User login
Fibrinogen concentrate effective, safe for postop bleeding
SAN ANTONIO – Fibrinogen concentrate was noninferior to cryoprecipitate for controlling bleeding following cardiac surgery in the randomized FIBRES trial, Canadian investigators reported.
Among 827 patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass, there were no significant differences in the use of allogenenic transfusion products within 24 hours of surgery for patients assigned to receive fibrinogen concentrate for control of bleeding, compared with patients who received cryoprecipitate, reported Jeannie Callum, MD, from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, on behalf of coinvestigators in the FIBRES trial.
Fibrinogen concentrate, commonly used to control postoperative bleeding in Europe, was associated with numerically, but not statistically, lower incidence of both adverse events and serious adverse events than cryoprecipitate, the current standard of care in North America.
“Given its safety and logistical advantages, fibrinogen concentrate may be considered in bleeding patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia,” Dr. Callum said at the annual meeting of the AABB, the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.
Results of the FIBRES trial were published simultaneously in JAMA (2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17312).
Acquired hypofibrinogenemia, defined as a fibrinogen level below the range of 1.5-2.0 g/L, is a major cause of excess bleeding after cardiac surgery. European guidelines on the management of bleeding following trauma or cardiac surgery recommend the use of either cryoprecipitate or fibrinogen concentrate to control excessive bleeding in patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia, Dr. Callum noted.
Cryoprecipitate is a pooled plasma–derived product that contains fibrinogen, but also fibronectin, platelet microparticles, coagulation factors VIII and XIII, and von Willebrand factor.
Additionally, fibrinogen levels in cryoprecipitate can range from as low as 3 g/L to as high as 30 g/L, and the product is normally kept and shipped frozen, and is then thawed for use and pooled prior to administration, with a shelf life of just 4-6 hours.
In contrast, fibrinogen concentrates “are pathogen-reduced and purified; have standardized fibrinogen content (20 g/L); are lyophilized, allowing for easy storage, reconstitution, and administration; and have longer shelf life after reconstitution (up to 24 hours),” Dr. Callum and her colleagues reported.
Despite the North American preference for cryoprecipitate and the European preference for fibrinogen concentrate, there have been few studies directly comparing the two products, which prompted the FIBRES investigators to design a head-to-head trial.
The randomized trial was conducted in 11 Canadian hospitals with adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass for whom fibrinogen supplementation was ordered in accordance with accepted clinical standards.
Patients were randomly assigned to received either 4 g of fibrinogen concentrate or 10 units of cryoprecipitate for 24 hours, with all patients receiving additional cryoprecipitate as needed after the first day.
Of 15,412 cardiac patients treated at the participating sites, 827 patients met the trial criteria and were randomized. Because the trial met the prespecified stopping criterion for noninferiority of fibrinogen at the interim analysis, the trial was halted, leaving the 827 patients as the final analysis population.
The mean number of allogeneic blood component units administered – the primary outcome – was 16.3 units in the fibrinogen concentrate group and 17.0 units in the cryoprecipitate group (mean ratio, 0.96; P for noninferiority less than .001; P for superiority = .50).
Fibrinogen was also noninferior for the secondary outcomes of individual 24-hour and cumulative 7-day blood component transfusions, and in a post-hoc analysis of cumulative transfusions measured from product administration to 24 hours after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass. These endpoints should be interpreted with caution, however, because they were not corrected for type 1 error, the investigators noted.
Fibrinogen concentrate also appeared to be noninferior for all defined subgroups, except for patients who underwent nonelective procedures, which included all patients in critical state before surgery.
Adverse events (AEs) of any kind occurred in 66.7% of patients with fibrinogen concentrate vs. 72.7% of those on cryoprecipitate. Serious AEs occurred in 31.5% vs. 34.7%, respectively.
Thromboembolic events – stroke or transient ischemic attack, amaurosis fugax (temporary vision loss), myocardial infarction, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, other-vessel thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, or thrombophlebitis – occurred in 7% vs. 9.6%, respectively.
The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to blind the clinical team to the product used, by the adult-only population, and by the likelihood of variable dosing in the cryoprecipitate group.
Advantages of fibrinogen concentrate over cryoprecipitate are that the former is pathogen reduced and is easier to deliver, the investigators said.
“One important consideration is the cost differential that currently favors cryoprecipitate, but this varies across regions, and the most recent economic analysis failed to include the costs of future emerging pathogens and did not include comprehensive activity-based costing,” the investigators wrote in JAMA.
The trial was sponsored by Octapharma AG, which also provided fibrinogen concentrate. Cryoprecipitate was provided by the Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec. Dr. Callum reported receiving grants from Canadian Blood Services, Octapharma, and CSL Behring during the conduct of the study. Multiple coauthors had similar disclosures.
SOURCE: Callum J et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 21. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.17312.
SAN ANTONIO – Fibrinogen concentrate was noninferior to cryoprecipitate for controlling bleeding following cardiac surgery in the randomized FIBRES trial, Canadian investigators reported.
Among 827 patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass, there were no significant differences in the use of allogenenic transfusion products within 24 hours of surgery for patients assigned to receive fibrinogen concentrate for control of bleeding, compared with patients who received cryoprecipitate, reported Jeannie Callum, MD, from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, on behalf of coinvestigators in the FIBRES trial.
Fibrinogen concentrate, commonly used to control postoperative bleeding in Europe, was associated with numerically, but not statistically, lower incidence of both adverse events and serious adverse events than cryoprecipitate, the current standard of care in North America.
“Given its safety and logistical advantages, fibrinogen concentrate may be considered in bleeding patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia,” Dr. Callum said at the annual meeting of the AABB, the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.
Results of the FIBRES trial were published simultaneously in JAMA (2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17312).
Acquired hypofibrinogenemia, defined as a fibrinogen level below the range of 1.5-2.0 g/L, is a major cause of excess bleeding after cardiac surgery. European guidelines on the management of bleeding following trauma or cardiac surgery recommend the use of either cryoprecipitate or fibrinogen concentrate to control excessive bleeding in patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia, Dr. Callum noted.
Cryoprecipitate is a pooled plasma–derived product that contains fibrinogen, but also fibronectin, platelet microparticles, coagulation factors VIII and XIII, and von Willebrand factor.
Additionally, fibrinogen levels in cryoprecipitate can range from as low as 3 g/L to as high as 30 g/L, and the product is normally kept and shipped frozen, and is then thawed for use and pooled prior to administration, with a shelf life of just 4-6 hours.
In contrast, fibrinogen concentrates “are pathogen-reduced and purified; have standardized fibrinogen content (20 g/L); are lyophilized, allowing for easy storage, reconstitution, and administration; and have longer shelf life after reconstitution (up to 24 hours),” Dr. Callum and her colleagues reported.
Despite the North American preference for cryoprecipitate and the European preference for fibrinogen concentrate, there have been few studies directly comparing the two products, which prompted the FIBRES investigators to design a head-to-head trial.
The randomized trial was conducted in 11 Canadian hospitals with adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass for whom fibrinogen supplementation was ordered in accordance with accepted clinical standards.
Patients were randomly assigned to received either 4 g of fibrinogen concentrate or 10 units of cryoprecipitate for 24 hours, with all patients receiving additional cryoprecipitate as needed after the first day.
Of 15,412 cardiac patients treated at the participating sites, 827 patients met the trial criteria and were randomized. Because the trial met the prespecified stopping criterion for noninferiority of fibrinogen at the interim analysis, the trial was halted, leaving the 827 patients as the final analysis population.
The mean number of allogeneic blood component units administered – the primary outcome – was 16.3 units in the fibrinogen concentrate group and 17.0 units in the cryoprecipitate group (mean ratio, 0.96; P for noninferiority less than .001; P for superiority = .50).
Fibrinogen was also noninferior for the secondary outcomes of individual 24-hour and cumulative 7-day blood component transfusions, and in a post-hoc analysis of cumulative transfusions measured from product administration to 24 hours after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass. These endpoints should be interpreted with caution, however, because they were not corrected for type 1 error, the investigators noted.
Fibrinogen concentrate also appeared to be noninferior for all defined subgroups, except for patients who underwent nonelective procedures, which included all patients in critical state before surgery.
Adverse events (AEs) of any kind occurred in 66.7% of patients with fibrinogen concentrate vs. 72.7% of those on cryoprecipitate. Serious AEs occurred in 31.5% vs. 34.7%, respectively.
Thromboembolic events – stroke or transient ischemic attack, amaurosis fugax (temporary vision loss), myocardial infarction, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, other-vessel thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, or thrombophlebitis – occurred in 7% vs. 9.6%, respectively.
The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to blind the clinical team to the product used, by the adult-only population, and by the likelihood of variable dosing in the cryoprecipitate group.
Advantages of fibrinogen concentrate over cryoprecipitate are that the former is pathogen reduced and is easier to deliver, the investigators said.
“One important consideration is the cost differential that currently favors cryoprecipitate, but this varies across regions, and the most recent economic analysis failed to include the costs of future emerging pathogens and did not include comprehensive activity-based costing,” the investigators wrote in JAMA.
The trial was sponsored by Octapharma AG, which also provided fibrinogen concentrate. Cryoprecipitate was provided by the Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec. Dr. Callum reported receiving grants from Canadian Blood Services, Octapharma, and CSL Behring during the conduct of the study. Multiple coauthors had similar disclosures.
SOURCE: Callum J et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 21. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.17312.
SAN ANTONIO – Fibrinogen concentrate was noninferior to cryoprecipitate for controlling bleeding following cardiac surgery in the randomized FIBRES trial, Canadian investigators reported.
Among 827 patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass, there were no significant differences in the use of allogenenic transfusion products within 24 hours of surgery for patients assigned to receive fibrinogen concentrate for control of bleeding, compared with patients who received cryoprecipitate, reported Jeannie Callum, MD, from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, on behalf of coinvestigators in the FIBRES trial.
Fibrinogen concentrate, commonly used to control postoperative bleeding in Europe, was associated with numerically, but not statistically, lower incidence of both adverse events and serious adverse events than cryoprecipitate, the current standard of care in North America.
“Given its safety and logistical advantages, fibrinogen concentrate may be considered in bleeding patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia,” Dr. Callum said at the annual meeting of the AABB, the group formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks.
Results of the FIBRES trial were published simultaneously in JAMA (2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17312).
Acquired hypofibrinogenemia, defined as a fibrinogen level below the range of 1.5-2.0 g/L, is a major cause of excess bleeding after cardiac surgery. European guidelines on the management of bleeding following trauma or cardiac surgery recommend the use of either cryoprecipitate or fibrinogen concentrate to control excessive bleeding in patients with acquired hypofibrinogenemia, Dr. Callum noted.
Cryoprecipitate is a pooled plasma–derived product that contains fibrinogen, but also fibronectin, platelet microparticles, coagulation factors VIII and XIII, and von Willebrand factor.
Additionally, fibrinogen levels in cryoprecipitate can range from as low as 3 g/L to as high as 30 g/L, and the product is normally kept and shipped frozen, and is then thawed for use and pooled prior to administration, with a shelf life of just 4-6 hours.
In contrast, fibrinogen concentrates “are pathogen-reduced and purified; have standardized fibrinogen content (20 g/L); are lyophilized, allowing for easy storage, reconstitution, and administration; and have longer shelf life after reconstitution (up to 24 hours),” Dr. Callum and her colleagues reported.
Despite the North American preference for cryoprecipitate and the European preference for fibrinogen concentrate, there have been few studies directly comparing the two products, which prompted the FIBRES investigators to design a head-to-head trial.
The randomized trial was conducted in 11 Canadian hospitals with adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass for whom fibrinogen supplementation was ordered in accordance with accepted clinical standards.
Patients were randomly assigned to received either 4 g of fibrinogen concentrate or 10 units of cryoprecipitate for 24 hours, with all patients receiving additional cryoprecipitate as needed after the first day.
Of 15,412 cardiac patients treated at the participating sites, 827 patients met the trial criteria and were randomized. Because the trial met the prespecified stopping criterion for noninferiority of fibrinogen at the interim analysis, the trial was halted, leaving the 827 patients as the final analysis population.
The mean number of allogeneic blood component units administered – the primary outcome – was 16.3 units in the fibrinogen concentrate group and 17.0 units in the cryoprecipitate group (mean ratio, 0.96; P for noninferiority less than .001; P for superiority = .50).
Fibrinogen was also noninferior for the secondary outcomes of individual 24-hour and cumulative 7-day blood component transfusions, and in a post-hoc analysis of cumulative transfusions measured from product administration to 24 hours after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass. These endpoints should be interpreted with caution, however, because they were not corrected for type 1 error, the investigators noted.
Fibrinogen concentrate also appeared to be noninferior for all defined subgroups, except for patients who underwent nonelective procedures, which included all patients in critical state before surgery.
Adverse events (AEs) of any kind occurred in 66.7% of patients with fibrinogen concentrate vs. 72.7% of those on cryoprecipitate. Serious AEs occurred in 31.5% vs. 34.7%, respectively.
Thromboembolic events – stroke or transient ischemic attack, amaurosis fugax (temporary vision loss), myocardial infarction, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, other-vessel thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, or thrombophlebitis – occurred in 7% vs. 9.6%, respectively.
The investigators acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to blind the clinical team to the product used, by the adult-only population, and by the likelihood of variable dosing in the cryoprecipitate group.
Advantages of fibrinogen concentrate over cryoprecipitate are that the former is pathogen reduced and is easier to deliver, the investigators said.
“One important consideration is the cost differential that currently favors cryoprecipitate, but this varies across regions, and the most recent economic analysis failed to include the costs of future emerging pathogens and did not include comprehensive activity-based costing,” the investigators wrote in JAMA.
The trial was sponsored by Octapharma AG, which also provided fibrinogen concentrate. Cryoprecipitate was provided by the Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec. Dr. Callum reported receiving grants from Canadian Blood Services, Octapharma, and CSL Behring during the conduct of the study. Multiple coauthors had similar disclosures.
SOURCE: Callum J et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 21. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.17312.
REPORTING FROM AABB 2019
Starting PCSK9 inhibitor in acute-phase ACS under study
PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).
The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.
“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”
The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.
Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.
In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.
The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.
The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.
The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.
The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.
PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).
The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.
“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”
The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.
Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.
In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.
The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.
The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.
The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.
The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.
PARIS – The first-ever randomized trial of in-hospital initiation of a PCSK9 inhibitor on top of guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy in the very-high-risk acute phase of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) safely resulted in dramatically lower LDL cholesterol levels than with early prescribing of a high-intensity statin alone, Konstantinos C. Koskinas, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
compared with 11% of patients randomized to high-intensity atorvastatin at 40 mg/day plus placebo injections. Moreover, 96% of patients on atorvastatin 40 mg/day plus evolocumab at 420 mg per subcutaneous injection were below the former target of an LDL cholesterol less than 70 mg/dL, as were 38% of those on the high-intensity statin alone, according to Dr. Koskinas, a cardiologist at the University of Bern (Switzerland).
The seven-center Swiss EVOPACS trial, featuring 308 ACS patients, could be considered a proof-of-concept study, as it lacked the size and duration to be powered to assess clinical outcomes.
“The clinical impact of very early LDL lowering with evolocumab initiated in the acute setting of ACS warrants further investigation in a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial,” Dr. Koskinas asserted. “We see this as the natural next step. Discussions are underway about a long-term trial with clinical endpoints, but no decisions have been made.”
The rationale for the EVOPACS trial is based upon current standard practice in ACS management, which includes initiation of a high-intensity statin during the acute phase of ACS, a particularly high-risk period for recurrent events. This practice has a Class IA recommendation in the guidelines based on published evidence that it results in a significantly reduced rate of the composite of death, MI, or rehospitalization for ACS within 30 days, compared with a less aggressive approach to LDL cholesterol lowering.
Yet even though the PCSK9 inhibitors are the 800-lb gorillas of LDL cholesterol lowering, they’ve never been tested in the setting of acute-phase ACS. For example, in the landmark ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, alirocumab was initiated on average 2.6 months after ACS, while in FOURIER the lag time between ACS and the start of evolocumab was 3.4 years, the cardiologist noted.
In contrast, all of the 37% of EVOPACS participants with an ST-segment elevation MI were enrolled in the study and on treatment within 24 hours after symptom onset. So were more than one-third of those with non–ST-elevation ACS, with the remainder getting onboard 24-72 hours after symptom onset.
The safety and tolerability of dual LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy were excellent in the brief EVOPACS study. There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events or serious adverse events, nor in prespecified events of special interest, including muscle pain, neurocognitive changes, or elevated liver enzyme levels.
The LDL cholesterol lowering achieved with dual therapy in EVOPACS was jaw dropping: Over the course of 8 weeks, the mean LDL cholesterol went from 132 to 31 mg/dL. In patients on early high-intensity atorvastatin alone, LDL cholesterol went from 139 to 80 mg/dL.
The full details of the EVOPACS trial have been published (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Aug 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.010.
The trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Koskinas reported receiving honoraria from Amgen and Sanofi.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Strong showing for TAVR after 5 years in PARTNER 2A
SAN FRANCISCO – At 5 years, the rates of disabling stroke or death were similar among patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement.
At the same time, patients who underwent TAVR using a transthoracic approach had poorer outcomes, compared with their counterparts who underwent SAVR, Vinod H. Thourani, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. The findings come from an analysis of the PARTNER 2A trial, the largest randomized study ever conducted in the field of TAVR and SAVR.
In an effort to compare the key clinical outcomes, bioprosthetic valve function, and quality-of-life measures at 5 years for TAVR versus surgery, Dr. Thourani and his colleagues used data from 2,032 intermediate-risk patients with severe AS assigned to either TAVR or SAVR at 57 centers in the PARTNER 2A trial. Their mean age was 82 years, and their average Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score was 5.8%. The 2-year primary endpoint was all-cause death or disabling stroke in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. At 5 years, the researchers analyzed all primary and secondary clinical and echo endpoints in both ITT and prespecified as-treated populations.
At 5 years, the primary endpoint of death and disabling stroke at 5 years was 47.9% in the TAVR group and 43.4% in the surgery group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .21). In the transfemoral cohort, rates of the primary endpoint were also similar between TAVR and SAVR (44.5% vs. 42%, respectively; HR, 1.02; P = .80). In the transthoracic cohort, however, the researchers observed a divergence in the primary outcome starting at year 1, such that it was higher with TAVR at 5 years, compared with SAVR (59.3% vs. 48.3%; P = .03), reported Dr. Thourani, chair of cardiac surgery at Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington.
When he and his colleagues examined freedom from aortic valve reintervention at 5 years, the hazard ratios showed some difference between TAVR and SAVR (HR, 3.93; P = .003), yet clinically the freedom from reintervention rate was very high (96.8% vs. 99.4%, respectively). “The other issue we’ve been interested in is the difference between mean aortic valve gradients between the groups,” Dr. Thourani said at the meeting. “There was no difference in mean aortic valve gradients between TAVR and SAVR at 5 years (a mean of 11.4 mm Hg vs. 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .23).”
Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) was more common in the TAVR vs. SAVR group at all follow-up times (P less than .001 in all categories). By year 5, the proportion of patients with moderate to severe PVR was 6.5% in the TAVR group vs. 0.4% in the SAVR group, respectively, while the proportion of those with mild PVR was 26.8%, compared with 5.9%.
In other findings, no difference in mortality was seen in the TAVR cohort between those with mild PVR and no or trace PVR (48.7% vs. 41.1%; P = .07). However, those with moderate to severe PVR at the end of the procedure had an increased mortality at the end of 5 years (64.8%; P = .007). “If you had none or trace PVR at baseline, there was no major difference in mortality between the two groups at 2 years,” Dr. Thourani said. “That difference was maintained at 5 years.”
The overall findings, he continued, support the notion that TAVR should be considered as an alternative to surgery in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. “However, in patients without acceptable transfemoral access, surgery may be the preferred alternative,” he said.
Roxana Mehran, MD,, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, commented that the reassurance of the same outcomes at 5 years between the two approaches “makes TAVR superior. It’s a less invasive and durable result. One of the things we have yet to figure out is the need for anticoagulation to prevent stroke in these patients. We have very little data and understanding about that.”
The PARTNER 2A study was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Thourani has received grant or research support from and participation in steering committees for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Gore Vascular, JenaValve, and Cryolife.
SAN FRANCISCO – At 5 years, the rates of disabling stroke or death were similar among patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement.
At the same time, patients who underwent TAVR using a transthoracic approach had poorer outcomes, compared with their counterparts who underwent SAVR, Vinod H. Thourani, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. The findings come from an analysis of the PARTNER 2A trial, the largest randomized study ever conducted in the field of TAVR and SAVR.
In an effort to compare the key clinical outcomes, bioprosthetic valve function, and quality-of-life measures at 5 years for TAVR versus surgery, Dr. Thourani and his colleagues used data from 2,032 intermediate-risk patients with severe AS assigned to either TAVR or SAVR at 57 centers in the PARTNER 2A trial. Their mean age was 82 years, and their average Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score was 5.8%. The 2-year primary endpoint was all-cause death or disabling stroke in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. At 5 years, the researchers analyzed all primary and secondary clinical and echo endpoints in both ITT and prespecified as-treated populations.
At 5 years, the primary endpoint of death and disabling stroke at 5 years was 47.9% in the TAVR group and 43.4% in the surgery group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .21). In the transfemoral cohort, rates of the primary endpoint were also similar between TAVR and SAVR (44.5% vs. 42%, respectively; HR, 1.02; P = .80). In the transthoracic cohort, however, the researchers observed a divergence in the primary outcome starting at year 1, such that it was higher with TAVR at 5 years, compared with SAVR (59.3% vs. 48.3%; P = .03), reported Dr. Thourani, chair of cardiac surgery at Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington.
When he and his colleagues examined freedom from aortic valve reintervention at 5 years, the hazard ratios showed some difference between TAVR and SAVR (HR, 3.93; P = .003), yet clinically the freedom from reintervention rate was very high (96.8% vs. 99.4%, respectively). “The other issue we’ve been interested in is the difference between mean aortic valve gradients between the groups,” Dr. Thourani said at the meeting. “There was no difference in mean aortic valve gradients between TAVR and SAVR at 5 years (a mean of 11.4 mm Hg vs. 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .23).”
Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) was more common in the TAVR vs. SAVR group at all follow-up times (P less than .001 in all categories). By year 5, the proportion of patients with moderate to severe PVR was 6.5% in the TAVR group vs. 0.4% in the SAVR group, respectively, while the proportion of those with mild PVR was 26.8%, compared with 5.9%.
In other findings, no difference in mortality was seen in the TAVR cohort between those with mild PVR and no or trace PVR (48.7% vs. 41.1%; P = .07). However, those with moderate to severe PVR at the end of the procedure had an increased mortality at the end of 5 years (64.8%; P = .007). “If you had none or trace PVR at baseline, there was no major difference in mortality between the two groups at 2 years,” Dr. Thourani said. “That difference was maintained at 5 years.”
The overall findings, he continued, support the notion that TAVR should be considered as an alternative to surgery in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. “However, in patients without acceptable transfemoral access, surgery may be the preferred alternative,” he said.
Roxana Mehran, MD,, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, commented that the reassurance of the same outcomes at 5 years between the two approaches “makes TAVR superior. It’s a less invasive and durable result. One of the things we have yet to figure out is the need for anticoagulation to prevent stroke in these patients. We have very little data and understanding about that.”
The PARTNER 2A study was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Thourani has received grant or research support from and participation in steering committees for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Gore Vascular, JenaValve, and Cryolife.
SAN FRANCISCO – At 5 years, the rates of disabling stroke or death were similar among patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement.
At the same time, patients who underwent TAVR using a transthoracic approach had poorer outcomes, compared with their counterparts who underwent SAVR, Vinod H. Thourani, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. The findings come from an analysis of the PARTNER 2A trial, the largest randomized study ever conducted in the field of TAVR and SAVR.
In an effort to compare the key clinical outcomes, bioprosthetic valve function, and quality-of-life measures at 5 years for TAVR versus surgery, Dr. Thourani and his colleagues used data from 2,032 intermediate-risk patients with severe AS assigned to either TAVR or SAVR at 57 centers in the PARTNER 2A trial. Their mean age was 82 years, and their average Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score was 5.8%. The 2-year primary endpoint was all-cause death or disabling stroke in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. At 5 years, the researchers analyzed all primary and secondary clinical and echo endpoints in both ITT and prespecified as-treated populations.
At 5 years, the primary endpoint of death and disabling stroke at 5 years was 47.9% in the TAVR group and 43.4% in the surgery group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .21). In the transfemoral cohort, rates of the primary endpoint were also similar between TAVR and SAVR (44.5% vs. 42%, respectively; HR, 1.02; P = .80). In the transthoracic cohort, however, the researchers observed a divergence in the primary outcome starting at year 1, such that it was higher with TAVR at 5 years, compared with SAVR (59.3% vs. 48.3%; P = .03), reported Dr. Thourani, chair of cardiac surgery at Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute, Washington.
When he and his colleagues examined freedom from aortic valve reintervention at 5 years, the hazard ratios showed some difference between TAVR and SAVR (HR, 3.93; P = .003), yet clinically the freedom from reintervention rate was very high (96.8% vs. 99.4%, respectively). “The other issue we’ve been interested in is the difference between mean aortic valve gradients between the groups,” Dr. Thourani said at the meeting. “There was no difference in mean aortic valve gradients between TAVR and SAVR at 5 years (a mean of 11.4 mm Hg vs. 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; P = .23).”
Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) was more common in the TAVR vs. SAVR group at all follow-up times (P less than .001 in all categories). By year 5, the proportion of patients with moderate to severe PVR was 6.5% in the TAVR group vs. 0.4% in the SAVR group, respectively, while the proportion of those with mild PVR was 26.8%, compared with 5.9%.
In other findings, no difference in mortality was seen in the TAVR cohort between those with mild PVR and no or trace PVR (48.7% vs. 41.1%; P = .07). However, those with moderate to severe PVR at the end of the procedure had an increased mortality at the end of 5 years (64.8%; P = .007). “If you had none or trace PVR at baseline, there was no major difference in mortality between the two groups at 2 years,” Dr. Thourani said. “That difference was maintained at 5 years.”
The overall findings, he continued, support the notion that TAVR should be considered as an alternative to surgery in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. “However, in patients without acceptable transfemoral access, surgery may be the preferred alternative,” he said.
Roxana Mehran, MD,, director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, commented that the reassurance of the same outcomes at 5 years between the two approaches “makes TAVR superior. It’s a less invasive and durable result. One of the things we have yet to figure out is the need for anticoagulation to prevent stroke in these patients. We have very little data and understanding about that.”
The PARTNER 2A study was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Thourani has received grant or research support from and participation in steering committees for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Gore Vascular, JenaValve, and Cryolife.
AT TCT 2019
A cigarette in one hand and a Fitbit on the other
A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A1c.
My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …
My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.
The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.
When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.
With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.
When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.
Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.
For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …
We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A1c.
My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …
My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.
The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.
When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.
With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.
When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.
Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.
For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …
We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A1c.
My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …
My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.
The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.
When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.
With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.
When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.
Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.
For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …
We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at fpnews@mdedge.com.
Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.
Remote ischemic conditioning in STEMI, RIP
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Macitentan, tadalafil combo found effective for newly diagnosed PAH
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment with macitentan and tadalafil can elicit improvements in patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), trial results suggest.
In the phase 4 OPTIMA trial, the combination significantly improved cardiopulmonary hemodynamics, functional class, 6-minute walk distance, and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, of Université Paris–Sud in France, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
The OPTIMA trial (NCT02968901) enrolled 46 adults who were newly diagnosed with PAH and had medium functional ability (WHO functional class II-III). The patients’ mean age was 57.4 ± 14.9 years, and 65% of them were female.
The mean time from PAH diagnosis was 29.6 ± 55.2 days. Patients had idiopathic PAH (63%), PAH associated with connective tissue disease (19.6%), heritable PAH (6.5%), drug- or toxin-induced PAH (4.4%), HIV-associated PAH (2.2%), and “other” PAH (4.4%).
Patients initially received macitentan at 10 mg once daily and tadalafil at 20 mg once daily. After 8 ± 3 days, the tadalafil dose was increased to 40 mg once daily. The median duration of treatment was 19.9 months.
The researchers assessed efficacy at week 16, but patients were monitored for safety until the study was closed by the sponsor. There were 44 patients who remained on study through week 16, and 39 patients completed the study.
Results
The study’s primary endpoint was the change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). The ratio of week 16 to baseline PVR was 0.53, which translates to a significant 47% reduction in PVR. In fact, 87% of patients had a 30% or greater decrease in PVR from baseline to week 16.
Patients had improvements in other endpoints as well. The mean cardiac index increased from 2.2 to 3.1 L/min/m2 (P less than .0001) from baseline to week 16. The mean pulmonary arterial pressure decreased from 50.0 to 42.2 mm Hg (P = .0002), and the mean right atrial pressure decreased from 8.1 to 7.8 mm Hg (P = .7321).
The mean mixed venous oxygen saturation increased from 63.0% to 68.2% (P = .0003). The mean total pulmonary resistance decreased from 1109.4 to 677.4 dynes/sec/cm-5 (P less than .0001).
NT-proBNP decreased 68% from baseline to week 16. The geometric mean ratio was 0.32 (P less than .0001). The 6-minute walk distance increased from 352.2 to 388.1 m (P = .0008).
None of the patients experienced a worsening of WHO functional class from baseline to week 16, and 63% of patients experienced an improvement.
Nearly 94% of patients (n = 43) had at least one adverse event, 28% (n = 13) had serious adverse events, and 6.5% (n = 3) stopped treatment because of adverse events. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (n = 13), headache (n = 11), diarrhea (n = 9), and dyspnea (n = 7).
Three patients died during follow-up, one due to multiorgan failure and two due to underlying disease.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals funded the trial. Dr. Sitbon disclosed relationships with Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Merck, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Gossamer Bio, and Ferrer.
SOURCE: Sitbon O et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.825.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment with macitentan and tadalafil can elicit improvements in patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), trial results suggest.
In the phase 4 OPTIMA trial, the combination significantly improved cardiopulmonary hemodynamics, functional class, 6-minute walk distance, and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, of Université Paris–Sud in France, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
The OPTIMA trial (NCT02968901) enrolled 46 adults who were newly diagnosed with PAH and had medium functional ability (WHO functional class II-III). The patients’ mean age was 57.4 ± 14.9 years, and 65% of them were female.
The mean time from PAH diagnosis was 29.6 ± 55.2 days. Patients had idiopathic PAH (63%), PAH associated with connective tissue disease (19.6%), heritable PAH (6.5%), drug- or toxin-induced PAH (4.4%), HIV-associated PAH (2.2%), and “other” PAH (4.4%).
Patients initially received macitentan at 10 mg once daily and tadalafil at 20 mg once daily. After 8 ± 3 days, the tadalafil dose was increased to 40 mg once daily. The median duration of treatment was 19.9 months.
The researchers assessed efficacy at week 16, but patients were monitored for safety until the study was closed by the sponsor. There were 44 patients who remained on study through week 16, and 39 patients completed the study.
Results
The study’s primary endpoint was the change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). The ratio of week 16 to baseline PVR was 0.53, which translates to a significant 47% reduction in PVR. In fact, 87% of patients had a 30% or greater decrease in PVR from baseline to week 16.
Patients had improvements in other endpoints as well. The mean cardiac index increased from 2.2 to 3.1 L/min/m2 (P less than .0001) from baseline to week 16. The mean pulmonary arterial pressure decreased from 50.0 to 42.2 mm Hg (P = .0002), and the mean right atrial pressure decreased from 8.1 to 7.8 mm Hg (P = .7321).
The mean mixed venous oxygen saturation increased from 63.0% to 68.2% (P = .0003). The mean total pulmonary resistance decreased from 1109.4 to 677.4 dynes/sec/cm-5 (P less than .0001).
NT-proBNP decreased 68% from baseline to week 16. The geometric mean ratio was 0.32 (P less than .0001). The 6-minute walk distance increased from 352.2 to 388.1 m (P = .0008).
None of the patients experienced a worsening of WHO functional class from baseline to week 16, and 63% of patients experienced an improvement.
Nearly 94% of patients (n = 43) had at least one adverse event, 28% (n = 13) had serious adverse events, and 6.5% (n = 3) stopped treatment because of adverse events. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (n = 13), headache (n = 11), diarrhea (n = 9), and dyspnea (n = 7).
Three patients died during follow-up, one due to multiorgan failure and two due to underlying disease.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals funded the trial. Dr. Sitbon disclosed relationships with Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Merck, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Gossamer Bio, and Ferrer.
SOURCE: Sitbon O et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.825.
NEW ORLEANS – Treatment with macitentan and tadalafil can elicit improvements in patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), trial results suggest.
In the phase 4 OPTIMA trial, the combination significantly improved cardiopulmonary hemodynamics, functional class, 6-minute walk distance, and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
Olivier Sitbon, MD, PhD, of Université Paris–Sud in France, presented these results at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
The OPTIMA trial (NCT02968901) enrolled 46 adults who were newly diagnosed with PAH and had medium functional ability (WHO functional class II-III). The patients’ mean age was 57.4 ± 14.9 years, and 65% of them were female.
The mean time from PAH diagnosis was 29.6 ± 55.2 days. Patients had idiopathic PAH (63%), PAH associated with connective tissue disease (19.6%), heritable PAH (6.5%), drug- or toxin-induced PAH (4.4%), HIV-associated PAH (2.2%), and “other” PAH (4.4%).
Patients initially received macitentan at 10 mg once daily and tadalafil at 20 mg once daily. After 8 ± 3 days, the tadalafil dose was increased to 40 mg once daily. The median duration of treatment was 19.9 months.
The researchers assessed efficacy at week 16, but patients were monitored for safety until the study was closed by the sponsor. There were 44 patients who remained on study through week 16, and 39 patients completed the study.
Results
The study’s primary endpoint was the change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). The ratio of week 16 to baseline PVR was 0.53, which translates to a significant 47% reduction in PVR. In fact, 87% of patients had a 30% or greater decrease in PVR from baseline to week 16.
Patients had improvements in other endpoints as well. The mean cardiac index increased from 2.2 to 3.1 L/min/m2 (P less than .0001) from baseline to week 16. The mean pulmonary arterial pressure decreased from 50.0 to 42.2 mm Hg (P = .0002), and the mean right atrial pressure decreased from 8.1 to 7.8 mm Hg (P = .7321).
The mean mixed venous oxygen saturation increased from 63.0% to 68.2% (P = .0003). The mean total pulmonary resistance decreased from 1109.4 to 677.4 dynes/sec/cm-5 (P less than .0001).
NT-proBNP decreased 68% from baseline to week 16. The geometric mean ratio was 0.32 (P less than .0001). The 6-minute walk distance increased from 352.2 to 388.1 m (P = .0008).
None of the patients experienced a worsening of WHO functional class from baseline to week 16, and 63% of patients experienced an improvement.
Nearly 94% of patients (n = 43) had at least one adverse event, 28% (n = 13) had serious adverse events, and 6.5% (n = 3) stopped treatment because of adverse events. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (n = 13), headache (n = 11), diarrhea (n = 9), and dyspnea (n = 7).
Three patients died during follow-up, one due to multiorgan failure and two due to underlying disease.
Actelion Pharmaceuticals funded the trial. Dr. Sitbon disclosed relationships with Actelion, Bayer, GSK, Merck, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Gossamer Bio, and Ferrer.
SOURCE: Sitbon O et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.825.
REPORTING FROM CHEST 2019
Native Americans appear to be at increased risk for AFib
Over 4 years, atrial fibrillation (AFib) developed significantly more often in a group of Native Americans men than it did among other racial and ethnic groups, a large longitudinal cohort study has found.
The overall incidence among Native Americans was 7.49 per 1,000 person-years – significantly higher than the incidence in a comparator cohort of black, white, Asian, and Hispanic men, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in Circulation.
“We were surprised to find that American Indians experienced a higher risk of atrial fibrillation, compared to every other racial and ethnic group,” Dr. Marcus said in a press release that accompanied the study. “Understanding the mechanisms and factors by which American Indians experience this higher risk may help investigators better understand the fundamental causes of atrial fibrillation that prove useful to everyone at risk for AFib, regardless of their race or ethnicity.”
The team plumbed the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) California state databases for information on more than 16 million cases of AFib that occurred during 2005-2011. Native Americans comprised just 0.6% of the cohort. Most of the patients (57.2%) were white; 8% were black, 25.6% Hispanic, and 8.6% Asian. After targeting only new-onset cases, there were 344,469 incident AFib episodes over a median follow-up of 4.1 years.
The overall incidence of AFib in Native Americans was 7.49 per 1,000 person-years, significantly higher than the 6.89 per 1000 person-years observed in the rest of the cohort ( P less than .0001). The difference remained significant even after the team controlled for age, sex, income, and heart and other diseases. Nor was it altered by a sensitivity analysis that controlled for place of presentation and patients who were aged at least 35 years with at least two encounters with medical facilities.
In an interaction analysis, the increased risk appeared to be driven by higher rates of diabetes and chronic kidney disease, the authors wrote.
“This may suggest that the presence of these two processes contributes some pathophysiology related to AF[ib] risk that may be similar to the heightened risk inherent among American Indians,” they wrote. “It is also important to note that there was no evidence of any other statistically significant interactions despite the inclusion of millions of patients.”
Supporting data for these associations were not included in the research letter.
The authors noted some limitations of their study. Race or ethnicity were self-reported and could not be independently confirmed, so there was no way to tease out the effects in multiracial patients. Also, the database didn’t record outpatient encounters, which might result in some selection bias.
“Last, because this was an observational study, these results should not be interpreted as evidence of causal effect,” they noted.
“In conclusion, we observed that American Indians had a higher risk of atrial fibrillation, compared with all other racial and ethnic group. The heightened risk … in American Indians persisted after multivariable adjustment for known conventional confounders and mediators, suggesting that an unidentified characteristic, including possible genetic or environmental factors, may be responsible,” the investigators wrote.
The HCUP database is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Marcus reported receiving research support from Jawbone, Medtronic, Eight, and Baylis Medical, and is a consultant for and holds equity in InCarda Therapeutics. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Marcus GM et al. Circulation. 2019 Oct 21. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042882.
Over 4 years, atrial fibrillation (AFib) developed significantly more often in a group of Native Americans men than it did among other racial and ethnic groups, a large longitudinal cohort study has found.
The overall incidence among Native Americans was 7.49 per 1,000 person-years – significantly higher than the incidence in a comparator cohort of black, white, Asian, and Hispanic men, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in Circulation.
“We were surprised to find that American Indians experienced a higher risk of atrial fibrillation, compared to every other racial and ethnic group,” Dr. Marcus said in a press release that accompanied the study. “Understanding the mechanisms and factors by which American Indians experience this higher risk may help investigators better understand the fundamental causes of atrial fibrillation that prove useful to everyone at risk for AFib, regardless of their race or ethnicity.”
The team plumbed the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) California state databases for information on more than 16 million cases of AFib that occurred during 2005-2011. Native Americans comprised just 0.6% of the cohort. Most of the patients (57.2%) were white; 8% were black, 25.6% Hispanic, and 8.6% Asian. After targeting only new-onset cases, there were 344,469 incident AFib episodes over a median follow-up of 4.1 years.
The overall incidence of AFib in Native Americans was 7.49 per 1,000 person-years, significantly higher than the 6.89 per 1000 person-years observed in the rest of the cohort ( P less than .0001). The difference remained significant even after the team controlled for age, sex, income, and heart and other diseases. Nor was it altered by a sensitivity analysis that controlled for place of presentation and patients who were aged at least 35 years with at least two encounters with medical facilities.
In an interaction analysis, the increased risk appeared to be driven by higher rates of diabetes and chronic kidney disease, the authors wrote.
“This may suggest that the presence of these two processes contributes some pathophysiology related to AF[ib] risk that may be similar to the heightened risk inherent among American Indians,” they wrote. “It is also important to note that there was no evidence of any other statistically significant interactions despite the inclusion of millions of patients.”
Supporting data for these associations were not included in the research letter.
The authors noted some limitations of their study. Race or ethnicity were self-reported and could not be independently confirmed, so there was no way to tease out the effects in multiracial patients. Also, the database didn’t record outpatient encounters, which might result in some selection bias.
“Last, because this was an observational study, these results should not be interpreted as evidence of causal effect,” they noted.
“In conclusion, we observed that American Indians had a higher risk of atrial fibrillation, compared with all other racial and ethnic group. The heightened risk … in American Indians persisted after multivariable adjustment for known conventional confounders and mediators, suggesting that an unidentified characteristic, including possible genetic or environmental factors, may be responsible,” the investigators wrote.
The HCUP database is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Marcus reported receiving research support from Jawbone, Medtronic, Eight, and Baylis Medical, and is a consultant for and holds equity in InCarda Therapeutics. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Marcus GM et al. Circulation. 2019 Oct 21. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042882.
Over 4 years, atrial fibrillation (AFib) developed significantly more often in a group of Native Americans men than it did among other racial and ethnic groups, a large longitudinal cohort study has found.
The overall incidence among Native Americans was 7.49 per 1,000 person-years – significantly higher than the incidence in a comparator cohort of black, white, Asian, and Hispanic men, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in Circulation.
“We were surprised to find that American Indians experienced a higher risk of atrial fibrillation, compared to every other racial and ethnic group,” Dr. Marcus said in a press release that accompanied the study. “Understanding the mechanisms and factors by which American Indians experience this higher risk may help investigators better understand the fundamental causes of atrial fibrillation that prove useful to everyone at risk for AFib, regardless of their race or ethnicity.”
The team plumbed the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) California state databases for information on more than 16 million cases of AFib that occurred during 2005-2011. Native Americans comprised just 0.6% of the cohort. Most of the patients (57.2%) were white; 8% were black, 25.6% Hispanic, and 8.6% Asian. After targeting only new-onset cases, there were 344,469 incident AFib episodes over a median follow-up of 4.1 years.
The overall incidence of AFib in Native Americans was 7.49 per 1,000 person-years, significantly higher than the 6.89 per 1000 person-years observed in the rest of the cohort ( P less than .0001). The difference remained significant even after the team controlled for age, sex, income, and heart and other diseases. Nor was it altered by a sensitivity analysis that controlled for place of presentation and patients who were aged at least 35 years with at least two encounters with medical facilities.
In an interaction analysis, the increased risk appeared to be driven by higher rates of diabetes and chronic kidney disease, the authors wrote.
“This may suggest that the presence of these two processes contributes some pathophysiology related to AF[ib] risk that may be similar to the heightened risk inherent among American Indians,” they wrote. “It is also important to note that there was no evidence of any other statistically significant interactions despite the inclusion of millions of patients.”
Supporting data for these associations were not included in the research letter.
The authors noted some limitations of their study. Race or ethnicity were self-reported and could not be independently confirmed, so there was no way to tease out the effects in multiracial patients. Also, the database didn’t record outpatient encounters, which might result in some selection bias.
“Last, because this was an observational study, these results should not be interpreted as evidence of causal effect,” they noted.
“In conclusion, we observed that American Indians had a higher risk of atrial fibrillation, compared with all other racial and ethnic group. The heightened risk … in American Indians persisted after multivariable adjustment for known conventional confounders and mediators, suggesting that an unidentified characteristic, including possible genetic or environmental factors, may be responsible,” the investigators wrote.
The HCUP database is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Marcus reported receiving research support from Jawbone, Medtronic, Eight, and Baylis Medical, and is a consultant for and holds equity in InCarda Therapeutics. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Marcus GM et al. Circulation. 2019 Oct 21. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042882.
FROM CIRCULATION
Is carpal tunnel syndrome the tip of the iceberg?
He takes the following medications: felodipine and atorvastatin. On exam, his blood pressure is 110/60 mm Hg, and his pulse is 90 beats per minute.
A cardiac examination found normal heart sounds with no murmurs.
A chest examination found dullness to percussion at both bases and rales.
A chest x-ray showed bilateral effusions and mild pulmonary edema.
The brain natriuretic peptide test found a level of 1,300 picograms/mL.
An ECG found increased ventricular wall thickness, an ejection fraction of 32%, and normal aortic and mitral valves.
What history would be the most helpful in making a diagnosis?
A. History of prostate cancer
B. History of carpal tunnel syndrome
C. History of playing professional football
D. History of hyperlipidemia
E. History of ulcerative colitis
The correct answer here would be B. history of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This patient has clinical heart failure, without a history of clinical ischemic disease. The differential diagnosis for causes of heart failure is long, with the most common causes being chronic hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Other common causes include chronic untreated sleep apnea and valvular heart disease.
This patient really does not have clear reasons for having clinical heart failure. His cardiovascular risk factors have been well controlled, and no valvular disease was found on ECG.
Several recent reports have raised the importance of a history of CTS significantly increasing the likelihood of amyloidosis being the cause of underlying heart failure.
CTS is such a common clinical entity that it is easy to not appreciate its presence as a clue to possible amyloid cardiomyopathy. Fosbøl et al. reported that a diagnosis of CTS was associated with a higher incidence of heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.54; CI, 1.45-1.64).1 They found a highly increased risk of amyloid (HR, 12.2) in patients who had surgery for CTS.
Sperry et al. found that over 10% of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release stained for amyloid on biopsy specimens, and that concomitant cardiac evaluation identified patients with cardiac involvement.2
Pinney et al. found that 48% of patients with transthyretin amyloidosis had a history of CTS.3
In a retrospective study of patients with wild-type transthyretin amyloid (253), patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloid (136), and asymptomatic gene carriers (77), participants were screened for a history of spinal stenosis and CTS.4 Almost 60% of the patients with amyloid had a history of CTS, and 11% had a history of spinal stenosis. Patients with CTS and hereditary amyloid had thicker interventricular septums, higher left ventricular mass, and lower Karnovsky index than those without CTS.
The diagnosis of CTS, especially in those who need surgery for treatment or have bilateral disease, should make us consider the possibility of underlying amyloidosis.
Pearl: In patients who have heart failure and a history of CTS, amyloidosis should be considered as a cause.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at that university. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Fosbøl EL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:15-23.
2. Sperry BW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 23;72(17):2040-50.
3. Pinney JH et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013 Apr 22;2(2):e000098.
4. Aus dem Siepen F et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Apr 5. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01467-1.
He takes the following medications: felodipine and atorvastatin. On exam, his blood pressure is 110/60 mm Hg, and his pulse is 90 beats per minute.
A cardiac examination found normal heart sounds with no murmurs.
A chest examination found dullness to percussion at both bases and rales.
A chest x-ray showed bilateral effusions and mild pulmonary edema.
The brain natriuretic peptide test found a level of 1,300 picograms/mL.
An ECG found increased ventricular wall thickness, an ejection fraction of 32%, and normal aortic and mitral valves.
What history would be the most helpful in making a diagnosis?
A. History of prostate cancer
B. History of carpal tunnel syndrome
C. History of playing professional football
D. History of hyperlipidemia
E. History of ulcerative colitis
The correct answer here would be B. history of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This patient has clinical heart failure, without a history of clinical ischemic disease. The differential diagnosis for causes of heart failure is long, with the most common causes being chronic hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Other common causes include chronic untreated sleep apnea and valvular heart disease.
This patient really does not have clear reasons for having clinical heart failure. His cardiovascular risk factors have been well controlled, and no valvular disease was found on ECG.
Several recent reports have raised the importance of a history of CTS significantly increasing the likelihood of amyloidosis being the cause of underlying heart failure.
CTS is such a common clinical entity that it is easy to not appreciate its presence as a clue to possible amyloid cardiomyopathy. Fosbøl et al. reported that a diagnosis of CTS was associated with a higher incidence of heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.54; CI, 1.45-1.64).1 They found a highly increased risk of amyloid (HR, 12.2) in patients who had surgery for CTS.
Sperry et al. found that over 10% of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release stained for amyloid on biopsy specimens, and that concomitant cardiac evaluation identified patients with cardiac involvement.2
Pinney et al. found that 48% of patients with transthyretin amyloidosis had a history of CTS.3
In a retrospective study of patients with wild-type transthyretin amyloid (253), patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloid (136), and asymptomatic gene carriers (77), participants were screened for a history of spinal stenosis and CTS.4 Almost 60% of the patients with amyloid had a history of CTS, and 11% had a history of spinal stenosis. Patients with CTS and hereditary amyloid had thicker interventricular septums, higher left ventricular mass, and lower Karnovsky index than those without CTS.
The diagnosis of CTS, especially in those who need surgery for treatment or have bilateral disease, should make us consider the possibility of underlying amyloidosis.
Pearl: In patients who have heart failure and a history of CTS, amyloidosis should be considered as a cause.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at that university. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Fosbøl EL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:15-23.
2. Sperry BW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 23;72(17):2040-50.
3. Pinney JH et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013 Apr 22;2(2):e000098.
4. Aus dem Siepen F et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Apr 5. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01467-1.
He takes the following medications: felodipine and atorvastatin. On exam, his blood pressure is 110/60 mm Hg, and his pulse is 90 beats per minute.
A cardiac examination found normal heart sounds with no murmurs.
A chest examination found dullness to percussion at both bases and rales.
A chest x-ray showed bilateral effusions and mild pulmonary edema.
The brain natriuretic peptide test found a level of 1,300 picograms/mL.
An ECG found increased ventricular wall thickness, an ejection fraction of 32%, and normal aortic and mitral valves.
What history would be the most helpful in making a diagnosis?
A. History of prostate cancer
B. History of carpal tunnel syndrome
C. History of playing professional football
D. History of hyperlipidemia
E. History of ulcerative colitis
The correct answer here would be B. history of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This patient has clinical heart failure, without a history of clinical ischemic disease. The differential diagnosis for causes of heart failure is long, with the most common causes being chronic hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Other common causes include chronic untreated sleep apnea and valvular heart disease.
This patient really does not have clear reasons for having clinical heart failure. His cardiovascular risk factors have been well controlled, and no valvular disease was found on ECG.
Several recent reports have raised the importance of a history of CTS significantly increasing the likelihood of amyloidosis being the cause of underlying heart failure.
CTS is such a common clinical entity that it is easy to not appreciate its presence as a clue to possible amyloid cardiomyopathy. Fosbøl et al. reported that a diagnosis of CTS was associated with a higher incidence of heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.54; CI, 1.45-1.64).1 They found a highly increased risk of amyloid (HR, 12.2) in patients who had surgery for CTS.
Sperry et al. found that over 10% of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release stained for amyloid on biopsy specimens, and that concomitant cardiac evaluation identified patients with cardiac involvement.2
Pinney et al. found that 48% of patients with transthyretin amyloidosis had a history of CTS.3
In a retrospective study of patients with wild-type transthyretin amyloid (253), patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloid (136), and asymptomatic gene carriers (77), participants were screened for a history of spinal stenosis and CTS.4 Almost 60% of the patients with amyloid had a history of CTS, and 11% had a history of spinal stenosis. Patients with CTS and hereditary amyloid had thicker interventricular septums, higher left ventricular mass, and lower Karnovsky index than those without CTS.
The diagnosis of CTS, especially in those who need surgery for treatment or have bilateral disease, should make us consider the possibility of underlying amyloidosis.
Pearl: In patients who have heart failure and a history of CTS, amyloidosis should be considered as a cause.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at that university. Contact Dr. Paauw at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Fosbøl EL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:15-23.
2. Sperry BW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 23;72(17):2040-50.
3. Pinney JH et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013 Apr 22;2(2):e000098.
4. Aus dem Siepen F et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Apr 5. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01467-1.
Patiromer allows more CKD patients to continue on spironolactone
PHILADELPHIA – Among patients with chronic kidney disease with resistant hypertension, coadministration of patiromer enables more patients to stay on spironolactone, Bryan Williams, MD, of University College London, said at the scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
Having the potassium-binding polymer on board allowed for more persistent use of spironolactone, both in the subgroup of patients with heart failure, and those without, he said in a late-breaking clinical trials session.
In the international, phase 2 AMBER (Spironolactone With Patiromer in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial, 295 patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate from 25 to 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were randomly assigned to treatment with spironolactone either placebo (148) or patiromer (147).
, for a significant between-group difference of 19.5% (P less than .0001). In addition, blood pressure lowering was significantly greater in the patiromer (–11.7 mm Hg) than in the placebo (–10.8 mm Hg) group. Results of the AMBER trial were published concurrently with Dr. Williams’ presentation (Lancet 2019 Sep 15; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32135-X).
While spironolactone is a “highly effective” drug, studies supporting guideline recommendations for its use in resistant hypertension have largely excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease because of increased risk of developing spironolactone-induced hyperkalemia, Dr. Williams told attendees. It remains unclear, however, whether coadministration of patiromer will improve long-term outcomes. Also, many placebo-treated patients in AMBER were able to continue on spironolactone without the help of patiromer, prompting one attendee to question whether there was a smarter way to target the drug, rather than treating all patients up front.
“I don’t think it’s going to be easy to say, ‘this patient’s going to respond, and this patient’s not going to respond,’ ” Dr. Williams said in response, “but at least we have an opportunity to try now in a group of patients who simply may be denied treatment because of a perception that it is difficult to use spironolactone in them.”
That perception is actually not unreasonable, he added, given that 66% of patients in the placebo group in AMBER developed hyperkalemia, suggesting that spironolactone is “not an easy drug to use” in chronic kidney disease patients.
John Teerlink, MD, of the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said the AMBER study is “another building block” in a series of developments of enabling therapies.
“I think it’s a great message for all of us to begin thinking about other therapies we can use to help modify our use of these potential life-saving therapies,” he said in a panel discussion of the results.
Patiromer’s impact on longer-term outcomes is the focus of DIAMOND, a phase 3, randomized, placebo controlled trial that is currently recruiting. DIAMOND will determine whether giving patiromer to patients who developed hyperkalemia on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors decreases cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations, by virtue of enabling continued RAAS inhibitor use.
Funding for AMBER came from Relypsa, which markets patiromer (Veltassa). Dr. Williams reported consulting for Relypsa during the conduct of the study, along with disclosures outside the scope of the AMBER study (Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vascular Dynamics).
SOURCE: Williams B. HFSA 2019.
PHILADELPHIA – Among patients with chronic kidney disease with resistant hypertension, coadministration of patiromer enables more patients to stay on spironolactone, Bryan Williams, MD, of University College London, said at the scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
Having the potassium-binding polymer on board allowed for more persistent use of spironolactone, both in the subgroup of patients with heart failure, and those without, he said in a late-breaking clinical trials session.
In the international, phase 2 AMBER (Spironolactone With Patiromer in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial, 295 patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate from 25 to 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were randomly assigned to treatment with spironolactone either placebo (148) or patiromer (147).
, for a significant between-group difference of 19.5% (P less than .0001). In addition, blood pressure lowering was significantly greater in the patiromer (–11.7 mm Hg) than in the placebo (–10.8 mm Hg) group. Results of the AMBER trial were published concurrently with Dr. Williams’ presentation (Lancet 2019 Sep 15; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32135-X).
While spironolactone is a “highly effective” drug, studies supporting guideline recommendations for its use in resistant hypertension have largely excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease because of increased risk of developing spironolactone-induced hyperkalemia, Dr. Williams told attendees. It remains unclear, however, whether coadministration of patiromer will improve long-term outcomes. Also, many placebo-treated patients in AMBER were able to continue on spironolactone without the help of patiromer, prompting one attendee to question whether there was a smarter way to target the drug, rather than treating all patients up front.
“I don’t think it’s going to be easy to say, ‘this patient’s going to respond, and this patient’s not going to respond,’ ” Dr. Williams said in response, “but at least we have an opportunity to try now in a group of patients who simply may be denied treatment because of a perception that it is difficult to use spironolactone in them.”
That perception is actually not unreasonable, he added, given that 66% of patients in the placebo group in AMBER developed hyperkalemia, suggesting that spironolactone is “not an easy drug to use” in chronic kidney disease patients.
John Teerlink, MD, of the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said the AMBER study is “another building block” in a series of developments of enabling therapies.
“I think it’s a great message for all of us to begin thinking about other therapies we can use to help modify our use of these potential life-saving therapies,” he said in a panel discussion of the results.
Patiromer’s impact on longer-term outcomes is the focus of DIAMOND, a phase 3, randomized, placebo controlled trial that is currently recruiting. DIAMOND will determine whether giving patiromer to patients who developed hyperkalemia on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors decreases cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations, by virtue of enabling continued RAAS inhibitor use.
Funding for AMBER came from Relypsa, which markets patiromer (Veltassa). Dr. Williams reported consulting for Relypsa during the conduct of the study, along with disclosures outside the scope of the AMBER study (Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vascular Dynamics).
SOURCE: Williams B. HFSA 2019.
PHILADELPHIA – Among patients with chronic kidney disease with resistant hypertension, coadministration of patiromer enables more patients to stay on spironolactone, Bryan Williams, MD, of University College London, said at the scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
Having the potassium-binding polymer on board allowed for more persistent use of spironolactone, both in the subgroup of patients with heart failure, and those without, he said in a late-breaking clinical trials session.
In the international, phase 2 AMBER (Spironolactone With Patiromer in the Treatment of Resistant Hypertension in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial, 295 patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate from 25 to 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were randomly assigned to treatment with spironolactone either placebo (148) or patiromer (147).
, for a significant between-group difference of 19.5% (P less than .0001). In addition, blood pressure lowering was significantly greater in the patiromer (–11.7 mm Hg) than in the placebo (–10.8 mm Hg) group. Results of the AMBER trial were published concurrently with Dr. Williams’ presentation (Lancet 2019 Sep 15; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32135-X).
While spironolactone is a “highly effective” drug, studies supporting guideline recommendations for its use in resistant hypertension have largely excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease because of increased risk of developing spironolactone-induced hyperkalemia, Dr. Williams told attendees. It remains unclear, however, whether coadministration of patiromer will improve long-term outcomes. Also, many placebo-treated patients in AMBER were able to continue on spironolactone without the help of patiromer, prompting one attendee to question whether there was a smarter way to target the drug, rather than treating all patients up front.
“I don’t think it’s going to be easy to say, ‘this patient’s going to respond, and this patient’s not going to respond,’ ” Dr. Williams said in response, “but at least we have an opportunity to try now in a group of patients who simply may be denied treatment because of a perception that it is difficult to use spironolactone in them.”
That perception is actually not unreasonable, he added, given that 66% of patients in the placebo group in AMBER developed hyperkalemia, suggesting that spironolactone is “not an easy drug to use” in chronic kidney disease patients.
John Teerlink, MD, of the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said the AMBER study is “another building block” in a series of developments of enabling therapies.
“I think it’s a great message for all of us to begin thinking about other therapies we can use to help modify our use of these potential life-saving therapies,” he said in a panel discussion of the results.
Patiromer’s impact on longer-term outcomes is the focus of DIAMOND, a phase 3, randomized, placebo controlled trial that is currently recruiting. DIAMOND will determine whether giving patiromer to patients who developed hyperkalemia on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors decreases cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations, by virtue of enabling continued RAAS inhibitor use.
Funding for AMBER came from Relypsa, which markets patiromer (Veltassa). Dr. Williams reported consulting for Relypsa during the conduct of the study, along with disclosures outside the scope of the AMBER study (Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vascular Dynamics).
SOURCE: Williams B. HFSA 2019.
REPORTING FROM HFSA 2019
Dapagliflozin approved for reducing HF hospitalization in diabetes
The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.
The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).
The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.
“,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.
The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.
The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).
The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.
“,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.
The Food And Drug Administration has approved the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) for reducing the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, according to a statement from AstraZeneca.
The approval was based on results from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcomes trial, which evaluated dapagliflozin in more than 17,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease. They showed that dapagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for heart failure by 27%, compared with placebo (2.5% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.88).
The drug is an oral, once-daily SGLT2 inhibitor initially approved as a monotherapy or combination therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It has additional benefits of weight loss and reduction in blood pressure in concert with diet and exercise in the same population.
“,” Ruud Dobber, PhD, executive vice president of the company’s biopharmaceuticals business unit, said in the statement. “This is promising news for the 30 million people living with type 2 diabetes in the U.S., as heart failure is one of the earliest cardiovascular complications for them, before heart attack or stroke. [Dapagliflozin] now offers the opportunity for physicians to act sooner and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”
In September, the agency granted dapagliflozin a Fast Track designation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, or the worsening of heart failure in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction, based on the phase 3 DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials. It also gave the drug Fast Track designation to delay the progression of renal failure and prevent CV and renal death in patients with chronic kidney disease based on the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial, the statement noted.