular disease. I push them to get their blood pressure and glycemia under control. But I don’t think of them as stage A heart failure patients. I think of them as patients at risk for heart failure, but also at risk for atrial fibrillation, MI, and stroke. I think about their risk, but I don’t label them in my mind as having stage A heart failure. I think that this is a patient at risk for cardiovascular disease and that I must do what I should to manage their risk factors.”

“I don’t personally think about patients having stage A heart failure,” agreed Dr. Cunningham, a PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “When I see patients with hypertension, I counsel them about what matters to them so that they will take their medications, because if they currently feel fine they may not understand the long-term risk they face. So I invest time in making the patient understand why their hypertension is important and the risks it poses, so that in the long-run they won’t have a stroke or MI or develop heart failure. But I don’t think that the stage A definition has changed my approach; I already think of hypertension as a precursor to a variety of bad downstream consequences. I don’t think of someone as a heart failure patient just because they have hypertension, and I don’t think that every patient with hypertension will develop heart failure.” Speaking of her colleagues, Dr. Cunningham added, “I don’t have a sense that the stages of heart failure have made much of an impact on how other PCPs talk with patients or plan their care.”

“The heart failure staging system is useful from the standpoint of emphasizing that the disease begins with primordial risk and progresses through a period of structural injury during which patients may not be symptomatic,” summed up Dr. Desai. “But practically, most of us confront the diagnosis of heart failure when patients become symptomatic and reach stage C.”

Can an intensified approach better slow stage A progression?

One of the inherent limitations right now in referring to patients as having stage A heart failure is that it adds little to how heart failure risk factors are managed. A patient with hypertension undergoing appropriate care will receive treatment to lower blood pressure to recommended goal levels. The antihypertensive treatment remains the same regardless of whether the patient is considered to have only hypertension or whether the treating physician also thinks of the patient as having stage A heart failure. The same applies to patients diagnosed with diabetes; their hyperglycemia-controlling treatment remains unchanged whether or not their physician labels them as stage A heart failure patients.

But what if an evidence-based way existed to not only identify patients with hypertension or diabetes, but to identify within those patients the subset who faced a particularly increased risk for developing heart failure? And what if an evidence-based intervention existed that could be added to standard blood pressure–lowering or hyperglycemia-controlling interventions and had proved to slow or stop progression of patients to heart failure?

Preliminary evidence that screening for stage A heart failure patients can successfully identify a subset at elevated risk for developing symptomatic heart failure and that intensified risk-factor control helped mitigate this risk appeared in two reports published in 2013. But both studies were relatively small, they ran in Europe, and neither has undergone replication in a U.S. study in the 2.5 years since their publication.

The larger study, STOP-HF (St. Vincent’s Screening to Prevent Heart Failure), included patients at 39 primary care practices in Ireland, a study organized by researchers at St. Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin. They enrolled people without symptoms of heart failure who were at least 41 years old and had at least one of these risk factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, vascular disease, diabetes, an arrhythmia, or valvular disease: In short, primarily stage A heart failure patients.

The researchers then tested 1,374 of these people for their baseline blood level of BNP and randomized them into two intervention arms. For those randomized to the active arm, the PCPs for these people received an unblinded report of the BNP results, and those with a level of 50 pg/mL or higher underwent further assessment by screening echocardiography and intensified risk-factor control, including risk-factor coaching by a nurse. Those randomized to this arm who had a lower BNP level at baseline underwent annual follow-up BNP screening, and if their level reached the 50 pg/ML threshold they switched to the more intensified protocol. Those randomized to the control arm received a more standard program of risk-factor modification and their BNP levels were never unblinded.

After an average follow-up of 4.2 years, people in the active intervention arm of STOP-HF had a 5% cumulative incidence of left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, while those in the control arm had a 9% rate, a 45% relative risk reduction from the active intervention that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (JAMA. 2013 July 3;310[1]:66-74).

The second study, PONTIAC (NT-proBNP Selected Prevention of Cardiac Events in a Population of Diabetic Patients Without a History of Cardiac Disease), ran in Austria and Germany and involved 300 patients who had type 2 diabetes and were free from cardiac disease at baseline. At baseline, all people considered for the study underwent a screening measure of their blood level of NT-proBNP (a physiologic precursor to BNP) and those with a level above 125 pg/mL were randomized to either a usual-care group or an arm that underwent more intensified up-titration treatment with a renin-angiotensin system antagonist drug and with a beta-blocker. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization or death due to cardiac disease after 2 years, which was a relative 65% lower in the intensified intervention group, a statistically significant difference (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 8;62[15]:1365-72).

Both studies focused on people with common risk factors seen in primary care practices and used BNP or a BNP-like blood marker to identify people with an elevated risk for developing heart failure or other cardiac disease, and both studies showed that application of a more aggressive risk-factor intervention program resulted in a significant reduction in heart failure or heart failure–related outcomes after 2-4 years. Both studies appeared to offer models for improving risk-factor management by PCPs for people with stage A heart failure, but at the end of 2015 neither model had undergone U.S. testing.

“The STOP-HF and PONTIAC studies were proofs of concept for using biomarkers to gain a better sense of cardiac health,” said Dr. Tariq Ahmad, a heart failure physician at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who is interested in developing biomarkers for guiding heart failure management. “Metrics like blood pressure and heart rate are relatively crude measures of cardiac health. We need to see in a large trial if we can use these more objective measures of cardiac health to decide how to treat patients,” In addition to BNP and NT-proBNP, Dr. Ahmad cited ST2 and galectin-3 as other promising biomarkers in the blood that may better gauge a person’s risk for developing heart failure and the need for intensified risk-factor control. The current inability of PCPs to better risk stratify people who meet the stage A heart failure definition so that those at highest risk could undergo more intensified interventions constitutes a missed opportunity for heart failure prevention, he said.

“The STOP-HF trial is really important and desperately needs replication,” said Dr. Margaret M. Redfield, professor of medicine and a heart failure physician at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

She, and her Mayo associates, including Dr. McKie, are planning to launch a research protocol this year to finally test a STOP-HF type of program in a U.S. setting. They are planning to measure NT-proBNP levels in patients with stage A heart failure and then randomize some to an intervention arm with intensified risk reduction treatments.

“The problem with stage A today is, if we apply it according to the ACC and AHA definition, it would include quite a large number of patients, and not all of them – in fact a minority – would go on to develop symptomatic heart failure,” said Dr. McKie. “How you can further risk stratify the stage A population with simple testing is an issue for ongoing research,” he said. “The STOP-HF and PONTIAC strategies need more testing. Both studies were done in Europe, and we haven’t studied this approach in the U.S. Their approach makes sense and is appealing but it needs more testing.”

The economic barrier to intensified stage-A management

Even if a U.S. based study could replicate the STOP-HF results and provide an evidence base for improved prevention of symptomatic heart failure by interventions instituted by PCPs, it’s not clear whether the U.S. health care system as it currently is structured provides a framework that is able to invest in intensified upfront management of risk factors to achieve a reduced incidence of symptomatic heart failure several years later.

“One of the interesting aspects of STOP-HF was its use of a nurse-based intervention. We don’t have the resources for that in our practices right now,” noted Dr. Cunningham, the PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is medical director of the hospital’s Integrated Care Management Program for medically complex patients. While that program uses nurse care coordinators to pull together the disparate elements of care for heart failure patients and others with more severe, chronic illnesses, the program currently serves only patients with advanced disease, not presymptomatic patients who face a potentially elevated risk for bad outcomes that would happen many years in the future.

“This speaks to the need for more population-based preventive management, which PCPs are trying to start to do, but currently we are nowhere near fulfilling that potential,” said Dr. Cunningham. The barrier is having clinical resources for help in managing lower-risk patients, to make sure they receive all the interventions they should. We’re now trying to start using care teams for patients with diabetes or other conditions. The biggest gap is that we don’t have the resources; we don’t have enough nurses on our staff to intervene” for all the patients who could potentially benefit. “Right now, we can only afford to use nurses for selected, high-risk patients.” The challenge is to have a care model that allows a lot of upfront costs to generate savings over a long-term time horizon, he said. “It’s very important for improving population health, but it’s hard to make it happen in our current health care system.”

Dr. Ahmad noted the enormous downside of a health system that is not proactive and often waits for heart failure patients to declare themselves with severe illness.

“The majority of heart failure patients I see drifted through the health care system” without recognition of their accumulating morbidity. “By the time they show heart failure symptoms, their disease is pretty advanced and we have real difficulty managing it. A lot of patients do not have their heart failure managed until they fall off the edge and their condition is much less modifiable. If we could identify these patients sooner, it would help both them and the health care system. It would be great to have objective measures that could help PCPs identify early abnormal patients who need more aggressive management. In much of U.S. practice, heart failure management is more specialty driven. It might be different in closed systems, but in many heart failure practices there is no PCP coordination. The health care system is not set up to allow PCPs to take care of these issues.”

Dr. Bauman said she sees some reason for optimism in looming reimbursement changes, where population management might help drive a shift toward more team care for heart failure and a focus on earlier identification of patients at risk and intervention at early stages of their disease.

“As we move toward population management it becomes more obvious that you need a team approach to managing heart failure, involving not just physicians but also pharmacists, nurses, social workers, and care coordinators. In my system, INTEGRIS, the whole-team management approach is beginning to happen. It’s new to primary care to apply a large team of clinicians; it takes a lot of resources. Being able to afford a team was a problem when we were paid by fee-for-service, it wasn’t practical. Population management will make it possible.”

Dr. Desai has been a consultant to Novartis, Merck, St. Jude, and Relypsa and has received research funding from Novartis and AtCor Medical. Dr. Redfield has been a consultant to Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Ahmad has been a consultant to Roche. Dr. Ong, Dr. Walsh, Dr. Jessup, Dr. McKie, Dr. Bauman, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Cunningham had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Heart failure management has become increasingly complex over the past couple of decades, with new drugs and drug combinations, new uses for potentially life-saving implanted devices, and a more sophisticated appreciation of the ways that various comorbidities complicate a heart failure patient’s clinical status. These expanded dimensions of heart failure care resulted in the establishment in 2008 of a new secondary subspecialty, Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology, aimed at training and certifying physicians in all the nuances of complex heart failure diagnostics and care.

But as the 2009 manifesto announcing this new heart failure subspecialty detailed, care for the vast majority of U.S. patients with heart failure remains in the hands of internal medicine primary care physicians (PCPs) and general cardiologists (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Mar 10;53[10]:834-6). To some extent this is a manpower issue. The estimated number of Americans living with heart failure exceeds 5 million, a figure that dwarfs the very modest number of U.S. physicians and clinicians who are certified or self-identified heart failure specialists.

As of today, fewer than 1,000 U.S. physicians have received formal certification as heart failure subspecialists through the examination administered in 2010, 2012, and 2014, said Michele Blair, chief executive officer of the Heart Failure Society of America. A more liberal definition of a heart failure specialist might include the roughly 3,000 unique physicians (mostly cardiologists, but also some hospitalists and emergency physicians) who have recently attended an annual meeting of the HFSA, as well as the roughly 2,300 physician assistants and nurse practitioners who have shown a heart failure interest by coming to a recent HFSA meeting. But even these expanded estimates calculate out to about 1 clinician with a special interest in heart failure for each 1,000 heart failure patients, not a very reassuring ratio.

The burgeoning numbers of heart failure patients, compared with the relative scarcity of both heart failure experts and general cardiologists, raises issues of how primary-care internists best share this management responsibility. Recent interviews with several heart failure subspecialists and primary care internists provide some insight into how this division of labor is now playing out in routine U.S. practice. What often occurs is that primary care internists take exclusive responsibility for caring for heart failure patients until they feel they are getting in over their heads, at which time they’ll consult with a cardiology colleague or refer the patient to a cardiologist. That moment of recognition by the generalist – that the demands and complexity of the case exceed their comfort level – varies widely, with some PCPs referring patients as soon as heart failure symptoms appear while others stay comfortable as the primary care giver even as a patient’s disease deteriorates to a more advanced stage.

Heart failure specialists highlighted their reliance on PCPs to take an ongoing, active role even for patients with significantly advanced heart failure, as generalists are well suited to coordinating the multispecialty care that such patients usually require, with attention to their need for lifestyle modifications as well as management of their diabetes, sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal failure, and other comorbidities.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

As Dr. Michael K. Ong, a primary care internist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview, his heart failure specialist colleague manages patients’ heart failure; “I manage [or refer] everything else not directly related to the heart failure.”

The most successful U.S. care models seem to be some variation on a team-care approach, in which physicians collaborate with pharmacists, nurses, rehabilitation specialists, and social workers as well as specialists, a team that would include and perhaps be led by either a primary care internist, a cardiologist, or a heart failure specialist but would also broadly include physicians able to deal with all the morbidity facets of heart failure. It’s a model that remains unavailable in many U.S. settings or is just starting to emerge, as fee-for-service coverage of patients gets replaced by population-management models that better accommodate the upfront financial demands of coordinated team care. It makes financial sense a few years down the road when improved patient outcomes result in cost savings.

Primary care and patients with symptomatic heart failure

The heart failure definitions and staging system established in 2001 by a guidelines panel of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association defined stage A heart failure as starting before a patient exhibits any heart failure symptoms (the classic ones include dyspnea, rales, and peripheral edema). The panel designated symptomatic heart failure patients as stage C. Patients without heart failure symptoms but with one or more risk factors (such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease) plus structural heart disease (such as cardiomyopathy or other forms of heart remodeling) were designated stage B. The panel said that people at stage A had one or more risk factors but no structural heart changes and no heart failure symptoms.

Although stage-A heart failure patients are clearly the types of people most often seen and cared for by PCPs, many of these physicians, as well as many heart failure specialists, don’t consider patients who have only hypertension or only diabetes or only obesity as yet having heart failure. That paradox deserves more discussion, but the best way to begin talking about PCPs and heart failure patients is when patients are symptomatic and have what everyone would agree is heart failure.

Even though the ACC/AHA staging system places stage C patients well down the heart failure road, stage C is usually when patients are first diagnosed with heart failure. Although the diagnosis is often first made by a hospitalist or emergency-department physician when severe and sudden-onset heart failure symptoms drive the patient to a hospital, or the diagnosis originates with a cardiologist or heart failure specialist when the patient’s presentation and differential diagnosis isn’t straightforward, most commonly the diagnosis starts with a PCP in an office encounter with a patient who is symptomatic but not acutely ill.

“Patients with shortness of breath or other forms of effort intolerance most often seek care from PCPs. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea is long and complex. Recognition that a patient with dyspnea may have HF is crucial” for timely management and treatment, said Dr. Mary Norine Walsh, medical director of Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplantation at St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

At the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., “most of the heart failure diagnoses are done by PCPs, usually first identified at stage C when a patient comes in with symptoms. Stage B heart failure is usually only identified as an incidental finding when echocardiography is done for some other reason,” said Dr. Paul M. McKie, a heart failure cardiologist who works closely with the primary-care staff at Mayo as an embedded consultant cardiologist.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

According to Dr. Mariell L. Jessup, a heart failure physician and professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, a key to PCPs promptly identifying patients with recent-onset, stage C heart failure is to keep the disease as well as its prominent risk factors at the top of their differential-diagnosis list for at-risk patients. “Heart failure is a common disorder,” Dr. Jessup said, and must be considered for patients with shortness of breath. “The leading causes of heart failure are hypertension, obesity, and diabetes. So keep heart failure in mind, especially for patients with one or more of these risk factors.”

Although PCPs might order an echocardiography examination or a lab test like measurement of brain natriuretic protein (BNP) to help nail down the diagnosis, they often leave reading the echocardiography results to a cardiologist colleague. “When a PCP orders an echo it’s automatically read by a cardiologist, and then we get the cardiologist’s report. I don’t read echos myself,” said Dr. Rebecca J. Cunningham, an internal medicine PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who frequently sees patients with heart failure as medical director of the hospital’s Integrated Care Management Program. “I had one PCP colleague who undertook additional training to learn to read echos himself, but that’s unusual.”

Dr. Mary Ann Bauman, an internal medicine PCP and medical director for Women’s Health and Community Relations at INTEGRIS Health in Oklahoma City, noted a similar division of labor. “If a patient has shortness of breath, maybe some edema, and I hear a few rales, but is totally functional, I always order an echo but I don’t read it. I refer the echo to a cardiologist who then sends me a report,” Dr. Bauman said in an interview. “If I think the patient may have heart failure I’ll also order a BNP or NT-proBNP test. If I suspect heart failure and the BNP is high, it’s a red flag. BNP is another tool for getting the diagnosis right.”

The next step seems much more variable. Some PCPs retain primary control of heart failure management for many of their patients, especially when stage C patients remain stable and functional on simple, straightforward treatment and particularly when they have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), usually defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction that is at least 40%-45%. Consultation or referral to a cardiologist or heart-failure physician seems much more common for patients with frequent decompensations and hospitalizations or patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But the main thread reported by both PCPs and cardiologists is that it all depends and varies for each patient and for each PCP depending on what patient responsibilities a PCP feels comfortable taking on.

Dr. Bauman sits at one end of the spectrum: “If it looks like a patient has heart failure, I refer them right away; I don’t wait for decompensation to occur. I want to be sure that there are no nuances in the patient that need something before I recognize it. Most of my PCP partners do the same. You don’t know what it is you don’t know. For me, it’s better to refer the patient right away so the patient has a cardiologist who already knows them who can be called if they start to decompensate.”

Dr. Bauman cited the increasing complexity of heart failure management as the main driver of her current approach, which she contrasted to how she dealt with heart failure patients 20 years ago. “It’s become so complicated that, as a PCP, I don’t feel that I can keep up” with the optimal ways to manage every heart failure patient. “I might not give my heart failure patients the best care they could receive.” The aspects of care that Dr. Bauman said she can provide to heart failure patients she has referred include “dealing with lifestyle changes, making sure patients are taking their medications and getting to their appointments, adjusting their heart-failure medication dosages as needed once they start on the drugs, and seeing that their diabetes and hypertension are well controlled. That is the role of the PCP. But when it comes to deciding which HF medications to use, that’s when I like to have a cardiologist involved.”

But the PCPs at Mayo Clinic often take a different tack, said Dr. McKie. “If the patient is a simple case of heart failure with no red flags and the patient is doing relatively well on treatment with simple diuretic treatment, then initiation of heart failure medications and ongoing management is often directed by the PCP with some cardiology backup as needed,” he said. But Dr. McKie conceded that a spectrum of PCP approaches exists at Mayo as well. “A lot depends on the patient and on the specific provider. Some patients we never get calls about; their PCPs are excellent at managing diuretics and uptitrating beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors. We may only get called if the patient decompensates, But other PCPs are very uncomfortable and they request that we get involved as soon as the diagnosis of stage C heart failure is made. So there is a wide range.” Dr. McKie noted that he thinks it is appropriate for himself or one of his cardiology colleagues to get more active when the HFrEF patient’s ejection fraction drops below 40% and certainly below 35%. That’s because at this stage, patients also need treatment with an aldosterone receptor antagonist such as spironolactone, and they undergo consideration for receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or a cardiac resynchronization therapy device.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“There is nothing magic about heart failure management; it is very well proscribed by guidelines. Nothing precludes a PCP from taking ownership” of heart failure patients, said Dr. Akshay S. Desai, a heart failure cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “I think there is some fear among PCPs that they intrude” by managing heart failure patients. But for patients with structural heart disease or even left ventricular dysfunction, “PCPs should feel empowered to start standard heart failure treatments, including ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, especially because half of heart failure patients have HFpEF, and PCPs often don’t refer HFpEF patients to cardiologists. It’s the patients with left ventricular dysfunction who end up in heart failure clinics,” Dr. Desai said.

On the other hand, Dr. Desai cautioned PCPs against waiting too long to bring more complex, sicker, and harder-to-manage patients to the attention of a heart failure specialist.

“What we worry about are late referrals, when patients are profoundly decompensated,” he said. “By the time they show up [at a heart failure clinic or emergency department] they have end-organ dysfunction,” which makes them much harder to treat and maybe irreversible. “Recognizing heart failure early is the key, and early referral is an obligation” when a heart failure patient is deteriorating or becomes too complex for a PCP to properly manage, Dr. Desai advised.

But even when heart failure patients develop more severe disease, with significantly depressed left ventricular function or frequent decompensations, PCPs continue to play a valuable role in coordinating the wide range of treatments patients need for their various comorbidities.

“Once a cardiologist or heart failure physician is involved there is still a role for PCPs” said Dr. Monica R. Shah, deputy chief of the Heart Failure and Arrhythmia Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md. “Heart failure patients are complex, it’s not just one organ system that’s affected, and you need a partnership between cardiologists and PCPs to coordinate all of a patient’s care. A heart failure physician needs to work with a PCP to be sure that the patient’s health is optimal. Collaboration between cardiologists and PCPs is key to ensure that optimal care is effectively delivered to patients,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

“Keeping the PCP at the center of the care team is critical, especially with the multiple comorbidities that HF patients can have, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, renal failure, sleep apnea, atrial fibrillation, and degenerative joint disease. Before you know it you have a half-dozen subspecialists involved in care and it can become uncoordinated. Keeping the PCP at the center of the team and providing the PCP with support from specialists as needed is critical,” said Dr. McKie.

Even for the most severe heart failure patients, PCPs can still play an important role by providing palliative care and dealing with end-of-life issues, specialists said.

Primary care and heart failure’s antecedents

The other, obvious time in heart failure’s severity spectrum for PCPs to take a very active role is with presymptomatic, stage A patients. Perhaps the only controversial element of this is whether such patients really have a form of heart failure and whether is it important to conceptualize heart failure this way.

The notion of stage A heart failure dates back to the 2001 edition of heart failure diagnosis and management recommendations issued by a panel organized by the ACC and AHA (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Dec;38[7]:2101-13). The 2001 writing committee members said that they “decided to take a new approach to the classification of heart failure that emphasized both the evolution and progression of the disease.” They defined stage A patients as presymptomatic and without structural heart disease but with “conditions strongly associated with the development of heart failure,” specifically systemic hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, a history of cardiotoxic drug therapy or alcohol abuse, a history of rheumatic fever, or a family history of cardiomyopathy.

When the ACC and AHA panel members next updated the heart failure recommendations in 2005, they seemed to take a rhetorical step back, saying that stage A and B “are clearly not heart failure but are an attempt to help healthcare providers identify patients early who are at risk for developing heart failure. Stage A and B patients are best defined as those with risk factors that clearly predispose toward the development of HF.” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Sept. 46[6]:1116-43) In 2005, the panel also streamlined the list of risk factors that identify stage A heart failure patients: hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, obesity, metabolic syndrome, patients who have taken cardiotoxins, or patients with a family history of cardiomyopathy. The 2009 recommendation update left this definition of stage A heart failure unchanged, but in 2013 the most recent update devoted less attention to explaining the significance of the stage-A heart failure, although it clearly highlighted the importance of controlling hypertension, diabetes, and obesity as ways to prevent patients from developing symptomatic heart failure (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-e239).

The subtle, official tweaking of the stage A (and B) heart failure concept during 2001-2013, as well establishment of stage A in the first place, seems to have left both PCPs and heart failure specialists unsure on exactly how to think about presymptomatic people with one or more of the prominent heart failure risk factors of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. While they uniformly agree that identifying these risk factors and then treating them according to contemporary guidelines is hugely important for stopping or deferring the onset of heart failure, and they also agree that this aspect of patient care is clearly a core responsibility for PCPs, many also say that they don’t think of presymptomatic patients as having heart failure of any type despite the stage A designation on the books.

One exception is St. Vincent’s Dr. Walsh. “I think the writers of the 2001 heart failure guidelines had an inspired approach. Identifying patients with hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, etc., as patients with heart failure has helped drive home the point that treatment and control of these diseases is crucial,” she said in an interview. “But I am not sure all physicians have adopted the concept. “Uncontrolled hypertension is prevalent, and not viewed by all as resulting in heart failure down the road. Diabetes and hypertension are very important risk factors for the development of heart failure in women,” she added. “I’m especially diligent in ensuring that women with one or both of these diseases get treated aggressively.”

Highlighting specifically the fundamental role that uncontrolled hypertension plays in causing heart failure, the University of Pennsylvania’s Dr. Jessup estimated that controlling hypertension throughout the U.S. population could probably cut heart failure incidence in half.

Others draw a sharper contrast between the risk factor stage and the symptomatic stages of heart failure, though they all agree on the importance of risk factor management by PCPs. “Hypertension does not mean that a patient has heart failure; it means they have a risk factor for heart failure and the patient is in the prevention stage,” said the NHLBI’s Dr. Shah. ”The most important role for PCPs is to identify the risk factors and prevent development of [symptomatic] heart failure. This is where PCPs are critically important because patients present to them at the early stages.”

Dr. Bauman, the PCP with INTEGRIS in Oklahoma City, generally doesn’t conflate risk factors with stage A heart failure. “I look at every patient with hypertension or diabetes as a person at risk for cardiovascular disease. I push them to get their blood pressure and glycemia under control. But I don’t think of them as stage A heart failure patients. I think of them as patients at risk for heart failure, but also at risk for atrial fibrillation, MI, and stroke. I think about their risk, but I don’t label them in my mind as having stage A heart failure. I think that this is a patient at risk for cardiovascular disease and that I must do what I should to manage their risk factors.”

“I don’t personally think about patients having stage A heart failure,” agreed Dr. Cunningham, a PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “When I see patients with hypertension, I counsel them about what matters to them so that they will take their medications, because if they currently feel fine they may not understand the long-term risk they face. So I invest time in making the patient understand why their hypertension is important and the risks it poses, so that in the long-run they won’t have a stroke or MI or develop heart failure. But I don’t think that the stage A definition has changed my approach; I already think of hypertension as a precursor to a variety of bad downstream consequences. I don’t think of someone as a heart failure patient just because they have hypertension, and I don’t think that every patient with hypertension will develop heart failure.” Speaking of her colleagues, Dr. Cunningham added, “I don’t have a sense that the stages of heart failure have made much of an impact on how other PCPs talk with patients or plan their care.”

“The heart failure staging system is useful from the standpoint of emphasizing that the disease begins with primordial risk and progresses through a period of structural injury during which patients may not be symptomatic,” summed up Dr. Desai. “But practically, most of us confront the diagnosis of heart failure when patients become symptomatic and reach stage C.”

Can an intensified approach better slow stage A progression?

One of the inherent limitations right now in referring to patients as having stage A heart failure is that it adds little to how heart failure risk factors are managed. A patient with hypertension undergoing appropriate care will receive treatment to lower blood pressure to recommended goal levels. The antihypertensive treatment remains the same regardless of whether the patient is considered to have only hypertension or whether the treating physician also thinks of the patient as having stage A heart failure. The same applies to patients diagnosed with diabetes; their hyperglycemia-controlling treatment remains unchanged whether or not their physician labels them as stage A heart failure patients.

But what if an evidence-based way existed to not only identify patients with hypertension or diabetes, but to identify within those patients the subset who faced a particularly increased risk for developing heart failure? And what if an evidence-based intervention existed that could be added to standard blood pressure–lowering or hyperglycemia-controlling interventions and had proved to slow or stop progression of patients to heart failure?

Preliminary evidence that screening for stage A heart failure patients can successfully identify a subset at elevated risk for developing symptomatic heart failure and that intensified risk-factor control helped mitigate this risk appeared in two reports published in 2013. But both studies were relatively small, they ran in Europe, and neither has undergone replication in a U.S. study in the 2.5 years since their publication.

The larger study, STOP-HF (St. Vincent’s Screening to Prevent Heart Failure), included patients at 39 primary care practices in Ireland, a study organized by researchers at St. Vincent’s University Hospital in Dublin. They enrolled people without symptoms of heart failure who were at least 41 years old and had at least one of these risk factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, vascular disease, diabetes, an arrhythmia, or valvular disease: In short, primarily stage A heart failure patients.

The researchers then tested 1,374 of these people for their baseline blood level of BNP and randomized them into two intervention arms. For those randomized to the active arm, the PCPs for these people received an unblinded report of the BNP results, and those with a level of 50 pg/mL or higher underwent further assessment by screening echocardiography and intensified risk-factor control, including risk-factor coaching by a nurse. Those randomized to this arm who had a lower BNP level at baseline underwent annual follow-up BNP screening, and if their level reached the 50 pg/ML threshold they switched to the more intensified protocol. Those randomized to the control arm received a more standard program of risk-factor modification and their BNP levels were never unblinded.

After an average follow-up of 4.2 years, people in the active intervention arm of STOP-HF had a 5% cumulative incidence of left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, while those in the control arm had a 9% rate, a 45% relative risk reduction from the active intervention that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (JAMA. 2013 July 3;310[1]:66-74).

The second study, PONTIAC (NT-proBNP Selected Prevention of Cardiac Events in a Population of Diabetic Patients Without a History of Cardiac Disease), ran in Austria and Germany and involved 300 patients who had type 2 diabetes and were free from cardiac disease at baseline. At baseline, all people considered for the study underwent a screening measure of their blood level of NT-proBNP (a physiologic precursor to BNP) and those with a level above 125 pg/mL were randomized to either a usual-care group or an arm that underwent more intensified up-titration treatment with a renin-angiotensin system antagonist drug and with a beta-blocker. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization or death due to cardiac disease after 2 years, which was a relative 65% lower in the intensified intervention group, a statistically significant difference (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 8;62[15]:1365-72).

Both studies focused on people with common risk factors seen in primary care practices and used BNP or a BNP-like blood marker to identify people with an elevated risk for developing heart failure or other cardiac disease, and both studies showed that application of a more aggressive risk-factor intervention program resulted in a significant reduction in heart failure or heart failure–related outcomes after 2-4 years. Both studies appeared to offer models for improving risk-factor management by PCPs for people with stage A heart failure, but at the end of 2015 neither model had undergone U.S. testing.

“The STOP-HF and PONTIAC studies were proofs of concept for using biomarkers to gain a better sense of cardiac health,” said Dr. Tariq Ahmad, a heart failure physician at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who is interested in developing biomarkers for guiding heart failure management. “Metrics like blood pressure and heart rate are relatively crude measures of cardiac health. We need to see in a large trial if we can use these more objective measures of cardiac health to decide how to treat patients,” In addition to BNP and NT-proBNP, Dr. Ahmad cited ST2 and galectin-3 as other promising biomarkers in the blood that may better gauge a person’s risk for developing heart failure and the need for intensified risk-factor control. The current inability of PCPs to better risk stratify people who meet the stage A heart failure definition so that those at highest risk could undergo more intensified interventions constitutes a missed opportunity for heart failure prevention, he said.

“The STOP-HF trial is really important and desperately needs replication,” said Dr. Margaret M. Redfield, professor of medicine and a heart failure physician at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

She, and her Mayo associates, including Dr. McKie, are planning to launch a research protocol this year to finally test a STOP-HF type of program in a U.S. setting. They are planning to measure NT-proBNP levels in patients with stage A heart failure and then randomize some to an intervention arm with intensified risk reduction treatments.

“The problem with stage A today is, if we apply it according to the ACC and AHA definition, it would include quite a large number of patients, and not all of them – in fact a minority – would go on to develop symptomatic heart failure,” said Dr. McKie. “How you can further risk stratify the stage A population with simple testing is an issue for ongoing research,” he said. “The STOP-HF and PONTIAC strategies need more testing. Both studies were done in Europe, and we haven’t studied this approach in the U.S. Their approach makes sense and is appealing but it needs more testing.”

The economic barrier to intensified stage-A management

Even if a U.S. based study could replicate the STOP-HF results and provide an evidence base for improved prevention of symptomatic heart failure by interventions instituted by PCPs, it’s not clear whether the U.S. health care system as it currently is structured provides a framework that is able to invest in intensified upfront management of risk factors to achieve a reduced incidence of symptomatic heart failure several years later.

“One of the interesting aspects of STOP-HF was its use of a nurse-based intervention. We don’t have the resources for that in our practices right now,” noted Dr. Cunningham, the PCP at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who is medical director of the hospital’s Integrated Care Management Program for medically complex patients. While that program uses nurse care coordinators to pull together the disparate elements of care for heart failure patients and others with more severe, chronic illnesses, the program currently serves only patients with advanced disease, not presymptomatic patients who face a potentially elevated risk for bad outcomes that would happen many years in the future.

“This speaks to the need for more population-based preventive management, which PCPs are trying to start to do, but currently we are nowhere near fulfilling that potential,” said Dr. Cunningham. The barrier is having clinical resources for help in managing lower-risk patients, to make sure they receive all the interventions they should. We’re now trying to start using care teams for patients with diabetes or other conditions. The biggest gap is that we don’t have the resources; we don’t have enough nurses on our staff to intervene” for all the patients who could potentially benefit. “Right now, we can only afford to use nurses for selected, high-risk patients.” The challenge is to have a care model that allows a lot of upfront costs to generate savings over a long-term time horizon, he said. “It’s very important for improving population health, but it’s hard to make it happen in our current health care system.”

Dr. Ahmad noted the enormous downside of a health system that is not proactive and often waits for heart failure patients to declare themselves with severe illness.

“The majority of heart failure patients I see drifted through the health care system” without recognition of their accumulating morbidity. “By the time they show heart failure symptoms, their disease is pretty advanced and we have real difficulty managing it. A lot of patients do not have their heart failure managed until they fall off the edge and their condition is much less modifiable. If we could identify these patients sooner, it would help both them and the health care system. It would be great to have objective measures that could help PCPs identify early abnormal patients who need more aggressive management. In much of U.S. practice, heart failure management is more specialty driven. It might be different in closed systems, but in many heart failure practices there is no PCP coordination. The health care system is not set up to allow PCPs to take care of these issues.”

Dr. Bauman said she sees some reason for optimism in looming reimbursement changes, where population management might help drive a shift toward more team care for heart failure and a focus on earlier identification of patients at risk and intervention at early stages of their disease.

“As we move toward population management it becomes more obvious that you need a team approach to managing heart failure, involving not just physicians but also pharmacists, nurses, social workers, and care coordinators. In my system, INTEGRIS, the whole-team management approach is beginning to happen. It’s new to primary care to apply a large team of clinicians; it takes a lot of resources. Being able to afford a team was a problem when we were paid by fee-for-service, it wasn’t practical. Population management will make it possible.”

Dr. Desai has been a consultant to Novartis, Merck, St. Jude, and Relypsa and has received research funding from Novartis and AtCor Medical. Dr. Redfield has been a consultant to Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Ahmad has been a consultant to Roche. Dr. Ong, Dr. Walsh, Dr. Jessup, Dr. McKie, Dr. Bauman, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Cunningham had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement continued to expand through the first half of 2015, but the procedure remained primarily targeted to patients at least 80 years old, according to data collected in a U.S. postmarketing registry.

When the Food and Drug Administration first approved a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for routine U.S. use in late 2011, the patients who underwent TAVR “were either at very high risk or inoperable, and we’ve seen that move into high-risk patients – and I’m sure we’ll see more introduction of this into patients who are at medium risk,” said Dr. Frederick L. Grover in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Despite this downward trend in risk level, the median and average ages of TAVR patients remain above 80 years.

In 2015, U.S. TAVR recipients had a median age of 83 years and a mean age of 81 years, virtually unchanged from the 84-year median and 82-year mean during routine U.S. practice in 2012, the first year for data collection by the STS and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry. Dr. Grover reported the latest data from the registry at the meeting, through roughly the first half of 2015.

“There has been some movement downward” from 2012 to 2014 in the predicted 30-day mortality rate of patients as measured by their preprocedural STS risk score. The rate declined from an average predicted mortality rate of 7.05% in 2012 to an average of 6.69% among patients treated during 2014.

Despite this shift, TAVR patients remain highly vulnerable to surgical complications because of their advanced age and frailty, said Dr. Grover, a professor of cardiothoracic surgery at the University of Colorado in Aurora and vice chairman of the registry steering committee.

STS encourages surgeons and cardiologists who collaborate on the heart teams that judge patient suitability for TAVR to measure frailty with the 5-meter walk test, run sequentially three times. Patients who take an average of 6 seconds or more to complete the test are deemed frail and eligible for TAVR. Registry data show that during 2012-2014, 81% of TAVR patients met this frailty criterion.

Perhaps the most notable statistics in the registry are the snowballing numbers of procedures performed, which have come close to doubling each year.

In the first full year of commercial use, 2012, 4,601 patients underwent TAVR, which jumped to 9,128 patients in 2013, 16,314 patients in 2014, and 23,002 patients during just the first part of 2015, Dr. Grover reported.

Dr. Grover had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement continued to expand through the first half of 2015, but the procedure remained primarily targeted to patients at least 80 years old, according to data collected in a U.S. postmarketing registry.

When the Food and Drug Administration first approved a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for routine U.S. use in late 2011, the patients who underwent TAVR “were either at very high risk or inoperable, and we’ve seen that move into high-risk patients – and I’m sure we’ll see more introduction of this into patients who are at medium risk,” said Dr. Frederick L. Grover in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Despite this downward trend in risk level, the median and average ages of TAVR patients remain above 80 years.

In 2015, U.S. TAVR recipients had a median age of 83 years and a mean age of 81 years, virtually unchanged from the 84-year median and 82-year mean during routine U.S. practice in 2012, the first year for data collection by the STS and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry. Dr. Grover reported the latest data from the registry at the meeting, through roughly the first half of 2015.

“There has been some movement downward” from 2012 to 2014 in the predicted 30-day mortality rate of patients as measured by their preprocedural STS risk score. The rate declined from an average predicted mortality rate of 7.05% in 2012 to an average of 6.69% among patients treated during 2014.

Despite this shift, TAVR patients remain highly vulnerable to surgical complications because of their advanced age and frailty, said Dr. Grover, a professor of cardiothoracic surgery at the University of Colorado in Aurora and vice chairman of the registry steering committee.

STS encourages surgeons and cardiologists who collaborate on the heart teams that judge patient suitability for TAVR to measure frailty with the 5-meter walk test, run sequentially three times. Patients who take an average of 6 seconds or more to complete the test are deemed frail and eligible for TAVR. Registry data show that during 2012-2014, 81% of TAVR patients met this frailty criterion.

Perhaps the most notable statistics in the registry are the snowballing numbers of procedures performed, which have come close to doubling each year.

In the first full year of commercial use, 2012, 4,601 patients underwent TAVR, which jumped to 9,128 patients in 2013, 16,314 patients in 2014, and 23,002 patients during just the first part of 2015, Dr. Grover reported.

Dr. Grover had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement continued to expand through the first half of 2015, but the procedure remained primarily targeted to patients at least 80 years old, according to data collected in a U.S. postmarketing registry.

When the Food and Drug Administration first approved a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system for routine U.S. use in late 2011, the patients who underwent TAVR “were either at very high risk or inoperable, and we’ve seen that move into high-risk patients – and I’m sure we’ll see more introduction of this into patients who are at medium risk,” said Dr. Frederick L. Grover in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Despite this downward trend in risk level, the median and average ages of TAVR patients remain above 80 years.

In 2015, U.S. TAVR recipients had a median age of 83 years and a mean age of 81 years, virtually unchanged from the 84-year median and 82-year mean during routine U.S. practice in 2012, the first year for data collection by the STS and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry. Dr. Grover reported the latest data from the registry at the meeting, through roughly the first half of 2015.

“There has been some movement downward” from 2012 to 2014 in the predicted 30-day mortality rate of patients as measured by their preprocedural STS risk score. The rate declined from an average predicted mortality rate of 7.05% in 2012 to an average of 6.69% among patients treated during 2014.

Despite this shift, TAVR patients remain highly vulnerable to surgical complications because of their advanced age and frailty, said Dr. Grover, a professor of cardiothoracic surgery at the University of Colorado in Aurora and vice chairman of the registry steering committee.

STS encourages surgeons and cardiologists who collaborate on the heart teams that judge patient suitability for TAVR to measure frailty with the 5-meter walk test, run sequentially three times. Patients who take an average of 6 seconds or more to complete the test are deemed frail and eligible for TAVR. Registry data show that during 2012-2014, 81% of TAVR patients met this frailty criterion.

Perhaps the most notable statistics in the registry are the snowballing numbers of procedures performed, which have come close to doubling each year.

In the first full year of commercial use, 2012, 4,601 patients underwent TAVR, which jumped to 9,128 patients in 2013, 16,314 patients in 2014, and 23,002 patients during just the first part of 2015, Dr. Grover reported.

Dr. Grover had no relevant disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – Patients who are stable following a myocardial infarction and need isolated coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) don’t need to wait 5 or so days for their surgery, a delay that many surgeons and cardiologists often impose.

The operation can safely occur after just a 1- or 2-day gap following either an ST-elevation MI or a non–ST-elevation MI, based on real-world outcomes seen in more than 3,000 patients treated at any of seven U.S. medical centers.

“Waiting an arbitrary 5 days is not important,” Elizabeth L. Nichols said during a video interview and during her report at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Ms. Nichols and her associates analyzed the in-hospital mortality rates among 3,060 patients who underwent isolated CABG during 2008-2014 at any of the seven medical centers that participate in the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group and offer CABG. They included patients who had their surgery within 21 days of their MI, and excluded patients who had their CABG within 6 hours of their MI, had emergency surgery, or those with shock or incomplete data. The study group included 529 patients who had a ST-elevation MI and 2,531 patients with a non-ST-elevation MI.

The analysis divided patients into four groups based on timing of their CABG: 99 patients (3%) had surgery within the first 24 hours, 369 patients (12%) had their surgery 1-2 days after their MI, 1,966 (64%) had their operation 3-7 days following their MI, and 626 (21%) had their surgery 8-21 days after the MI.

The unadjusted mortality rates for these four subgroups were 5.1%, 1.6%, 1.6%, and 2.7%, respectively, reported Ms. Nichols, a health services researcher at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Lebanon, N.H.

After researchers adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables, the mortality rates remained identical for patients who underwent CABG 1 or 2 days following their MI, compared with patients whose surgery was deferred until 3-7 days after the MI. Patients with surgery 8-21 days following the MI had a small but not statistically significant higher rate of in-hospital death.

Patients who had their surgery 7-23 hours following an MI had a statistically significant increased hospital mortality following surgery that ran more than threefold greater than patients who underwent CABG 3-7 days after their MI.

The main message from the analysis is that for the typical, stable MI patient who requires CABG to treat multivessel coronary disease, no need exists to wait several days following an MI to do the surgery, Ms. Nichols explained. A delay of just 1 or 2 days is safe and sufficient, as long as it provides adequate time for any acutely administered antiplatelet or antithrombotic drugs to clear.

The findings “provide a degree of comfort for not waiting the 3-5 days that had previously been thought necessary,” said Dr. Jock N. McCullough, chief of cardiac surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon and a collaborator on the study.

The findings are not meant to supersede clinical judgment, both Dr. McCullough and Ms. Nichols emphasized. Individual patients might have good reasons to either undergo faster surgery or to wait at least 8 days following their MI.

“The patients who waited 8-21 days had a lot of comorbidities and were sicker patients, and their delay is often warranted” to make sure the patient is stable enough for surgery, Ms. Nichols explained. Other patients might be worsening following their MI and need to undergo their surgery within 24 hours of their MI.

“Clinical judgment is always the trump card,” Ms. Nichols said.

Ms. Nichols and Dr. McCullough had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – Patients who are stable following a myocardial infarction and need isolated coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) don’t need to wait 5 or so days for their surgery, a delay that many surgeons and cardiologists often impose.

The operation can safely occur after just a 1- or 2-day gap following either an ST-elevation MI or a non–ST-elevation MI, based on real-world outcomes seen in more than 3,000 patients treated at any of seven U.S. medical centers.

“Waiting an arbitrary 5 days is not important,” Elizabeth L. Nichols said during a video interview and during her report at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Ms. Nichols and her associates analyzed the in-hospital mortality rates among 3,060 patients who underwent isolated CABG during 2008-2014 at any of the seven medical centers that participate in the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group and offer CABG. They included patients who had their surgery within 21 days of their MI, and excluded patients who had their CABG within 6 hours of their MI, had emergency surgery, or those with shock or incomplete data. The study group included 529 patients who had a ST-elevation MI and 2,531 patients with a non-ST-elevation MI.

The analysis divided patients into four groups based on timing of their CABG: 99 patients (3%) had surgery within the first 24 hours, 369 patients (12%) had their surgery 1-2 days after their MI, 1,966 (64%) had their operation 3-7 days following their MI, and 626 (21%) had their surgery 8-21 days after the MI.

The unadjusted mortality rates for these four subgroups were 5.1%, 1.6%, 1.6%, and 2.7%, respectively, reported Ms. Nichols, a health services researcher at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Lebanon, N.H.

After researchers adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables, the mortality rates remained identical for patients who underwent CABG 1 or 2 days following their MI, compared with patients whose surgery was deferred until 3-7 days after the MI. Patients with surgery 8-21 days following the MI had a small but not statistically significant higher rate of in-hospital death.

Patients who had their surgery 7-23 hours following an MI had a statistically significant increased hospital mortality following surgery that ran more than threefold greater than patients who underwent CABG 3-7 days after their MI.

The main message from the analysis is that for the typical, stable MI patient who requires CABG to treat multivessel coronary disease, no need exists to wait several days following an MI to do the surgery, Ms. Nichols explained. A delay of just 1 or 2 days is safe and sufficient, as long as it provides adequate time for any acutely administered antiplatelet or antithrombotic drugs to clear.

The findings “provide a degree of comfort for not waiting the 3-5 days that had previously been thought necessary,” said Dr. Jock N. McCullough, chief of cardiac surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon and a collaborator on the study.

The findings are not meant to supersede clinical judgment, both Dr. McCullough and Ms. Nichols emphasized. Individual patients might have good reasons to either undergo faster surgery or to wait at least 8 days following their MI.

“The patients who waited 8-21 days had a lot of comorbidities and were sicker patients, and their delay is often warranted” to make sure the patient is stable enough for surgery, Ms. Nichols explained. Other patients might be worsening following their MI and need to undergo their surgery within 24 hours of their MI.

“Clinical judgment is always the trump card,” Ms. Nichols said.

Ms. Nichols and Dr. McCullough had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – Patients who are stable following a myocardial infarction and need isolated coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) don’t need to wait 5 or so days for their surgery, a delay that many surgeons and cardiologists often impose.

The operation can safely occur after just a 1- or 2-day gap following either an ST-elevation MI or a non–ST-elevation MI, based on real-world outcomes seen in more than 3,000 patients treated at any of seven U.S. medical centers.

“Waiting an arbitrary 5 days is not important,” Elizabeth L. Nichols said during a video interview and during her report at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Ms. Nichols and her associates analyzed the in-hospital mortality rates among 3,060 patients who underwent isolated CABG during 2008-2014 at any of the seven medical centers that participate in the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group and offer CABG. They included patients who had their surgery within 21 days of their MI, and excluded patients who had their CABG within 6 hours of their MI, had emergency surgery, or those with shock or incomplete data. The study group included 529 patients who had a ST-elevation MI and 2,531 patients with a non-ST-elevation MI.

The analysis divided patients into four groups based on timing of their CABG: 99 patients (3%) had surgery within the first 24 hours, 369 patients (12%) had their surgery 1-2 days after their MI, 1,966 (64%) had their operation 3-7 days following their MI, and 626 (21%) had their surgery 8-21 days after the MI.

The unadjusted mortality rates for these four subgroups were 5.1%, 1.6%, 1.6%, and 2.7%, respectively, reported Ms. Nichols, a health services researcher at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Lebanon, N.H.

After researchers adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables, the mortality rates remained identical for patients who underwent CABG 1 or 2 days following their MI, compared with patients whose surgery was deferred until 3-7 days after the MI. Patients with surgery 8-21 days following the MI had a small but not statistically significant higher rate of in-hospital death.

Patients who had their surgery 7-23 hours following an MI had a statistically significant increased hospital mortality following surgery that ran more than threefold greater than patients who underwent CABG 3-7 days after their MI.

The main message from the analysis is that for the typical, stable MI patient who requires CABG to treat multivessel coronary disease, no need exists to wait several days following an MI to do the surgery, Ms. Nichols explained. A delay of just 1 or 2 days is safe and sufficient, as long as it provides adequate time for any acutely administered antiplatelet or antithrombotic drugs to clear.

The findings “provide a degree of comfort for not waiting the 3-5 days that had previously been thought necessary,” said Dr. Jock N. McCullough, chief of cardiac surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon and a collaborator on the study.

The findings are not meant to supersede clinical judgment, both Dr. McCullough and Ms. Nichols emphasized. Individual patients might have good reasons to either undergo faster surgery or to wait at least 8 days following their MI.

“The patients who waited 8-21 days had a lot of comorbidities and were sicker patients, and their delay is often warranted” to make sure the patient is stable enough for surgery, Ms. Nichols explained. Other patients might be worsening following their MI and need to undergo their surgery within 24 hours of their MI.

“Clinical judgment is always the trump card,” Ms. Nichols said.

Ms. Nichols and Dr. McCullough had no disclosures.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler