Cardiology

For the first readers of Family Practice News, it started with this: “How safe is the pill? An extensive epidemiologic study being carried out in the United Kingdom by the Royal College of General Practitioners is expected to provide definitive answers to this question within the next few years.”

MDedge News

That was the first paragraph of the lead article on the front page of our very first issue, published in October 1971. The report on oral contraceptives, coming from the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Leicester, largely focused on recruiting – noting that “all women in the study are married” – and data-gathering methods.

That first issue also covered such topics as the effect of “early and frequent coitus” on cervical dysplasia incidence (p. 4), breast cancer in men (p. 13), and treatment of prostate inflammation in patients with impotence (p. 34).

Our April 2021 issue included five articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting on the front page and featuring a photo – a physician sitting at a computer, wearing a mask – and a topic – vaccine-hesitant patients.


 

Business of medicine today vs. in 1971

At the time of publication of our first issue the United States was in the midst of a 90-day freeze on wages and prices ordered by President Richard Nixon. Two articles in that first issue discussed the subject: “Freeze clouds future of health insurance plans” and “Freeze lets physicians ‘stabilize’ office fees.”

Besides COVID-19, here are some other topics covered in April 2021 but not in 1971: lessons learned from an electronic health records conversion, competition for physicians in the form of a “virtual primary care service” offered by United Healthcare, and the sleep effects of smartphone “addiction.”

Technology, clearly, plays a much larger role in physicians’ lives these days.
 

Similarities between issues

Not everything has changed, of course. We were informing physicians about heart disease in 1971 with “Primary MD can treat most vascular cases” and “Job satisfaction can help prevent heart disease.”

A look at the latest issue uncovered “Link clinched between high-glycemic index diets and cardiovascular disease events” and “Ultraprocessed ‘healthy’ foods raise cardiovascular disease events risk.” Diabetes is another topic that we have began covering since day one and continue to consider to be relevant to practicing family medicine. “Family attitude key to diabetic’s state” was published in our first issue and “Type 1 diabetes prevention moves toward reality as studies published” ran in our April 2021 issue.

The photos in that first issue, however, present a somewhat jarring counterpoint to our latest issue. The faces that look back from 50 years ago are men’s faces: 29 men, to be exact. There were no photos of women physicians in that issue.

That was not the case in April of 2021. Of the 26 physicians or research scientists who appeared in photos in that issue, 8 were women. Plus, three of those women appeared on the cover.

Among the photos from 1971 were 6 of the 14 founding members of our editorial advisory board, who were, again, all men. Our current board consists of 13 men and 8 women.

Times have changed.

rfranki@mdedge.com

This article was updated 5/27/21.

For the first readers of Family Practice News, it started with this: “How safe is the pill? An extensive epidemiologic study being carried out in the United Kingdom by the Royal College of General Practitioners is expected to provide definitive answers to this question within the next few years.”

MDedge News

That was the first paragraph of the lead article on the front page of our very first issue, published in October 1971. The report on oral contraceptives, coming from the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Leicester, largely focused on recruiting – noting that “all women in the study are married” – and data-gathering methods.

That first issue also covered such topics as the effect of “early and frequent coitus” on cervical dysplasia incidence (p. 4), breast cancer in men (p. 13), and treatment of prostate inflammation in patients with impotence (p. 34).

Our April 2021 issue included five articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting on the front page and featuring a photo – a physician sitting at a computer, wearing a mask – and a topic – vaccine-hesitant patients.


 

Business of medicine today vs. in 1971

At the time of publication of our first issue the United States was in the midst of a 90-day freeze on wages and prices ordered by President Richard Nixon. Two articles in that first issue discussed the subject: “Freeze clouds future of health insurance plans” and “Freeze lets physicians ‘stabilize’ office fees.”

Besides COVID-19, here are some other topics covered in April 2021 but not in 1971: lessons learned from an electronic health records conversion, competition for physicians in the form of a “virtual primary care service” offered by United Healthcare, and the sleep effects of smartphone “addiction.”

Technology, clearly, plays a much larger role in physicians’ lives these days.
 

Similarities between issues

Not everything has changed, of course. We were informing physicians about heart disease in 1971 with “Primary MD can treat most vascular cases” and “Job satisfaction can help prevent heart disease.”

A look at the latest issue uncovered “Link clinched between high-glycemic index diets and cardiovascular disease events” and “Ultraprocessed ‘healthy’ foods raise cardiovascular disease events risk.” Diabetes is another topic that we have began covering since day one and continue to consider to be relevant to practicing family medicine. “Family attitude key to diabetic’s state” was published in our first issue and “Type 1 diabetes prevention moves toward reality as studies published” ran in our April 2021 issue.

The photos in that first issue, however, present a somewhat jarring counterpoint to our latest issue. The faces that look back from 50 years ago are men’s faces: 29 men, to be exact. There were no photos of women physicians in that issue.

That was not the case in April of 2021. Of the 26 physicians or research scientists who appeared in photos in that issue, 8 were women. Plus, three of those women appeared on the cover.

Among the photos from 1971 were 6 of the 14 founding members of our editorial advisory board, who were, again, all men. Our current board consists of 13 men and 8 women.

Times have changed.

rfranki@mdedge.com

This article was updated 5/27/21.

For the first readers of Family Practice News, it started with this: “How safe is the pill? An extensive epidemiologic study being carried out in the United Kingdom by the Royal College of General Practitioners is expected to provide definitive answers to this question within the next few years.”

MDedge News

That was the first paragraph of the lead article on the front page of our very first issue, published in October 1971. The report on oral contraceptives, coming from the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Leicester, largely focused on recruiting – noting that “all women in the study are married” – and data-gathering methods.

That first issue also covered such topics as the effect of “early and frequent coitus” on cervical dysplasia incidence (p. 4), breast cancer in men (p. 13), and treatment of prostate inflammation in patients with impotence (p. 34).

Our April 2021 issue included five articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, starting on the front page and featuring a photo – a physician sitting at a computer, wearing a mask – and a topic – vaccine-hesitant patients.


 

Business of medicine today vs. in 1971

At the time of publication of our first issue the United States was in the midst of a 90-day freeze on wages and prices ordered by President Richard Nixon. Two articles in that first issue discussed the subject: “Freeze clouds future of health insurance plans” and “Freeze lets physicians ‘stabilize’ office fees.”

Besides COVID-19, here are some other topics covered in April 2021 but not in 1971: lessons learned from an electronic health records conversion, competition for physicians in the form of a “virtual primary care service” offered by United Healthcare, and the sleep effects of smartphone “addiction.”

Technology, clearly, plays a much larger role in physicians’ lives these days.
 

Similarities between issues

Not everything has changed, of course. We were informing physicians about heart disease in 1971 with “Primary MD can treat most vascular cases” and “Job satisfaction can help prevent heart disease.”

A look at the latest issue uncovered “Link clinched between high-glycemic index diets and cardiovascular disease events” and “Ultraprocessed ‘healthy’ foods raise cardiovascular disease events risk.” Diabetes is another topic that we have began covering since day one and continue to consider to be relevant to practicing family medicine. “Family attitude key to diabetic’s state” was published in our first issue and “Type 1 diabetes prevention moves toward reality as studies published” ran in our April 2021 issue.

The photos in that first issue, however, present a somewhat jarring counterpoint to our latest issue. The faces that look back from 50 years ago are men’s faces: 29 men, to be exact. There were no photos of women physicians in that issue.

That was not the case in April of 2021. Of the 26 physicians or research scientists who appeared in photos in that issue, 8 were women. Plus, three of those women appeared on the cover.

Among the photos from 1971 were 6 of the 14 founding members of our editorial advisory board, who were, again, all men. Our current board consists of 13 men and 8 women.

Times have changed.

rfranki@mdedge.com

This article was updated 5/27/21.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

The greatest relative benefit from omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, is produced in heart failure patients with the lowest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), a new analysis of the recently published phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial has found.

The findings reinforce the potential for this drug to be helpful in the management of the most advanced stages of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), reported John R. Teerlink, MD, director of heart failure at San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The phase 3 multinational GALACTIC-HF trial, published earlier this year, linked omecamtiv mecarbil with an 8% reduction in the risk of a heart failure–related events or cardiovascular death, relative to placebo, which was the primary outcome. For entry, HFrEF patients were required to have a LVEF of 35% or less.

Drilling down on ejection fraction

The new analysis divided participants into quartiles of baseline LVEF and then compared relative outcomes and safety.

In the lowest quartile, defined by a LVEF of 22% or lower, the reduction in risk of events reached 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.95) for omecamtiv mecarbil relative to placebo. In the highest, defined by a LVEF of 33% or greater, the benefit fell short of significance (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16). Across quartiles, LVEF was the “strongest modifier of the treatment effect,” emerging in this analysis as a statistically significant (P = .004) continuous variable.

The comparison by LVEF quartiles also provided an opportunity to show that omecamtiv mecarbil was as safe and well tolerated in those with the most advanced disease as in those less sick. At the lowest levels of LVEF, like the higher levels, omecamtiv mecarbil did not produce any adverse effects on blood pressure, heart rate, potassium homeostasis, or renal function.

In GALACTIC-HF, 8,256 HFrEF patients with LVEF 35% or less were randomized to omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. The primary composite outcome of hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was evaluated after a median of 21.8 months on therapy.

When incidence rate per 100 patient years was graphed against the range of LVEF, the relative advantage of omecamtiv mecarbil became visible just below an LVEF of 30%, climbing steadily even to the lowest LVEF, which reached 10%.

Perhaps relevant to the reduction in events, there were also greater relative reductions in NT-proBNP (NT-proB-type natriuretic peptide) for omecamtiv mecarbil at lower relative to higher LVEF. Although omecamtiv mecarbil is not associated with any direct vascular, electrophysiologic, or neurohormonal effects, according to Dr. Teerlink, the indirect effects of selective binding to cardiac myosin has been associated with lower NT-proBNP and other biomarkers of cardiac remodeling in prior clinical studies.

Although Dr. Teerlink acknowledged that relatively few patients in GALACTIC-HF received an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, he said there is “every reason to believe that omecamtiv mecarbil would be complementary to these therapies.” He said the mechanism of action of omecamtiv mecarbil, which improves systolic function, has no overlap with these drugs.

Importantly, there is a particular need for new treatment options in patients with advanced LVEF, according to Dr. Teerlink, who cited evidence, for example, that “the beneficial effect of [the ARNI] sacubitril valsartan, while still significant, decreases in patients with LVEF less than 35%.”

Overall, based on these results, “we believe that omecamtiv mecarbil represents a novel therapy that holds the promise of improving clinical outcomes in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction, which are the very patients that are most challenging for us to treat,” Dr. Teerlink said.
 

Omecamtiv mecarbil may ‘buy you some time’

Ileana Piña, MD, clinical professor of medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., agreed. She said that omecamtiv mecarbil, if approved, will be an option for the type of HFrEF patients who are being considered for heart transplant or mechanical-assist devices.

“We are very loath to use inotropes in this population, because we know that ultimately the inotrope is not going to do well,” said Dr. Piña, calling these therapies a “Band-Aid.” Based on the evidence from GALACTIC-HF, she thinks that omecamtiv mecarbil will be more versatile.

“This drug does not increase myocardial oxygen demand as do the inotropes, and it can be given in the outpatient setting if need be, so I see this as a real advance,” Dr. Piña said. Although Dr. Piña acknowledged that omecamtiv mecarbil did not reduce mortality in the GALACTIC-HF trial, “at least it will buy you some time.”

Dr. Teerlink has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, Cytogenetics, and Servier, which provided funding for the GALACTIC-HF trial. Dr. Piña reports no potential conflicts of interest.

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

mzoler@mdedge.com

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

mzoler@mdedge.com

It’s now official: The investigational sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin is the first agent clearly shown in a prespecified analysis of randomized trials to improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Researchers who ran the SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF pivotal trials for sotagliflozin first made that claim in November 2020 when reporting top-line results from a prespecified meta-analysis of the two trials during the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions. A follow-up report during the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology fleshed out the evidence and firmed up their landmark conclusion.

The meta-analysis (Abstract 410-08) included 4,500 patients with type 2 diabetes and diagnosed heart failure at entry; its primary endpoint, which was the same in both trials, was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death and the total number of either hospitalization for heart failure or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure.

Compared with placebo, treatment with sotagliflozin for a median of about 15 months dropped this composite endpoint by a relative 33% among the 1,931 who began the study with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 50% (HFpEF), by a relative 22% in the 1,758 patients who entered with an LVEF of less than 40% (patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), and by a relative 43% among the 811 patients who began with an LVEF of 40%-49% (patients with heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction). The relative risk reductions were significant for all three subgroups, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.
 

Equally effective ‘across the full range of LVEFs.’

Perhaps as notable and unprecedented was the further finding that the clinical benefits seen with treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with sotagliflozin was consistent regardless of the ejection fraction they had at entry. Enrolled patients with baseline LVEFs in the range of 25% received a relative benefit from sotagliflozin treatment that was statistically no different from the benefit seen in patients who entered with an LVEF in the neighborhood of 45%, 65%, or at any other level across the LVEF spectrum, a finding that Dr. Bhatt called “remarkable” during a press briefing. “The results show the benefit of sotagliflozin across the full range of LVEFs.”

“We are very excited in the heart failure world by the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ve been impressed by their reduction in heart failure hospitalizations, but we wonder about the patients with HFpEF, where we haven’t had a blockbuster drug to give,” said Ileana L. Piña, MD, a heart failure specialist and medical officer with the Food and Drug Administration.

The new findings “look like they could pose a regulatory indication [for sotagliflozin] for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure across the entire spectrum of heart failure,” said Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, a heart failure specialist and president of the Inova Heart & Vascular institute in Falls Church, Va., and designated discussant for Dr. Bhatt’s report.

A significant on-treatment reduction in CV death

Other new, notable findings from the meta-analysis included the observation that while treatment with sotagliflozin failed to produce a significant reduction in cardiovascular death, compared with placebo, in the intent-to-treat analysis of all patients and of those with heart failure at baseline (it produced nonsignificant point-estimate reductions of 11% compared with placebo for all patients, and of 23% for patients who began the study with heart failure), it did result in a significant 23% relative risk reduction when the researchers focused on patients while they remained adherent to their sotagliflozin regimen (the on-treatment analysis). This 23% relative reduction appeared among all enrolled patients, as well as in the subgroup that started with diagnosed heart failure.

“Given the totality of data from the SGLT2 inhibitors, I think this is a real finding,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Additional analyses also showed that, among women, treatment with sotagliflozin was linked with significant relative reductions in the primary endpoint of roughly 30% compared with placebo among all patients, and also among those with heart failure at baseline. “HFpEF is a problem particularly in older women, and we showed that the benefit was consistent in men and women,” Dr. Bhatt said.

He acknowledged that results are expected soon from two pivotal trials that are examining two different SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, in patients with HFpEF. “I think there will be a class effect for both SGLT2 inhibitors and sotagliflozin for reducing heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, and I predict that the dapagliflozin and empagliflozin trials will have positive results,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Sotagliflozin differs from the SGLT2 inhibitors by also inhibiting SGLT1, an enzyme found in the gastrointestinal system that, when inhibited, results in increased glucose excretion from the gut and a cut in bloodstream levels of postprandial glucose levels. The Food and Drug Administration accepted data from SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF as part of the evidence the agency is now considering for granting a new drug approval to sotagliflozin.

SCORED and SOLOIST-WHF were initially sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bhatt’s institution, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, has received funding from Sanofi and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. He has been a consultant to and received honoraria from K₂P, Level Ex, and MJH Life Sciences; he has been an adviser to Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Phase Bio, and PLx Pharma; and he has received research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Piña has no relevant disclosures. Dr. O’Connor has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree, and he has an ownership interest in Biscardia.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.

Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.

The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m²).

The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.

Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.

Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
 

Small changes may promote prevention

The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.

Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”

The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”

Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.

“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.

Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.

The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m²).

The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.

Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.

Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
 

Small changes may promote prevention

The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.

Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”

The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”

Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.

“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.

Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.

The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m²).

The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.

Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.

Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.

However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
 

Small changes may promote prevention

The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.

Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”

The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”

Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.

“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.

The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.

But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.

“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.

The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.

The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.

Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.

“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.

“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.

The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.

The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.

The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.

Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.

Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).

But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).

Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.

The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).

“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.

The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
 

Greater reduction in mortality in women?

However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”

However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.

Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.

Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”

“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.

“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.

Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”

She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”

Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”

This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.

But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.

“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.

The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.

The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.

Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.

“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.

“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.

The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.

The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.

The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.

Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.

Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).

But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).

Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.

The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).

“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.

The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
 

Greater reduction in mortality in women?

However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”

However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.

Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.

Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”

“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.

“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.

Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”

She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”

Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”

This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis from the TWILIGHT study has shown that, in the high-risk population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enrolled in the study, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal and continuation on ticagrelor monotherapy were similar in women and men.

But there were some interesting observations in the analysis suggesting possible additional benefits of this strategy for women.

“These data support the use of ticagrelor monotherapy in women and men, and importantly show that the absolute risk reduction of bleeding was higher in women, as their bleeding rates were higher,” senior author Roxana Mehran, MD, the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“These data also support the need for prospective dual antiplatelet therapy deescalation studies in women,” Dr. Mehran added.

The main results of the TWILIGHT study showed that after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy, a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with continued dual therapy led to reduced bleeding without an increase in ischemic events among patients at high risk for bleeding or ischemic events after PCI.

The new gender-based analysis was presented by Birgit Vogel, MD, on May 15 at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology. It was also published online in JAMA Cardiology to coincide with the ACC presentation.

Dr. Vogel, also from Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, explained that the current analysis was undertaken to investigate whether the TWILIGHT results varied in relation to sex, given that women are believed to have an increased risk for bleeding after PCI, compared with men.

“The current analysis showed that, while women did have a higher bleeding risk, compared to men, this was no longer significant after adjustment for baseline characteristics; and ischemic events were similar between the two sexes,” she reported.

“Results showed that withdrawing aspirin while continuing ticagrelor after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in bleeding and preserved ischemic benefits in both women and men,” she added.

The TWILIGHT trial randomized 7,119 patients at high risk of ischemic or bleeding events who had undergone successful PCI with at least one drug-eluting stent and had completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy to aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months plus open-label ticagrelor.

The main results showed that the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year was almost halved with ticagrelor monotherapy, occurring in 4% of these patients, compared with 7.1% of the ticagrelor/aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.56). Ischemic events were similar in the two groups.

The current analysis focused on whether these effects varied in relation to sex.

Dr. Vogel noted that women made up 23.9% of the study population, were older than the men, and were more likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, anemia and hypertension, while the men were more likely to be current smokers. Men had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease history, while women were more likely to have an ACS indication for PCI.

Unadjusted results showed a higher rate of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 1 year in women (6.8%) versus men (5.2%), giving an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.06-1.64).

But after adjustment for baseline characteristics, this became nonsignificant (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52).

Dr. Vogel pointed out that the most severe type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) was not attenuated as much by adjustment for baseline characteristics, with the HR reducing from 1.57 to 1.49.

The ischemic endpoint of death/stroke or MI was similar in men (4.0%) and women (3.5%), and this did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

In terms of the two treatment groups, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was reduced to a similar extent with ticagrelor monotherapy in both men and women. This endpoint decreased from 8.6% in women on dual-antiplatelet therapy to 5.0% in women on ticagrelor alone (adjusted HR, 0.62) and from 6.6% to 3.7% in men (aHR, 0.57). But she noted that the absolute risk reduction in bleeding was greater in women (3.6%) versus men (2.9%).

“If we have a relative risk reduction in bleeding with early withdrawal of aspirin that is similar between the sexes but an overall higher risk of bleeding in women, that results in a greater absolute risk reduction,” Dr. Vogel commented.

The primary ischemic endpoint of death/MI/stroke was not increased in the ticagrelor group vs the dual antiplatelet group in either men (aHR, 1.06) or women (aHR, 1.04).
 

Greater reduction in mortality in women?

However, Dr. Vogel reported that there was a suggestion of a greater reduction in all-cause mortality with ticagrelor monotherapy in women versus men. “We found a significant interaction for treatment effect and sex for all-cause mortality, a prespecified endpoint, which was significantly lower in women treated with ticagrelor monotherapy, compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, but this was not the case in men.”

However, this observation was based on few events and should not be considered definitive, she added.

Dr. Vogel noted that the analysis had the limitations of the study not being powered to show differences in men versus women, and the results are only applicable to the population studied who were at high risk of bleeding post PCI.

Commenting on the study at the ACC session, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, associate professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, described the presentation as “very interesting.”

“We know that women notoriously have higher bleeding risk than men, but this particular study did not show a difference in bleeding risk after adjusting for other confounding variables,” she said.

“In fact, one would think that the relative benefit of a treatment designed to decrease bleeding would be more favorable to women, but this analysis didn’t show that,” she added.

Dr. Vogel replied that the HR of the most serious type of bleeding (BARC 3 and 5) in women versus men was only reduced minimally after adjustment for baseline characteristics, “which still makes us think that there are additional factors that might be important and contribute to an increased risk for bleeding and especially more serous types of bleeding in women.”

She pointed out that, while there was a similar risk reduction in bleeding in women and men, there was a potential mortality benefit in women. “The question is whether this mortality benefit is due to reduced bleeding that might be greater in women than men, and the reality is we don’t have a lot of data on that.”

Dr. Vogel added: “We know about the relationship between bleeding and mortality very well but the impact of sex on this is really not well investigated. It would be worth investigating this further to come up with bleeding reduction strategies for women because this is a really important issue.”

This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Mehran reported grants and personal fees (paid to the institution) from Abbott, Abiomed, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Concept Medical Research, Medtronic, Novartis and DSI Research; grants from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Cerecor, CSL Behring, OrbusNeich, and Zoll; personal fees from Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ACC, and WebMD; personal fees paid to the institution from CardiaWave, Duke University, and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals; serving as a consultant or committee or advisory board member for Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the American Medical Association, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and owning stock in ControlRad, Elixir Medical, and STEL outside the submitted work. Dr. Vogel disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combined data from five implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials suggest that it is the underlying arrhythmic disorder, rather than the ICD therapy itself, that affects mortality in these patients.

Analysis of the MADIT II, MADIT-RISK, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, and RAID trials showed that the major determinant of mortality in patients receiving a primary prevention ICD was the arrhythmic substrate that leads to occurrence of fast ventricular tachycardia (VT), defined as ≥ 200 bpm, or ventricular fibrillation (VF), not adverse effects of the ICD shock therapy itself.

Patients experiencing an episode of VT had more than a twofold increased risk for death during a follow-up of 2½ years; however, ICD therapies for VT less than 200 bpm and inappropriate ICD shocks were not associated with a higher risk for death.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We know that patients receiving an ICD shock have increased mortality during subsequent follow-up,” first author Mehmet K. Aktas, MD, MBA, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an interview.

“There are conflicting data on the impact of ICD shocks on subsequent mortality, and in this study, we aimed to determine whether shocks per se increase subsequent mortality risk or whether the arrhythmic substrate that leads to ICD therapy results in subsequent risk of death,” Dr. Aktas said.

He and his team evaluated the association of ICD therapy with subsequent mortality according to the type of ICD therapy (model I), type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered (model II), combined assessment of all arrhythmia and therapy types during follow-up (model III), and incremental risk associated with repeated ICD shocks (model IV).

The study cohort included 5,516 patients. Of these, 1,001 patients (18%) received appropriate ICD therapy and 561 (10%) received inappropriate ICD therapy during an average of 2.4 years.

Patients receiving an appropriate ICD therapy were more likely to be male and to have prior atrial arrhythmia and nonsustained VT compared with those without ICD therapy.

Patients receiving an inappropriate shock were more likely to be younger, to be African American, and to be less likely to have prior nonsustained VT, compared with those without ICD therapy.

Most patients (90%) were receiving beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers regardless of device therapy during follow-up, and 10% of patients were treated with amiodarone.

In model I, at 3 years, the cumulative probability of death following an appropriate ICD shock was 38% compared with no appropriate ICD shock (P < .001). Inappropriate shock alone was not associated with mortality risk.

In model II, which looked at the type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered, the cumulative death rate at 3 years following the first occurrence of ICD therapy for VT ≥ 200 beats/min or VF was 27%, compared with 10% in patients not experiencing VT ≥ 200 beats/min or VF (P < .001).

In model III, the highest risk for death was observed following shocks delivered after a failed antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for fast VT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.05), followed by ICD shock for VF (HR, 2.86), ICD shock for fast VT without a prior ATP (HR, 2.83), and ICD shock for slower VT (< 200 beats/min) without a prior ATP (HR, 2.39).

In contrast, other types of appropriate and inappropriate shock or ATP therapies were not associated with a significant risk increase.

In model IV, which assessed the association of shock therapy counts with the risk for death, two or more ICD appropriate shocks were not associated with increased risk after the first appropriate ICD shock.

“Our findings shed light on the mechanisms associated with increased mortality risk in primary prevention ICD recipients,” Dr. Aktas said.

“Studies that evaluate interventions focused on treating and stabilizing the myocardial substrate, which promotes ventricular tachyarrhythmias, such as catheter ablation, are needed to improve survival in heart failure patients,” he added.
 

Thoughtful study design

In an accompanying editorial, Rajat Deo, MD, and Naga Venkata K. Pothineni, MD, both from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, praised the researchers for their “thoughtful study design.”

“The take-home message that is most relevant to our clinical practice is clear: Sustained ventricular arrhythmias are a prognostic marker of death and heart failure hospitalization,” they wrote.

The editorialists also commented on the higher rate of inappropriate ICD therapies in African Americans.

“It is concerning to observe that Black patients had a markedly higher rate of inappropriate ICD therapies compared with White patients – and this was in the setting of some of the most respectable, established, and well-funded clinical trials,” they wrote.

Reasons for disparities in outcomes include access to appropriate and affordable medical therapies, access to specialty clinics and caregivers, remote ICD monitoring, and compliance issues.

“Future work will need to understand how the social determinants of health including race affect the treatment and outcomes of our primary prevention ICD population,” they wrote.

Identifying and characterizing the arrhythmic substrate will become a key component of sudden cardiac death risk stratification, the editorialists predicted.

“Concurrently, we must continue to partner with industry colleagues and work with our professional societies to ensure health equity across our patient population,” they concluded.

Dr. Aktas has received research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Deo and his coeditorialists report no relevant financial relationships. The MADIT trials were funded by an unrestricted research grant from Boston Scientific to the University of Rochester Medical Center. The RAID trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Combined data from five implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials suggest that it is the underlying arrhythmic disorder, rather than the ICD therapy itself, that affects mortality in these patients.

Analysis of the MADIT II, MADIT-RISK, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, and RAID trials showed that the major determinant of mortality in patients receiving a primary prevention ICD was the arrhythmic substrate that leads to occurrence of fast ventricular tachycardia (VT), defined as ≥ 200 bpm, or ventricular fibrillation (VF), not adverse effects of the ICD shock therapy itself.

Patients experiencing an episode of VT had more than a twofold increased risk for death during a follow-up of 2½ years; however, ICD therapies for VT less than 200 bpm and inappropriate ICD shocks were not associated with a higher risk for death.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We know that patients receiving an ICD shock have increased mortality during subsequent follow-up,” first author Mehmet K. Aktas, MD, MBA, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an interview.

“There are conflicting data on the impact of ICD shocks on subsequent mortality, and in this study, we aimed to determine whether shocks per se increase subsequent mortality risk or whether the arrhythmic substrate that leads to ICD therapy results in subsequent risk of death,” Dr. Aktas said.

He and his team evaluated the association of ICD therapy with subsequent mortality according to the type of ICD therapy (model I), type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered (model II), combined assessment of all arrhythmia and therapy types during follow-up (model III), and incremental risk associated with repeated ICD shocks (model IV).

The study cohort included 5,516 patients. Of these, 1,001 patients (18%) received appropriate ICD therapy and 561 (10%) received inappropriate ICD therapy during an average of 2.4 years.

Patients receiving an appropriate ICD therapy were more likely to be male and to have prior atrial arrhythmia and nonsustained VT compared with those without ICD therapy.

Patients receiving an inappropriate shock were more likely to be younger, to be African American, and to be less likely to have prior nonsustained VT, compared with those without ICD therapy.

Most patients (90%) were receiving beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers regardless of device therapy during follow-up, and 10% of patients were treated with amiodarone.

In model I, at 3 years, the cumulative probability of death following an appropriate ICD shock was 38% compared with no appropriate ICD shock (P < .001). Inappropriate shock alone was not associated with mortality risk.

In model II, which looked at the type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered, the cumulative death rate at 3 years following the first occurrence of ICD therapy for VT ≥ 200 beats/min or VF was 27%, compared with 10% in patients not experiencing VT ≥ 200 beats/min or VF (P < .001).

In model III, the highest risk for death was observed following shocks delivered after a failed antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for fast VT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.05), followed by ICD shock for VF (HR, 2.86), ICD shock for fast VT without a prior ATP (HR, 2.83), and ICD shock for slower VT (< 200 beats/min) without a prior ATP (HR, 2.39).

In contrast, other types of appropriate and inappropriate shock or ATP therapies were not associated with a significant risk increase.

In model IV, which assessed the association of shock therapy counts with the risk for death, two or more ICD appropriate shocks were not associated with increased risk after the first appropriate ICD shock.

“Our findings shed light on the mechanisms associated with increased mortality risk in primary prevention ICD recipients,” Dr. Aktas said.

“Studies that evaluate interventions focused on treating and stabilizing the myocardial substrate, which promotes ventricular tachyarrhythmias, such as catheter ablation, are needed to improve survival in heart failure patients,” he added.
 

Thoughtful study design

In an accompanying editorial, Rajat Deo, MD, and Naga Venkata K. Pothineni, MD, both from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, praised the researchers for their “thoughtful study design.”

“The take-home message that is most relevant to our clinical practice is clear: Sustained ventricular arrhythmias are a prognostic marker of death and heart failure hospitalization,” they wrote.

The editorialists also commented on the higher rate of inappropriate ICD therapies in African Americans.

“It is concerning to observe that Black patients had a markedly higher rate of inappropriate ICD therapies compared with White patients – and this was in the setting of some of the most respectable, established, and well-funded clinical trials,” they wrote.

Reasons for disparities in outcomes include access to appropriate and affordable medical therapies, access to specialty clinics and caregivers, remote ICD monitoring, and compliance issues.

“Future work will need to understand how the social determinants of health including race affect the treatment and outcomes of our primary prevention ICD population,” they wrote.

Identifying and characterizing the arrhythmic substrate will become a key component of sudden cardiac death risk stratification, the editorialists predicted.

“Concurrently, we must continue to partner with industry colleagues and work with our professional societies to ensure health equity across our patient population,” they concluded.

Dr. Aktas has received research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Deo and his coeditorialists report no relevant financial relationships. The MADIT trials were funded by an unrestricted research grant from Boston Scientific to the University of Rochester Medical Center. The RAID trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Combined data from five implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials suggest that it is the underlying arrhythmic disorder, rather than the ICD therapy itself, that affects mortality in these patients.

Analysis of the MADIT II, MADIT-RISK, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, and RAID trials showed that the major determinant of mortality in patients receiving a primary prevention ICD was the arrhythmic substrate that leads to occurrence of fast ventricular tachycardia (VT), defined as ≥ 200 bpm, or ventricular fibrillation (VF), not adverse effects of the ICD shock therapy itself.

Patients experiencing an episode of VT had more than a twofold increased risk for death during a follow-up of 2½ years; however, ICD therapies for VT less than 200 bpm and inappropriate ICD shocks were not associated with a higher risk for death.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We know that patients receiving an ICD shock have increased mortality during subsequent follow-up,” first author Mehmet K. Aktas, MD, MBA, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an interview.

“There are conflicting data on the impact of ICD shocks on subsequent mortality, and in this study, we aimed to determine whether shocks per se increase subsequent mortality risk or whether the arrhythmic substrate that leads to ICD therapy results in subsequent risk of death,” Dr. Aktas said.

He and his team evaluated the association of ICD therapy with subsequent mortality according to the type of ICD therapy (model I), type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered (model II), combined assessment of all arrhythmia and therapy types during follow-up (model III), and incremental risk associated with repeated ICD shocks (model IV).

The study cohort included 5,516 patients. Of these, 1,001 patients (18%) received appropriate ICD therapy and 561 (10%) received inappropriate ICD therapy during an average of 2.4 years.

Patients receiving an appropriate ICD therapy were more likely to be male and to have prior atrial arrhythmia and nonsustained VT compared with those without ICD therapy.

Patients receiving an inappropriate shock were more likely to be younger, to be African American, and to be less likely to have prior nonsustained VT, compared with those without ICD therapy.

Most patients (90%) were receiving beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers regardless of device therapy during follow-up, and 10% of patients were treated with amiodarone.

In model I, at 3 years, the cumulative probability of death following an appropriate ICD shock was 38% compared with no appropriate ICD shock (P < .001). Inappropriate shock alone was not associated with mortality risk.

In model II, which looked at the type of arrhythmia for which ICD therapy was delivered, the cumulative death rate at 3 years following the first occurrence of ICD therapy for VT ≥ 200 beats/min or VF was 27%, compared with 10% in patients not experiencing VT ≥ 200 beats/min or VF (P < .001).

In model III, the highest risk for death was observed following shocks delivered after a failed antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for fast VT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.05), followed by ICD shock for VF (HR, 2.86), ICD shock for fast VT without a prior ATP (HR, 2.83), and ICD shock for slower VT (< 200 beats/min) without a prior ATP (HR, 2.39).

In contrast, other types of appropriate and inappropriate shock or ATP therapies were not associated with a significant risk increase.

In model IV, which assessed the association of shock therapy counts with the risk for death, two or more ICD appropriate shocks were not associated with increased risk after the first appropriate ICD shock.

“Our findings shed light on the mechanisms associated with increased mortality risk in primary prevention ICD recipients,” Dr. Aktas said.

“Studies that evaluate interventions focused on treating and stabilizing the myocardial substrate, which promotes ventricular tachyarrhythmias, such as catheter ablation, are needed to improve survival in heart failure patients,” he added.
 

Thoughtful study design

In an accompanying editorial, Rajat Deo, MD, and Naga Venkata K. Pothineni, MD, both from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, praised the researchers for their “thoughtful study design.”

“The take-home message that is most relevant to our clinical practice is clear: Sustained ventricular arrhythmias are a prognostic marker of death and heart failure hospitalization,” they wrote.

The editorialists also commented on the higher rate of inappropriate ICD therapies in African Americans.

“It is concerning to observe that Black patients had a markedly higher rate of inappropriate ICD therapies compared with White patients – and this was in the setting of some of the most respectable, established, and well-funded clinical trials,” they wrote.

Reasons for disparities in outcomes include access to appropriate and affordable medical therapies, access to specialty clinics and caregivers, remote ICD monitoring, and compliance issues.

“Future work will need to understand how the social determinants of health including race affect the treatment and outcomes of our primary prevention ICD population,” they wrote.

Identifying and characterizing the arrhythmic substrate will become a key component of sudden cardiac death risk stratification, the editorialists predicted.

“Concurrently, we must continue to partner with industry colleagues and work with our professional societies to ensure health equity across our patient population,” they concluded.

Dr. Aktas has received research grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Deo and his coeditorialists report no relevant financial relationships. The MADIT trials were funded by an unrestricted research grant from Boston Scientific to the University of Rochester Medical Center. The RAID trial was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

Sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men, a retrospective analysis suggests.

Among 2,046 patients in the German COSYCONET (COPD and Systemic Consequences–Comorbidities Net) cohort, most functional parameters and comorbidities and several items on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) differed significantly between men and women.

In addition, there were sex-specific differences in the association between symptoms and cardiac disease, Franziska C. Trudzinski, MD, from the University of Heidelberg (Germany), and colleagues reported.

(Note: Although the authors used the term “gender” to distinguish male from female, this news organization has used the term “sex” in this article to refer to biological attributes of individual patients rather than personal identity.)

“[Sex]-specific differences in COPD comprised not only differences in the level of symptoms, comorbidities, and functional alterations but also differences in their mutual relationships. This was reflected in different sets of predictors for cardiac disease,” they wrote in a thematic poster presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
 

GOLD standard

The investigators conducted an analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease from the COSYCONET COPD cohort.

They looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, CAT scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score.

The authors used multivariate regression analysis to model potential sex-related differences in the relationship between symptoms in general and CAT items in particular, and the pattern of comorbidities and functional alterations.

They also performed logistic regression analyses to identify predictors for cardiac disease, defined as myocardial infarction, heart failure, or coronary artery disease. The analyses were controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, mMRC, CAT items, and z scores of forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio.

The investigators found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough (item 1), phlegm (item 2), and energy (item 8; P < .05 for all comparisons).

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy (CAT item 8), mMRC score, smoking status, BMI, age, and spirometric lung function.

In women, however, only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

“Our findings give hints how diagnostic information might be used differently in men and women,” Dr. Trudzinski and colleagues wrote.
 

Reassuring data

David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that sex differences in COPD presentation and severity are common.

“In general, men and women report symptoms differently. For example, women don’t report a whole lot of chronic bronchitis and phlegm, although they may have it,” he said, “whereas men may report less dyspnea. It varies, but in general we know that men and women, even with the same type of disease, report symptoms differently.”

Comorbidities also differ between the sexes, he noted. Women more frequently have osteoporosis, and men more frequently have heart disease, as borne out in the study. The prevalence of heart disease among patients in the study was approximately 2.5 times higher in men than women.

“It’s reassuring, because what we’re seeing is similar to what we’ve seen in other [studies] with regards to comorbidities,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Philipps University Marburg Medical Center, Germany. The authors and Dr. Mannino have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men, a retrospective analysis suggests.

Among 2,046 patients in the German COSYCONET (COPD and Systemic Consequences–Comorbidities Net) cohort, most functional parameters and comorbidities and several items on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) differed significantly between men and women.

In addition, there were sex-specific differences in the association between symptoms and cardiac disease, Franziska C. Trudzinski, MD, from the University of Heidelberg (Germany), and colleagues reported.

(Note: Although the authors used the term “gender” to distinguish male from female, this news organization has used the term “sex” in this article to refer to biological attributes of individual patients rather than personal identity.)

“[Sex]-specific differences in COPD comprised not only differences in the level of symptoms, comorbidities, and functional alterations but also differences in their mutual relationships. This was reflected in different sets of predictors for cardiac disease,” they wrote in a thematic poster presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
 

GOLD standard

The investigators conducted an analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease from the COSYCONET COPD cohort.

They looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, CAT scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score.

The authors used multivariate regression analysis to model potential sex-related differences in the relationship between symptoms in general and CAT items in particular, and the pattern of comorbidities and functional alterations.

They also performed logistic regression analyses to identify predictors for cardiac disease, defined as myocardial infarction, heart failure, or coronary artery disease. The analyses were controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, mMRC, CAT items, and z scores of forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio.

The investigators found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough (item 1), phlegm (item 2), and energy (item 8; P < .05 for all comparisons).

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy (CAT item 8), mMRC score, smoking status, BMI, age, and spirometric lung function.

In women, however, only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

“Our findings give hints how diagnostic information might be used differently in men and women,” Dr. Trudzinski and colleagues wrote.
 

Reassuring data

David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that sex differences in COPD presentation and severity are common.

“In general, men and women report symptoms differently. For example, women don’t report a whole lot of chronic bronchitis and phlegm, although they may have it,” he said, “whereas men may report less dyspnea. It varies, but in general we know that men and women, even with the same type of disease, report symptoms differently.”

Comorbidities also differ between the sexes, he noted. Women more frequently have osteoporosis, and men more frequently have heart disease, as borne out in the study. The prevalence of heart disease among patients in the study was approximately 2.5 times higher in men than women.

“It’s reassuring, because what we’re seeing is similar to what we’ve seen in other [studies] with regards to comorbidities,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Philipps University Marburg Medical Center, Germany. The authors and Dr. Mannino have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sex-specific differences in the severity of symptoms and prevalence of comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may point to different criteria for diagnosing cardiac comorbidities in women and men, a retrospective analysis suggests.

Among 2,046 patients in the German COSYCONET (COPD and Systemic Consequences–Comorbidities Net) cohort, most functional parameters and comorbidities and several items on the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) differed significantly between men and women.

In addition, there were sex-specific differences in the association between symptoms and cardiac disease, Franziska C. Trudzinski, MD, from the University of Heidelberg (Germany), and colleagues reported.

(Note: Although the authors used the term “gender” to distinguish male from female, this news organization has used the term “sex” in this article to refer to biological attributes of individual patients rather than personal identity.)

“[Sex]-specific differences in COPD comprised not only differences in the level of symptoms, comorbidities, and functional alterations but also differences in their mutual relationships. This was reflected in different sets of predictors for cardiac disease,” they wrote in a thematic poster presented at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference.
 

GOLD standard

The investigators conducted an analysis of data on 795 women and 1,251 men with GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) class 1-3 disease from the COSYCONET COPD cohort.

They looked at the patients’ clinical history, comorbidities, lung function, CAT scores, and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score.

The authors used multivariate regression analysis to model potential sex-related differences in the relationship between symptoms in general and CAT items in particular, and the pattern of comorbidities and functional alterations.

They also performed logistic regression analyses to identify predictors for cardiac disease, defined as myocardial infarction, heart failure, or coronary artery disease. The analyses were controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, mMRC, CAT items, and z scores of forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio.

The investigators found significant differences between men and women for most functional parameters and comorbidities, and for CAT items of cough (item 1), phlegm (item 2), and energy (item 8; P < .05 for all comparisons).

In logistic regression analysis, predictors for cardiac disease in men were energy (CAT item 8), mMRC score, smoking status, BMI, age, and spirometric lung function.

In women, however, only age was significantly predictive for cardiac disease.

“Our findings give hints how diagnostic information might be used differently in men and women,” Dr. Trudzinski and colleagues wrote.
 

Reassuring data

David Mannino, MD, medical director of the COPD Foundation, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that sex differences in COPD presentation and severity are common.

“In general, men and women report symptoms differently. For example, women don’t report a whole lot of chronic bronchitis and phlegm, although they may have it,” he said, “whereas men may report less dyspnea. It varies, but in general we know that men and women, even with the same type of disease, report symptoms differently.”

Comorbidities also differ between the sexes, he noted. Women more frequently have osteoporosis, and men more frequently have heart disease, as borne out in the study. The prevalence of heart disease among patients in the study was approximately 2.5 times higher in men than women.

“It’s reassuring, because what we’re seeing is similar to what we’ve seen in other [studies] with regards to comorbidities,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Philipps University Marburg Medical Center, Germany. The authors and Dr. Mannino have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have issued a new report on medical ethics and professionalism in cardiovascular medicine.

The report addresses a variety of topics including diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; racial, ethnic and gender inequities; conflicts of interest; clinician well-being; data privacy; social justice; and modern health care delivery systems.

The 54-page report is based on the proceedings of the joint 2020 Consensus Conference on Professionalism and Ethics, held Oct. 19 and 20, 2020. It was published online May 11 in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

The 2020 consensus conference on professionalism and ethics came at a time even more fraught than the eras of the three previous meetings on the same topics, held in 1989, 1997, and 2004, the writing group notes.

“We have seen the COVID-19 pandemic challenge the physical and economic health of the entire country, coupled with a series of national tragedies that have awakened the call for social justice,” conference cochair C. Michael Valentine, MD, said in a news release.

“There is no better time than now to review, evaluate, and take a fresh perspective on medical ethics and professionalism,” said Dr. Valentine, professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“We hope this report will provide cardiovascular professionals and health systems with the recommendations and tools they need to address conflicts of interest; racial, ethnic, and gender inequities; and improve diversity, inclusion, and wellness among our workforce,” Dr. Valentine added. “The majority of our members are now employed and must be engaged as the leaders for change in cardiovascular care.”
 

Road map to improve diversity, achieve allyship

The writing committee was made up of a diverse group of cardiologists, internists, and associated health care professionals and laypeople and was organized into five task forces, each addressing a specific topic: conflicts of interest; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; clinician well-being; patient autonomy, privacy, and social justice in health care; and modern health care delivery.

The report serves as a road map to achieve equity, inclusion, and belonging among cardiovascular professionals and calls for ongoing assessment of the professional culture and climate, focused on improving diversity and achieving effective allyship, the writing group says.

The report proposes continuous training to address individual, structural, and systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism.

It offers recommendations for championing equity in patient care that include an annual review of practice records to look for differences in patient treatment by race, ethnicity, zip code, and primary language.

The report calls for a foundation of training in allyship and antiracism as part of medical school course requirements and experiences: A required course on social justice, race, and racism as part of the first-year curriculum; school programs and professional organizations supporting students, trainees, and members in allyship and antiracism action; and facilitating immersion and partnership with surrounding communities.

“As much as 80% of a person’s health is determined by the social and economic conditions of their environment,” consensus cochair Ivor Benjamin, MD, said in the release.

“To achieve social justice and mitigate health disparities, we must go to the margins and shift our discussions to be inclusive of populations such as rural and marginalized groups from the perspective of health equity lens for all,” said Dr. Benjamin, professor of medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The report also highlights the need for psychosocial support of the cardiovascular community and recommends that health care organizations prioritize regular assessment of clinicians’ well-being and engagement.

It also recommends addressing the well-being of trainees in postgraduate training programs and calls for an ombudsman program that allows for confidential reporting of mistreatment and access to support.

The report also highlights additional opportunities to:

• improve the efficiency of health information technology, such as electronic health records, and reduce the administrative burden
• identify and assist clinicians who experience mental health conditions, , or 
• emphasize patient autonomy using shared decision-making and patient-centered care that is supportive of the individual patient’s values
• increase privacy protections for patient data used in research
• maintain integrity as new ways of delivering care, such as telemedicine, team-based care approaches, and physician-owned specialty centers emerge
• perform routine audits of electronic health records to promote optimal patient care, as well as ethical medical practice
• expand and make mandatory the reporting of intellectual or associational interests in addition to relationships with industry

The report’s details and recommendations will be presented and discussed Saturday, May 15, at 8:00 AM ET, during ACC.21. The session is titled Diversity and Equity: The Means to Expand Inclusion and Belonging.

The AHA will present a live webinar and six-episode podcast series (available on demand) to highlight the report’s details, dialogue, and actionable steps for cardiovascular and health care professionals, researchers, and educators.

This research had no commercial funding. The list of 40 volunteer committee members and coauthors, including their disclosures, are listed in the original report.

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

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have issued a new report on medical ethics and professionalism in cardiovascular medicine.

The report addresses a variety of topics including diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; racial, ethnic and gender inequities; conflicts of interest; clinician well-being; data privacy; social justice; and modern health care delivery systems.

The 54-page report is based on the proceedings of the joint 2020 Consensus Conference on Professionalism and Ethics, held Oct. 19 and 20, 2020. It was published online May 11 in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

The 2020 consensus conference on professionalism and ethics came at a time even more fraught than the eras of the three previous meetings on the same topics, held in 1989, 1997, and 2004, the writing group notes.

“We have seen the COVID-19 pandemic challenge the physical and economic health of the entire country, coupled with a series of national tragedies that have awakened the call for social justice,” conference cochair C. Michael Valentine, MD, said in a news release.

“There is no better time than now to review, evaluate, and take a fresh perspective on medical ethics and professionalism,” said Dr. Valentine, professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“We hope this report will provide cardiovascular professionals and health systems with the recommendations and tools they need to address conflicts of interest; racial, ethnic, and gender inequities; and improve diversity, inclusion, and wellness among our workforce,” Dr. Valentine added. “The majority of our members are now employed and must be engaged as the leaders for change in cardiovascular care.”
 

Road map to improve diversity, achieve allyship

The writing committee was made up of a diverse group of cardiologists, internists, and associated health care professionals and laypeople and was organized into five task forces, each addressing a specific topic: conflicts of interest; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; clinician well-being; patient autonomy, privacy, and social justice in health care; and modern health care delivery.

The report serves as a road map to achieve equity, inclusion, and belonging among cardiovascular professionals and calls for ongoing assessment of the professional culture and climate, focused on improving diversity and achieving effective allyship, the writing group says.

The report proposes continuous training to address individual, structural, and systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism.

It offers recommendations for championing equity in patient care that include an annual review of practice records to look for differences in patient treatment by race, ethnicity, zip code, and primary language.

The report calls for a foundation of training in allyship and antiracism as part of medical school course requirements and experiences: A required course on social justice, race, and racism as part of the first-year curriculum; school programs and professional organizations supporting students, trainees, and members in allyship and antiracism action; and facilitating immersion and partnership with surrounding communities.

“As much as 80% of a person’s health is determined by the social and economic conditions of their environment,” consensus cochair Ivor Benjamin, MD, said in the release.

“To achieve social justice and mitigate health disparities, we must go to the margins and shift our discussions to be inclusive of populations such as rural and marginalized groups from the perspective of health equity lens for all,” said Dr. Benjamin, professor of medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The report also highlights the need for psychosocial support of the cardiovascular community and recommends that health care organizations prioritize regular assessment of clinicians’ well-being and engagement.

It also recommends addressing the well-being of trainees in postgraduate training programs and calls for an ombudsman program that allows for confidential reporting of mistreatment and access to support.

The report also highlights additional opportunities to:

• improve the efficiency of health information technology, such as electronic health records, and reduce the administrative burden
• identify and assist clinicians who experience mental health conditions, , or 
• emphasize patient autonomy using shared decision-making and patient-centered care that is supportive of the individual patient’s values
• increase privacy protections for patient data used in research
• maintain integrity as new ways of delivering care, such as telemedicine, team-based care approaches, and physician-owned specialty centers emerge
• perform routine audits of electronic health records to promote optimal patient care, as well as ethical medical practice
• expand and make mandatory the reporting of intellectual or associational interests in addition to relationships with industry

The report’s details and recommendations will be presented and discussed Saturday, May 15, at 8:00 AM ET, during ACC.21. The session is titled Diversity and Equity: The Means to Expand Inclusion and Belonging.

The AHA will present a live webinar and six-episode podcast series (available on demand) to highlight the report’s details, dialogue, and actionable steps for cardiovascular and health care professionals, researchers, and educators.

This research had no commercial funding. The list of 40 volunteer committee members and coauthors, including their disclosures, are listed in the original report.

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

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology have issued a new report on medical ethics and professionalism in cardiovascular medicine.

The report addresses a variety of topics including diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; racial, ethnic and gender inequities; conflicts of interest; clinician well-being; data privacy; social justice; and modern health care delivery systems.

The 54-page report is based on the proceedings of the joint 2020 Consensus Conference on Professionalism and Ethics, held Oct. 19 and 20, 2020. It was published online May 11 in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

The 2020 consensus conference on professionalism and ethics came at a time even more fraught than the eras of the three previous meetings on the same topics, held in 1989, 1997, and 2004, the writing group notes.

“We have seen the COVID-19 pandemic challenge the physical and economic health of the entire country, coupled with a series of national tragedies that have awakened the call for social justice,” conference cochair C. Michael Valentine, MD, said in a news release.

“There is no better time than now to review, evaluate, and take a fresh perspective on medical ethics and professionalism,” said Dr. Valentine, professor of medicine at the Heart and Vascular Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“We hope this report will provide cardiovascular professionals and health systems with the recommendations and tools they need to address conflicts of interest; racial, ethnic, and gender inequities; and improve diversity, inclusion, and wellness among our workforce,” Dr. Valentine added. “The majority of our members are now employed and must be engaged as the leaders for change in cardiovascular care.”
 

Road map to improve diversity, achieve allyship

The writing committee was made up of a diverse group of cardiologists, internists, and associated health care professionals and laypeople and was organized into five task forces, each addressing a specific topic: conflicts of interest; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; clinician well-being; patient autonomy, privacy, and social justice in health care; and modern health care delivery.

The report serves as a road map to achieve equity, inclusion, and belonging among cardiovascular professionals and calls for ongoing assessment of the professional culture and climate, focused on improving diversity and achieving effective allyship, the writing group says.

The report proposes continuous training to address individual, structural, and systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and ableism.

It offers recommendations for championing equity in patient care that include an annual review of practice records to look for differences in patient treatment by race, ethnicity, zip code, and primary language.

The report calls for a foundation of training in allyship and antiracism as part of medical school course requirements and experiences: A required course on social justice, race, and racism as part of the first-year curriculum; school programs and professional organizations supporting students, trainees, and members in allyship and antiracism action; and facilitating immersion and partnership with surrounding communities.

“As much as 80% of a person’s health is determined by the social and economic conditions of their environment,” consensus cochair Ivor Benjamin, MD, said in the release.

“To achieve social justice and mitigate health disparities, we must go to the margins and shift our discussions to be inclusive of populations such as rural and marginalized groups from the perspective of health equity lens for all,” said Dr. Benjamin, professor of medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The report also highlights the need for psychosocial support of the cardiovascular community and recommends that health care organizations prioritize regular assessment of clinicians’ well-being and engagement.

It also recommends addressing the well-being of trainees in postgraduate training programs and calls for an ombudsman program that allows for confidential reporting of mistreatment and access to support.

The report also highlights additional opportunities to:

• improve the efficiency of health information technology, such as electronic health records, and reduce the administrative burden
• identify and assist clinicians who experience mental health conditions, , or 
• emphasize patient autonomy using shared decision-making and patient-centered care that is supportive of the individual patient’s values
• increase privacy protections for patient data used in research
• maintain integrity as new ways of delivering care, such as telemedicine, team-based care approaches, and physician-owned specialty centers emerge
• perform routine audits of electronic health records to promote optimal patient care, as well as ethical medical practice
• expand and make mandatory the reporting of intellectual or associational interests in addition to relationships with industry

The report’s details and recommendations will be presented and discussed Saturday, May 15, at 8:00 AM ET, during ACC.21. The session is titled Diversity and Equity: The Means to Expand Inclusion and Belonging.

The AHA will present a live webinar and six-episode podcast series (available on demand) to highlight the report’s details, dialogue, and actionable steps for cardiovascular and health care professionals, researchers, and educators.

This research had no commercial funding. The list of 40 volunteer committee members and coauthors, including their disclosures, are listed in the original report.

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

Finerenone treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease was linked to a significant drop in the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation as a prespecified, exploratory endpoint of the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial that randomized more than 5,700 patients.

Treatment with finerenone linked with a 29% relative reduction compared with placebo in incident cases of atrial fibrillation (AFib), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The absolute reduction was modest, a 1.3% reduction from the 4.5% incidence rate on placebo to a 3.2% rate on finerenone during a median 2.6 years of follow-up. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.079).

The analyses Dr. Filippatos presented also showed that whether or not patients had a history of AFib, there was no impact on either the primary benefit from finerenone treatment seen in FIDELIO-DKD, which was a significant 18% relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the combined rate of kidney failure, a 40% or greater decline from baseline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or renal death.

Likewise, prior AFib status had no effect on the study’s key secondary endpoint, a significant 14% relative risk reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The primary results from FIDELIO-DKD (Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease) appeared in a 2020 report (N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 3;383[23];2219-29).
 

‘Side benefits can be very helpful’

“It’s important to know of finerenone’s benefits beyond the primary outcome of a trial because side benefits can be very helpful,” said Anne B. Curtis, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Buffalo (N.Y.) School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. “It’s not a huge benefit, but this could be an added benefit for selected patients,” she said during a press briefing. “Background studies had shown favorable remodeling of the heart [by finerenone] that could affect AFib.”

Possible mitigating effects by finerenone on inflammation and fibrosis might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on AFib, said Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology and director of the Heart Failure and Cardio-Oncology Clinic at Attikon University Hospital and the University of Athens.

He noted that additional data addressing a possible AFib effect of finerenone will emerge soon from the FIGARO-DKD trial, which enrolled patients similar to those in FIDELIO-DKD but with more moderate stages of kidney disease, and from the FINEARTS-HF trial, which is examining the effect of finerenone in patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction of at least 40%.

“Heart failure and AFib go together tightly. It’s worth studying this specifically, so we can see whether there is an impact of finerenone on patients with heart failure who may not necessarily have kidney disease or diabetes,” Dr. Curtis said.
 

Hypothesis-generating findings

The new findings reported by Dr. Filippatos “should be considered hypothesis generating. Until we have more information, upstream therapies, including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs, the umbrella drug class that includes finerenone], should be used in appropriate patient populations based on defined benefits with the hope they will also reduce the development of AFib and atrial flutter over time,” Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial that accompanied the report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.080).

The FIDELIO-DKD trial randomized 5,734 patients at 913 sites in 48 countries, including 461 patients with a history of AFib. The observed link of finerenone treatment with a reduced incidence of AFib appeared consistent regardless of patients’ age, sex, race, their kidney characteristics at baseline, baseline levels of systolic blood pressure, serum potassium, body mass index, A1c, or use of glucose-lowering medications.

Finerenone belongs to a new class of MRAs that have a nonsteroidal structure, in contrast with the MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. This means that finerenone does not produce steroidal-associated adverse effects linked with certain other MRAs, such as gynecomastia, and may also differ in other actions.

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone. Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from or participated in the direction of trials on behalf of Bayer, as well as for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Curtis is an adviser to and receives honoraria from St. Jude Medical, and receives honoraria from Medtronic. Dr. Naccarelli has been a consultant to Acesion, ARCA, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Milestone, Omeicos, and Sanofi. His coauthors had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Finerenone treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease was linked to a significant drop in the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation as a prespecified, exploratory endpoint of the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial that randomized more than 5,700 patients.

Treatment with finerenone linked with a 29% relative reduction compared with placebo in incident cases of atrial fibrillation (AFib), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The absolute reduction was modest, a 1.3% reduction from the 4.5% incidence rate on placebo to a 3.2% rate on finerenone during a median 2.6 years of follow-up. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.079).

The analyses Dr. Filippatos presented also showed that whether or not patients had a history of AFib, there was no impact on either the primary benefit from finerenone treatment seen in FIDELIO-DKD, which was a significant 18% relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the combined rate of kidney failure, a 40% or greater decline from baseline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or renal death.

Likewise, prior AFib status had no effect on the study’s key secondary endpoint, a significant 14% relative risk reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The primary results from FIDELIO-DKD (Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease) appeared in a 2020 report (N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 3;383[23];2219-29).
 

‘Side benefits can be very helpful’

“It’s important to know of finerenone’s benefits beyond the primary outcome of a trial because side benefits can be very helpful,” said Anne B. Curtis, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Buffalo (N.Y.) School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. “It’s not a huge benefit, but this could be an added benefit for selected patients,” she said during a press briefing. “Background studies had shown favorable remodeling of the heart [by finerenone] that could affect AFib.”

Possible mitigating effects by finerenone on inflammation and fibrosis might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on AFib, said Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology and director of the Heart Failure and Cardio-Oncology Clinic at Attikon University Hospital and the University of Athens.

He noted that additional data addressing a possible AFib effect of finerenone will emerge soon from the FIGARO-DKD trial, which enrolled patients similar to those in FIDELIO-DKD but with more moderate stages of kidney disease, and from the FINEARTS-HF trial, which is examining the effect of finerenone in patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction of at least 40%.

“Heart failure and AFib go together tightly. It’s worth studying this specifically, so we can see whether there is an impact of finerenone on patients with heart failure who may not necessarily have kidney disease or diabetes,” Dr. Curtis said.
 

Hypothesis-generating findings

The new findings reported by Dr. Filippatos “should be considered hypothesis generating. Until we have more information, upstream therapies, including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs, the umbrella drug class that includes finerenone], should be used in appropriate patient populations based on defined benefits with the hope they will also reduce the development of AFib and atrial flutter over time,” Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial that accompanied the report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.080).

The FIDELIO-DKD trial randomized 5,734 patients at 913 sites in 48 countries, including 461 patients with a history of AFib. The observed link of finerenone treatment with a reduced incidence of AFib appeared consistent regardless of patients’ age, sex, race, their kidney characteristics at baseline, baseline levels of systolic blood pressure, serum potassium, body mass index, A1c, or use of glucose-lowering medications.

Finerenone belongs to a new class of MRAs that have a nonsteroidal structure, in contrast with the MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. This means that finerenone does not produce steroidal-associated adverse effects linked with certain other MRAs, such as gynecomastia, and may also differ in other actions.

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone. Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from or participated in the direction of trials on behalf of Bayer, as well as for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Curtis is an adviser to and receives honoraria from St. Jude Medical, and receives honoraria from Medtronic. Dr. Naccarelli has been a consultant to Acesion, ARCA, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Milestone, Omeicos, and Sanofi. His coauthors had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Finerenone treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease was linked to a significant drop in the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation as a prespecified, exploratory endpoint of the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial that randomized more than 5,700 patients.

Treatment with finerenone linked with a 29% relative reduction compared with placebo in incident cases of atrial fibrillation (AFib), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

The absolute reduction was modest, a 1.3% reduction from the 4.5% incidence rate on placebo to a 3.2% rate on finerenone during a median 2.6 years of follow-up. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.079).

The analyses Dr. Filippatos presented also showed that whether or not patients had a history of AFib, there was no impact on either the primary benefit from finerenone treatment seen in FIDELIO-DKD, which was a significant 18% relative risk reduction compared with placebo in the combined rate of kidney failure, a 40% or greater decline from baseline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, or renal death.

Likewise, prior AFib status had no effect on the study’s key secondary endpoint, a significant 14% relative risk reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The primary results from FIDELIO-DKD (Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease) appeared in a 2020 report (N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 3;383[23];2219-29).
 

‘Side benefits can be very helpful’

“It’s important to know of finerenone’s benefits beyond the primary outcome of a trial because side benefits can be very helpful,” said Anne B. Curtis, MD, an electrophysiologist and professor and chair of medicine at the University of Buffalo (N.Y.) School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. “It’s not a huge benefit, but this could be an added benefit for selected patients,” she said during a press briefing. “Background studies had shown favorable remodeling of the heart [by finerenone] that could affect AFib.”

Possible mitigating effects by finerenone on inflammation and fibrosis might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on AFib, said Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology and director of the Heart Failure and Cardio-Oncology Clinic at Attikon University Hospital and the University of Athens.

He noted that additional data addressing a possible AFib effect of finerenone will emerge soon from the FIGARO-DKD trial, which enrolled patients similar to those in FIDELIO-DKD but with more moderate stages of kidney disease, and from the FINEARTS-HF trial, which is examining the effect of finerenone in patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction of at least 40%.

“Heart failure and AFib go together tightly. It’s worth studying this specifically, so we can see whether there is an impact of finerenone on patients with heart failure who may not necessarily have kidney disease or diabetes,” Dr. Curtis said.
 

Hypothesis-generating findings

The new findings reported by Dr. Filippatos “should be considered hypothesis generating. Until we have more information, upstream therapies, including mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs, the umbrella drug class that includes finerenone], should be used in appropriate patient populations based on defined benefits with the hope they will also reduce the development of AFib and atrial flutter over time,” Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, and coauthors wrote in an editorial that accompanied the report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 May 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.080).

The FIDELIO-DKD trial randomized 5,734 patients at 913 sites in 48 countries, including 461 patients with a history of AFib. The observed link of finerenone treatment with a reduced incidence of AFib appeared consistent regardless of patients’ age, sex, race, their kidney characteristics at baseline, baseline levels of systolic blood pressure, serum potassium, body mass index, A1c, or use of glucose-lowering medications.

Finerenone belongs to a new class of MRAs that have a nonsteroidal structure, in contrast with the MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. This means that finerenone does not produce steroidal-associated adverse effects linked with certain other MRAs, such as gynecomastia, and may also differ in other actions.

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone. Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from or participated in the direction of trials on behalf of Bayer, as well as for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Curtis is an adviser to and receives honoraria from St. Jude Medical, and receives honoraria from Medtronic. Dr. Naccarelli has been a consultant to Acesion, ARCA, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Milestone, Omeicos, and Sanofi. His coauthors had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com