User login
MDedge conference coverage features onsite reporting of the latest study results and expert perspectives from leading researchers.
Clopidogrel bests ticagrelor head-to-head for elective PCI in ALPHEUS
Ticagrelor failed to unseat clopidogrel as the guideline-recommended P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention for stable CAD in the randomized ALPHEUS trial.
“The higher level of platelet inhibition obtained with ticagrelor does not translate into a reduction of periprocedural MI or myocardial injury within 48 hours of high-risk PCI performed in stable coronary patients,” reported Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Sorbonne University and director of the ICU at Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Ticagrelor did, however, result in a significantly higher rate of nuisance or minor bleeding than clopidogrel within 30 days post PCI, as well as more frequent dyspnea and treatment discontinuation.
ALPHEUS was an open-label, randomized trial including 1,883 patients undergoing elective PCI for stable coronary disease at 49 French or Czech PCI centers. All participants were either troponin-negative or had a modestly elevated but declining high-sensitivity troponin level. They possessed an average of 3.2 procedure-related or patient-related high-risk features, among the most common of which were multivessel disease, long lesions requiring multiple stents, and diabetes. Patients were randomized to a 300- or 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel (Kengreal) or 180 mg of ticagrelor (Brilinta) prior to PCI. Afterwards they continued on 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily or 75 mg of clopidogrel once daily for 30 days. Everyone was also on aspirin.
Myonecrosis hypothesis falls flat
The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major myocardial injury, defined as a periprocedural troponin elevated greater than 5 times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours of PCI; type 4a MI, defined as major myocardial injury plus signs or symptoms of ischemia; or stent thrombosis.
The rates were closely similar: 35.5% with ticagrelor, 36.2% with clopidogrel. The bulk of events consisted of major myocardial injury, with an incidence of 26.7% in the ticagrelor group and 27.7% with clopidogrel. Stent thrombosis occurred in 0.3% of patients in each group. Type 4a MI occurred in 8.5% of the ticagrelor group and 8.2% of patients on clopidogrel.
The study hypothesis was that a substantial portion of periprocedural myonecrosis may be thrombotic in nature, and that a stronger P2Y12 inhibitor could reduce the occurrence of these mini-infarcts and thus provide patient benefit. But the hypothesis was not borne out.
“We don’t know if these events are a risk factor or just a marker of risk,” Dr. Silvain said.
There were no between-group differences in major bleeding events at 48 hours or 30 days. However, the rate of nuisance or minor bleeding at 30 days was 11.2% in the ticagrelor arm, significantly higher than the 7.5% incidence with clopidogrel. Moreover, dyspnea occurred in 11.2% of patients on ticagrelor, compared to 0.2% with clopidogrel. Study drug discontinuation was more frequent in the ticagrelor arm: 2.2%, versus 0.4%.
Dr. Silvain also presented a pooled analysis of the 1,883 patients in ALPHEUS plus 781 from the similarly designed SASSICAIA trial, which compared prasugrel (Effient) to clopidogrel. Neither of the more potent P2Y12 inhibitors showed superiority over clopidogrel.
Discussant Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, summed things up: “With no evidence for ischemic benefit and higher rates of low-severity bleeding, this trial does not support the use of more potent P2Y12 antagonists for elective PCI. Based on these results, and consistent with SASSICAIA, aspirin with clopidogrel should remain the standard of care in this population.”
Troponin response may vary
A striking finding in ALPHEUS was the discrepancy between very high rates of periprocedural troponin elevation and very low rates of clinical events through 30 days of follow-up. “When you look at these modest elevations of troponin it appears that there is a lot of noise here,” said Dr. Wiviott, vice president for clinical trials research and administration at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Troponin elevations in stable coronary patients undergoing PCI may have a different underlying mechanism than elevated troponins in patients undergoing PCI for an acute coronary syndrome, he added. In stable CAD patients, the phenomenon may be more related to atherosclerosis than to platelet activation and thrombosis.
During a panel discussion, Sunil V. Rao, MD, said cardiologists are “probably going to have to go back to the drawing board and think about what kinds of events are really, really important.”
“It’s incumbent on our profession to figure out whether periprocedural MI should continue to be a component of the composite endpoint in PCI trials, because it’s highly dependent on the definition that’s being used,” observed Dr. Rao, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Silvain reported receiving institutional research funding and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, which funded the ALPHEUS trial. He serves as a consultant to a handful of other pharmaceutical companies as well.
Simultaneously with Dr. Silvain’s presentation at AHA 2020, the ALPHEUS results were published online in The Lancet.
SOURCE: Silvain J. AHA 2020. Session LBS 3.
Ticagrelor failed to unseat clopidogrel as the guideline-recommended P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention for stable CAD in the randomized ALPHEUS trial.
“The higher level of platelet inhibition obtained with ticagrelor does not translate into a reduction of periprocedural MI or myocardial injury within 48 hours of high-risk PCI performed in stable coronary patients,” reported Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Sorbonne University and director of the ICU at Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Ticagrelor did, however, result in a significantly higher rate of nuisance or minor bleeding than clopidogrel within 30 days post PCI, as well as more frequent dyspnea and treatment discontinuation.
ALPHEUS was an open-label, randomized trial including 1,883 patients undergoing elective PCI for stable coronary disease at 49 French or Czech PCI centers. All participants were either troponin-negative or had a modestly elevated but declining high-sensitivity troponin level. They possessed an average of 3.2 procedure-related or patient-related high-risk features, among the most common of which were multivessel disease, long lesions requiring multiple stents, and diabetes. Patients were randomized to a 300- or 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel (Kengreal) or 180 mg of ticagrelor (Brilinta) prior to PCI. Afterwards they continued on 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily or 75 mg of clopidogrel once daily for 30 days. Everyone was also on aspirin.
Myonecrosis hypothesis falls flat
The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major myocardial injury, defined as a periprocedural troponin elevated greater than 5 times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours of PCI; type 4a MI, defined as major myocardial injury plus signs or symptoms of ischemia; or stent thrombosis.
The rates were closely similar: 35.5% with ticagrelor, 36.2% with clopidogrel. The bulk of events consisted of major myocardial injury, with an incidence of 26.7% in the ticagrelor group and 27.7% with clopidogrel. Stent thrombosis occurred in 0.3% of patients in each group. Type 4a MI occurred in 8.5% of the ticagrelor group and 8.2% of patients on clopidogrel.
The study hypothesis was that a substantial portion of periprocedural myonecrosis may be thrombotic in nature, and that a stronger P2Y12 inhibitor could reduce the occurrence of these mini-infarcts and thus provide patient benefit. But the hypothesis was not borne out.
“We don’t know if these events are a risk factor or just a marker of risk,” Dr. Silvain said.
There were no between-group differences in major bleeding events at 48 hours or 30 days. However, the rate of nuisance or minor bleeding at 30 days was 11.2% in the ticagrelor arm, significantly higher than the 7.5% incidence with clopidogrel. Moreover, dyspnea occurred in 11.2% of patients on ticagrelor, compared to 0.2% with clopidogrel. Study drug discontinuation was more frequent in the ticagrelor arm: 2.2%, versus 0.4%.
Dr. Silvain also presented a pooled analysis of the 1,883 patients in ALPHEUS plus 781 from the similarly designed SASSICAIA trial, which compared prasugrel (Effient) to clopidogrel. Neither of the more potent P2Y12 inhibitors showed superiority over clopidogrel.
Discussant Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, summed things up: “With no evidence for ischemic benefit and higher rates of low-severity bleeding, this trial does not support the use of more potent P2Y12 antagonists for elective PCI. Based on these results, and consistent with SASSICAIA, aspirin with clopidogrel should remain the standard of care in this population.”
Troponin response may vary
A striking finding in ALPHEUS was the discrepancy between very high rates of periprocedural troponin elevation and very low rates of clinical events through 30 days of follow-up. “When you look at these modest elevations of troponin it appears that there is a lot of noise here,” said Dr. Wiviott, vice president for clinical trials research and administration at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Troponin elevations in stable coronary patients undergoing PCI may have a different underlying mechanism than elevated troponins in patients undergoing PCI for an acute coronary syndrome, he added. In stable CAD patients, the phenomenon may be more related to atherosclerosis than to platelet activation and thrombosis.
During a panel discussion, Sunil V. Rao, MD, said cardiologists are “probably going to have to go back to the drawing board and think about what kinds of events are really, really important.”
“It’s incumbent on our profession to figure out whether periprocedural MI should continue to be a component of the composite endpoint in PCI trials, because it’s highly dependent on the definition that’s being used,” observed Dr. Rao, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Silvain reported receiving institutional research funding and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, which funded the ALPHEUS trial. He serves as a consultant to a handful of other pharmaceutical companies as well.
Simultaneously with Dr. Silvain’s presentation at AHA 2020, the ALPHEUS results were published online in The Lancet.
SOURCE: Silvain J. AHA 2020. Session LBS 3.
Ticagrelor failed to unseat clopidogrel as the guideline-recommended P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention for stable CAD in the randomized ALPHEUS trial.
“The higher level of platelet inhibition obtained with ticagrelor does not translate into a reduction of periprocedural MI or myocardial injury within 48 hours of high-risk PCI performed in stable coronary patients,” reported Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the Sorbonne University and director of the ICU at Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Ticagrelor did, however, result in a significantly higher rate of nuisance or minor bleeding than clopidogrel within 30 days post PCI, as well as more frequent dyspnea and treatment discontinuation.
ALPHEUS was an open-label, randomized trial including 1,883 patients undergoing elective PCI for stable coronary disease at 49 French or Czech PCI centers. All participants were either troponin-negative or had a modestly elevated but declining high-sensitivity troponin level. They possessed an average of 3.2 procedure-related or patient-related high-risk features, among the most common of which were multivessel disease, long lesions requiring multiple stents, and diabetes. Patients were randomized to a 300- or 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel (Kengreal) or 180 mg of ticagrelor (Brilinta) prior to PCI. Afterwards they continued on 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily or 75 mg of clopidogrel once daily for 30 days. Everyone was also on aspirin.
Myonecrosis hypothesis falls flat
The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major myocardial injury, defined as a periprocedural troponin elevated greater than 5 times the upper limit of normal within 48 hours of PCI; type 4a MI, defined as major myocardial injury plus signs or symptoms of ischemia; or stent thrombosis.
The rates were closely similar: 35.5% with ticagrelor, 36.2% with clopidogrel. The bulk of events consisted of major myocardial injury, with an incidence of 26.7% in the ticagrelor group and 27.7% with clopidogrel. Stent thrombosis occurred in 0.3% of patients in each group. Type 4a MI occurred in 8.5% of the ticagrelor group and 8.2% of patients on clopidogrel.
The study hypothesis was that a substantial portion of periprocedural myonecrosis may be thrombotic in nature, and that a stronger P2Y12 inhibitor could reduce the occurrence of these mini-infarcts and thus provide patient benefit. But the hypothesis was not borne out.
“We don’t know if these events are a risk factor or just a marker of risk,” Dr. Silvain said.
There were no between-group differences in major bleeding events at 48 hours or 30 days. However, the rate of nuisance or minor bleeding at 30 days was 11.2% in the ticagrelor arm, significantly higher than the 7.5% incidence with clopidogrel. Moreover, dyspnea occurred in 11.2% of patients on ticagrelor, compared to 0.2% with clopidogrel. Study drug discontinuation was more frequent in the ticagrelor arm: 2.2%, versus 0.4%.
Dr. Silvain also presented a pooled analysis of the 1,883 patients in ALPHEUS plus 781 from the similarly designed SASSICAIA trial, which compared prasugrel (Effient) to clopidogrel. Neither of the more potent P2Y12 inhibitors showed superiority over clopidogrel.
Discussant Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, summed things up: “With no evidence for ischemic benefit and higher rates of low-severity bleeding, this trial does not support the use of more potent P2Y12 antagonists for elective PCI. Based on these results, and consistent with SASSICAIA, aspirin with clopidogrel should remain the standard of care in this population.”
Troponin response may vary
A striking finding in ALPHEUS was the discrepancy between very high rates of periprocedural troponin elevation and very low rates of clinical events through 30 days of follow-up. “When you look at these modest elevations of troponin it appears that there is a lot of noise here,” said Dr. Wiviott, vice president for clinical trials research and administration at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Troponin elevations in stable coronary patients undergoing PCI may have a different underlying mechanism than elevated troponins in patients undergoing PCI for an acute coronary syndrome, he added. In stable CAD patients, the phenomenon may be more related to atherosclerosis than to platelet activation and thrombosis.
During a panel discussion, Sunil V. Rao, MD, said cardiologists are “probably going to have to go back to the drawing board and think about what kinds of events are really, really important.”
“It’s incumbent on our profession to figure out whether periprocedural MI should continue to be a component of the composite endpoint in PCI trials, because it’s highly dependent on the definition that’s being used,” observed Dr. Rao, professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Silvain reported receiving institutional research funding and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, which funded the ALPHEUS trial. He serves as a consultant to a handful of other pharmaceutical companies as well.
Simultaneously with Dr. Silvain’s presentation at AHA 2020, the ALPHEUS results were published online in The Lancet.
SOURCE: Silvain J. AHA 2020. Session LBS 3.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2020
Intravenous iron reduces HF readmissions: AFFIRM-AHF
Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.
After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).
Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).
Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.
Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.
“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.
The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.
Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.
The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.
However, no such benefit was seen with oral IV in the IRONOUT trial. “So it seems if we are to replace iron, it needs to be done using intravenous therapy,” said John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was invited to discuss the results.
He observed that the reduction in HF hospitalizations in AFFIRM-AHF were relatively modest and that the trial was never expected to show a benefit on CV mortality. Also, the COVID-19 sensitivity analysis providing more convincing effects is a valid approach and one recommended by regulators.
Further, the findings are supported by independent evidence in chronic kidney disease, from the PIVOTAL trial, that intravenous iron reduces HF hospitalizations, McMurray said.
“The million-dollar question, of course, is what will the results of this study mean for the guidelines: I think they probably will change the guidelines,” he said. “Certainly, I hope they will change the US guidelines, which have really given a very lukewarm recommendation for intravenous iron and I think that should probably be stronger.”
In a class IIb recommendation, the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines say intravenous iron “might be reasonable” to improve functional status and quality of life in New York Heart Association class II and III patients with iron deficiency.
The 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines include a class IIa recommendation that IV iron “should be considered” in iron-deficient patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction.
“This is the first large-scale [trial] of IV supplementation that could potentially change the way we approach patients, particularly those with hospitalized heart failure,” past AHA president Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said during an earlier press briefing.
He pointed out that clinicians have been circumspect about the early IV iron data. “I have to congratulate you because you’ve changed the narrative,” Yancy said. “We have to start thinking about iron deficiency; we have to think about how we incorporate this in treatment protocols.”
Press briefing panelist Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, acknowledged he was among those circumspect.
“I’m no longer a skeptic and I want to congratulate them for showing it’s a risk factor,” he said. “It’s one thing to have a risk factor; it’s another to be a modifiable risk factor and I think that’s what’s so exciting about this.”
The double-blind, phase 4 AFFIRM-AHF trial randomly assigned 1132 patients to receive a bolus injection of ferric carboxymaltose or normal saline before hospital discharge for an acute HF episode. Subsequent treatment was given, as needed, up to 24 weeks post-randomization.
At admission, all patients had left ventricular ejection fractions less than 50% and iron deficiency (serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or serum ferritin 100-299 ng/mL if transferrin saturation <20%).
The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis included 558 FCM patients and 550 controls in whom study treatment was started and for whom at least one post-randomization value was available.
Press briefing discussant Nancy Sweitzer, MD, PhD, director of the University of Arizona’s Sarver Heart Center in Tucson, said AFFIRM-AHF is an “important trial likely to change guidelines” and “targeted one of the highest risk populations we have in heart failure.”
Patients with iron deficiency tend to be elderly with more comorbidities, have longer hospital lengths of stay, and higher readmission rates. “So impacting hospitalizations in this population is incredibly impactful,” she said.
“Awareness and assessment of iron deficiency are an important part of inpatient care of patients with ejection fractions less than or equal to 50% and acute decompensated heart failure, and I think all of us in the community need to pay much more attention to this issue.”
As with any new therapy, there are implementation challenges such as how to monitor patients and deliver the therapy in a cost-effective way, Sweitzer said.
The trial focused on the most vulnerable period for HF patients, but these patients should be rechecked every 3 to 4 months for iron deficiency, Ponikowski observed during the briefing.
“This is a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “We only need to remember, we only need to assess it, and we have a very, very simple tool in our hands. We just need to measure two biomarkers, transferrin saturation and ferritin — that’s all.”
Unanswered questions include the mechanism behind the reduction in hospitalization, the relationship of benefit to hemoglobin levels, and whether there is a differential benefit based on age, presence of ischemia, or sex, especially as women tend to be more severely affected by iron deficiency, Sweitzer said.
During the formal presentation, Ponikowski said the primary endpoint was consistent in subgroup analyses across baseline hemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, HF etiology, ejection fraction, and whether HF was diagnosed prior to the index hospitalization.
Treatment with FCM was safe, with no significant differences between the FCM and placebo groups in serious adverse events (45% vs 51%) or adverse events leading to study discontinuation (18% vs 17%), he reported. The most common adverse events were cardiac disorders (40.1% vs 44.3%) and infections (18.2% vs 22%).
AFFIRM-AHF is the first of three ongoing mortality and morbidity trials in heart failure with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose; the others are FAIR-HF2 and HEART-FID. Additional insights are also expected next year on intravenous iron isomaltoside from the Scottish-based IRONMAN trial in 1300 HF patients with iron deficiency.
The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.
Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.
McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.
Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text
American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.
After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).
Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).
Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.
Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.
“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.
The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.
Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.
The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.
However, no such benefit was seen with oral IV in the IRONOUT trial. “So it seems if we are to replace iron, it needs to be done using intravenous therapy,” said John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was invited to discuss the results.
He observed that the reduction in HF hospitalizations in AFFIRM-AHF were relatively modest and that the trial was never expected to show a benefit on CV mortality. Also, the COVID-19 sensitivity analysis providing more convincing effects is a valid approach and one recommended by regulators.
Further, the findings are supported by independent evidence in chronic kidney disease, from the PIVOTAL trial, that intravenous iron reduces HF hospitalizations, McMurray said.
“The million-dollar question, of course, is what will the results of this study mean for the guidelines: I think they probably will change the guidelines,” he said. “Certainly, I hope they will change the US guidelines, which have really given a very lukewarm recommendation for intravenous iron and I think that should probably be stronger.”
In a class IIb recommendation, the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines say intravenous iron “might be reasonable” to improve functional status and quality of life in New York Heart Association class II and III patients with iron deficiency.
The 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines include a class IIa recommendation that IV iron “should be considered” in iron-deficient patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction.
“This is the first large-scale [trial] of IV supplementation that could potentially change the way we approach patients, particularly those with hospitalized heart failure,” past AHA president Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said during an earlier press briefing.
He pointed out that clinicians have been circumspect about the early IV iron data. “I have to congratulate you because you’ve changed the narrative,” Yancy said. “We have to start thinking about iron deficiency; we have to think about how we incorporate this in treatment protocols.”
Press briefing panelist Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, acknowledged he was among those circumspect.
“I’m no longer a skeptic and I want to congratulate them for showing it’s a risk factor,” he said. “It’s one thing to have a risk factor; it’s another to be a modifiable risk factor and I think that’s what’s so exciting about this.”
The double-blind, phase 4 AFFIRM-AHF trial randomly assigned 1132 patients to receive a bolus injection of ferric carboxymaltose or normal saline before hospital discharge for an acute HF episode. Subsequent treatment was given, as needed, up to 24 weeks post-randomization.
At admission, all patients had left ventricular ejection fractions less than 50% and iron deficiency (serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or serum ferritin 100-299 ng/mL if transferrin saturation <20%).
The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis included 558 FCM patients and 550 controls in whom study treatment was started and for whom at least one post-randomization value was available.
Press briefing discussant Nancy Sweitzer, MD, PhD, director of the University of Arizona’s Sarver Heart Center in Tucson, said AFFIRM-AHF is an “important trial likely to change guidelines” and “targeted one of the highest risk populations we have in heart failure.”
Patients with iron deficiency tend to be elderly with more comorbidities, have longer hospital lengths of stay, and higher readmission rates. “So impacting hospitalizations in this population is incredibly impactful,” she said.
“Awareness and assessment of iron deficiency are an important part of inpatient care of patients with ejection fractions less than or equal to 50% and acute decompensated heart failure, and I think all of us in the community need to pay much more attention to this issue.”
As with any new therapy, there are implementation challenges such as how to monitor patients and deliver the therapy in a cost-effective way, Sweitzer said.
The trial focused on the most vulnerable period for HF patients, but these patients should be rechecked every 3 to 4 months for iron deficiency, Ponikowski observed during the briefing.
“This is a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “We only need to remember, we only need to assess it, and we have a very, very simple tool in our hands. We just need to measure two biomarkers, transferrin saturation and ferritin — that’s all.”
Unanswered questions include the mechanism behind the reduction in hospitalization, the relationship of benefit to hemoglobin levels, and whether there is a differential benefit based on age, presence of ischemia, or sex, especially as women tend to be more severely affected by iron deficiency, Sweitzer said.
During the formal presentation, Ponikowski said the primary endpoint was consistent in subgroup analyses across baseline hemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, HF etiology, ejection fraction, and whether HF was diagnosed prior to the index hospitalization.
Treatment with FCM was safe, with no significant differences between the FCM and placebo groups in serious adverse events (45% vs 51%) or adverse events leading to study discontinuation (18% vs 17%), he reported. The most common adverse events were cardiac disorders (40.1% vs 44.3%) and infections (18.2% vs 22%).
AFFIRM-AHF is the first of three ongoing mortality and morbidity trials in heart failure with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose; the others are FAIR-HF2 and HEART-FID. Additional insights are also expected next year on intravenous iron isomaltoside from the Scottish-based IRONMAN trial in 1300 HF patients with iron deficiency.
The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.
Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.
McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.
Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text
American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Iron supplementation reduces heart failure (HF) readmissions in iron-deficient patients hospitalized for acute HF, according to results of the AFFIRM-AHF trial.
After 52 weeks, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (Ferinject) reduced the risk of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death by 21% compared with placebo (293 vs 372 events; rate ratio [RR] 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 - 1.01).
Although the composite primary endpoint failed to achieve statistical significance, it was driven by a significant 26% reduction in the risk of total HF hospital readmissions (P = .013) without an effect on CV mortality (P =.809).
Because the management and follow-up of patients was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed that censored patients in each country at the date when its first COVID-19 patient was reported, explained principal investigator Piotr Ponikowski, MD, PhD, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
That analysis revealed a significant 30% reduction in total HF readmissions (P = .005) in patients receiving ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), as well as significant benefits on the primary composite and secondary endpoints.
Notably, 80% of patients required only one or two injections and HF hospitalizations were reduced irrespective of anemia status.
“Iron deficiency should be searched in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure — assessed using a simple blood test — and is now an important therapeutic target,” Ponikowski said at the virtual American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2020.
The results were also published simultaneously in The Lancet.
Iron deficiency is present in up to 70% of patients with acute HF and a predictor of poor outcome, independent of anemia and ejection fraction, he noted.
The FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, and EFFECT-HF trials demonstrated that IV iron supplementation improves exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life in iron-deficient HF patients.
However, no such benefit was seen with oral IV in the IRONOUT trial. “So it seems if we are to replace iron, it needs to be done using intravenous therapy,” said John McMurray, MD, University of Glasgow, Scotland, who was invited to discuss the results.
He observed that the reduction in HF hospitalizations in AFFIRM-AHF were relatively modest and that the trial was never expected to show a benefit on CV mortality. Also, the COVID-19 sensitivity analysis providing more convincing effects is a valid approach and one recommended by regulators.
Further, the findings are supported by independent evidence in chronic kidney disease, from the PIVOTAL trial, that intravenous iron reduces HF hospitalizations, McMurray said.
“The million-dollar question, of course, is what will the results of this study mean for the guidelines: I think they probably will change the guidelines,” he said. “Certainly, I hope they will change the US guidelines, which have really given a very lukewarm recommendation for intravenous iron and I think that should probably be stronger.”
In a class IIb recommendation, the 2017 American College of Cardiology/AHA/Heart Failure Society of America heart failure guidelines say intravenous iron “might be reasonable” to improve functional status and quality of life in New York Heart Association class II and III patients with iron deficiency.
The 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines include a class IIa recommendation that IV iron “should be considered” in iron-deficient patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction.
“This is the first large-scale [trial] of IV supplementation that could potentially change the way we approach patients, particularly those with hospitalized heart failure,” past AHA president Clyde Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, said during an earlier press briefing.
He pointed out that clinicians have been circumspect about the early IV iron data. “I have to congratulate you because you’ve changed the narrative,” Yancy said. “We have to start thinking about iron deficiency; we have to think about how we incorporate this in treatment protocols.”
Press briefing panelist Marc Pfeffer, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, acknowledged he was among those circumspect.
“I’m no longer a skeptic and I want to congratulate them for showing it’s a risk factor,” he said. “It’s one thing to have a risk factor; it’s another to be a modifiable risk factor and I think that’s what’s so exciting about this.”
The double-blind, phase 4 AFFIRM-AHF trial randomly assigned 1132 patients to receive a bolus injection of ferric carboxymaltose or normal saline before hospital discharge for an acute HF episode. Subsequent treatment was given, as needed, up to 24 weeks post-randomization.
At admission, all patients had left ventricular ejection fractions less than 50% and iron deficiency (serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or serum ferritin 100-299 ng/mL if transferrin saturation <20%).
The modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis included 558 FCM patients and 550 controls in whom study treatment was started and for whom at least one post-randomization value was available.
Press briefing discussant Nancy Sweitzer, MD, PhD, director of the University of Arizona’s Sarver Heart Center in Tucson, said AFFIRM-AHF is an “important trial likely to change guidelines” and “targeted one of the highest risk populations we have in heart failure.”
Patients with iron deficiency tend to be elderly with more comorbidities, have longer hospital lengths of stay, and higher readmission rates. “So impacting hospitalizations in this population is incredibly impactful,” she said.
“Awareness and assessment of iron deficiency are an important part of inpatient care of patients with ejection fractions less than or equal to 50% and acute decompensated heart failure, and I think all of us in the community need to pay much more attention to this issue.”
As with any new therapy, there are implementation challenges such as how to monitor patients and deliver the therapy in a cost-effective way, Sweitzer said.
The trial focused on the most vulnerable period for HF patients, but these patients should be rechecked every 3 to 4 months for iron deficiency, Ponikowski observed during the briefing.
“This is a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “We only need to remember, we only need to assess it, and we have a very, very simple tool in our hands. We just need to measure two biomarkers, transferrin saturation and ferritin — that’s all.”
Unanswered questions include the mechanism behind the reduction in hospitalization, the relationship of benefit to hemoglobin levels, and whether there is a differential benefit based on age, presence of ischemia, or sex, especially as women tend to be more severely affected by iron deficiency, Sweitzer said.
During the formal presentation, Ponikowski said the primary endpoint was consistent in subgroup analyses across baseline hemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, HF etiology, ejection fraction, and whether HF was diagnosed prior to the index hospitalization.
Treatment with FCM was safe, with no significant differences between the FCM and placebo groups in serious adverse events (45% vs 51%) or adverse events leading to study discontinuation (18% vs 17%), he reported. The most common adverse events were cardiac disorders (40.1% vs 44.3%) and infections (18.2% vs 22%).
AFFIRM-AHF is the first of three ongoing mortality and morbidity trials in heart failure with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose; the others are FAIR-HF2 and HEART-FID. Additional insights are also expected next year on intravenous iron isomaltoside from the Scottish-based IRONMAN trial in 1300 HF patients with iron deficiency.
The study was sponsored by Vifor International. Ponikowski has received research grants and personal fees from Vifor Pharma; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Servier, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Cibiem, Renal Guard Solutions Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Impulse Dynamics.
Pfeffer reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Corvidia, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; other relationships with DalCor and Novo Nordisk; research grants from Novartis; and an ownership interest in DalCor. Sweitzer reported research payments from Merck and Novartis; and consulting fees from Myocardia.
McMurray reported relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Servier. Yancy reported a relationship with Abbott and JAMA Network.
Lancet. Published online November 13, 2020. Full text
American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2020: Presented November 13, 2020.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2020
TIPS-3: Polypill provides meaningful primary cardiovascular prevention
A once-daily polypill containing four drugs to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 21% relative to placebo in people at intermediate cardiovascular risk in the landmark TIPS-3 trial.
And with the addition of aspirin at 75 mg per day the combination achieved an even more robust 31% relative risk reduction, investigators reported at the.
“Aspirin contributes importantly to the benefits,” Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, emphasized in presenting the International Polycap Study (TIPS-3) results jointly with study coprincipal investigator Prem Pais, MD, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The multinational study provides powerful new support for a broad, population health–based approach to primary cardiovascular prevention.
“If half of eligible people [were to] use a polypill with aspirin, 3-5 million cardiovascular events per year would be avoided globally,” according to Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine and director of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
“This is likely a cost-effective strategy to meet global targets of reducing cardiovascular disease by 30% by 2020,” added Dr. Pais of St. John’s Research Institute in Bangalore, India.
TIPS-3 included 5,713 participants at intermediate cardiovascular risk, with an estimated event risk of 1.8% per year using the INTERHEART Risk Score. Half were women. More than 80% of participants had hypertension, and nearly 40% had diabetes or impaired fasting glucose. Nearly 90% of participants came from India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Bangladesh. All participants received advice about lifestyle management.
They were then randomized to receive a polypill or placebo, and then each group was further randomized to receive 75 mg/day of aspirin or matching placebo. The polypill contained 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril.
During a mean 4.6 years of follow-up, the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event rate occurred in 4.4% of the polypill group, 4.1% of the polypill-plus-aspirin group, and 5.8% of the double-placebo group. This translated to a 21% reduction in cardiovascular disease with the polypill, a 31% reduction with polypill plus aspirin, and a 14% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke with aspirin alone.
The polypill and placebo groups diverged in terms of the primary outcome starting about 6 months into the study, Dr. Pais noted.
Serious adverse events were less common with the polypill than with placebo. Importantly, there was no difference in major, minor, or GI bleeding between the polypill-plus-aspirin group and placebo-treated controls. Dr. Yusuf attributed the lack of excess bleeding in aspirin recipients to two factors: people with a history of bleeding or GI symptoms were excluded from TIPS-3, and the dose of aspirin used was lower than in other primary prevention trials, where bleeding offset the reduction in cardiovascular events.
Nonadherence was a major issue in TIPS-3, mainly because of delays in polypill production and distribution, coupled late in the trial with the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonadherence rate was 19% at 2 years, 32% at 4 years, and 43% at the study’s end. Only 5% of discontinuations were due to side effects. In a sensitivity analysis carried out in participants without discontinuation for nonmedical reasons, the benefits of the polypill plus aspirin were larger than in the overall study: a 39% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint that probably offers a more accurate picture of the combination’s likely real-world performance.
Discussant Anushka Patel, MBBS, PhD, noted that TIPS-3 is the third randomized trial to provide direct evidence that a polypill-based strategy improves clinical outcomes. The effect sizes of the benefits – a 20%-30% reduction in major cardiovascular events – has been consistent in TIPS-3, PolyIran, and HOPE-3, each of which tested a different polypill drug combination.
“If implementation and adherence challenges can be addressed at the system, prescriber, and patient levels, and if high-quality polypills can be made affordable, the public health impact could actually be enormous,” said Dr. Patel, chief scientist at the George Institute for Global Health and professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
However, she parted company with Dr. Yusuf regarding routine incorporation of aspirin into polypills.
“I think the totality of evidence would still probably favor taking an individualized approach that also considers bleeding risk,” the cardiologist said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference highlighting TIPS-3, declared, “You’re seeing a paradigm shift right here in front of your eyes today. This could be a game changer in terms of preventing large numbers of cardiovascular events.”
While TIPS-3 was conducted mainly in low- and middle-income countries, it’s important to recognize that’s where 75% of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths now occur.
“This is very much a disease that has emerged in the developing world,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, the AHA president-elect, chair of the AHA Council on Scientific Sessions Programming, and professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
He also sees a polypill strategy for primary cardiovascular prevention as highly viable in high-resource countries. It makes sense to employ it there initially in underserved communities, where a polypill-based approach sidesteps difficulties in monitoring care and adjusting medication doses due to reduced access to health care while minimizing cost and adherence issues, he added.
Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Pais reported receiving institutional research support from the TIPS-3 major sponsors: the Wellcome Trust, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
Simultaneously with their presentation at AHA 2020, the TIPS-3 results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
bjancin@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Yusuf, S. AHA 2020. Session LBS.02.
A once-daily polypill containing four drugs to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 21% relative to placebo in people at intermediate cardiovascular risk in the landmark TIPS-3 trial.
And with the addition of aspirin at 75 mg per day the combination achieved an even more robust 31% relative risk reduction, investigators reported at the.
“Aspirin contributes importantly to the benefits,” Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, emphasized in presenting the International Polycap Study (TIPS-3) results jointly with study coprincipal investigator Prem Pais, MD, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The multinational study provides powerful new support for a broad, population health–based approach to primary cardiovascular prevention.
“If half of eligible people [were to] use a polypill with aspirin, 3-5 million cardiovascular events per year would be avoided globally,” according to Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine and director of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
“This is likely a cost-effective strategy to meet global targets of reducing cardiovascular disease by 30% by 2020,” added Dr. Pais of St. John’s Research Institute in Bangalore, India.
TIPS-3 included 5,713 participants at intermediate cardiovascular risk, with an estimated event risk of 1.8% per year using the INTERHEART Risk Score. Half were women. More than 80% of participants had hypertension, and nearly 40% had diabetes or impaired fasting glucose. Nearly 90% of participants came from India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Bangladesh. All participants received advice about lifestyle management.
They were then randomized to receive a polypill or placebo, and then each group was further randomized to receive 75 mg/day of aspirin or matching placebo. The polypill contained 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril.
During a mean 4.6 years of follow-up, the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event rate occurred in 4.4% of the polypill group, 4.1% of the polypill-plus-aspirin group, and 5.8% of the double-placebo group. This translated to a 21% reduction in cardiovascular disease with the polypill, a 31% reduction with polypill plus aspirin, and a 14% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke with aspirin alone.
The polypill and placebo groups diverged in terms of the primary outcome starting about 6 months into the study, Dr. Pais noted.
Serious adverse events were less common with the polypill than with placebo. Importantly, there was no difference in major, minor, or GI bleeding between the polypill-plus-aspirin group and placebo-treated controls. Dr. Yusuf attributed the lack of excess bleeding in aspirin recipients to two factors: people with a history of bleeding or GI symptoms were excluded from TIPS-3, and the dose of aspirin used was lower than in other primary prevention trials, where bleeding offset the reduction in cardiovascular events.
Nonadherence was a major issue in TIPS-3, mainly because of delays in polypill production and distribution, coupled late in the trial with the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonadherence rate was 19% at 2 years, 32% at 4 years, and 43% at the study’s end. Only 5% of discontinuations were due to side effects. In a sensitivity analysis carried out in participants without discontinuation for nonmedical reasons, the benefits of the polypill plus aspirin were larger than in the overall study: a 39% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint that probably offers a more accurate picture of the combination’s likely real-world performance.
Discussant Anushka Patel, MBBS, PhD, noted that TIPS-3 is the third randomized trial to provide direct evidence that a polypill-based strategy improves clinical outcomes. The effect sizes of the benefits – a 20%-30% reduction in major cardiovascular events – has been consistent in TIPS-3, PolyIran, and HOPE-3, each of which tested a different polypill drug combination.
“If implementation and adherence challenges can be addressed at the system, prescriber, and patient levels, and if high-quality polypills can be made affordable, the public health impact could actually be enormous,” said Dr. Patel, chief scientist at the George Institute for Global Health and professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
However, she parted company with Dr. Yusuf regarding routine incorporation of aspirin into polypills.
“I think the totality of evidence would still probably favor taking an individualized approach that also considers bleeding risk,” the cardiologist said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference highlighting TIPS-3, declared, “You’re seeing a paradigm shift right here in front of your eyes today. This could be a game changer in terms of preventing large numbers of cardiovascular events.”
While TIPS-3 was conducted mainly in low- and middle-income countries, it’s important to recognize that’s where 75% of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths now occur.
“This is very much a disease that has emerged in the developing world,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, the AHA president-elect, chair of the AHA Council on Scientific Sessions Programming, and professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
He also sees a polypill strategy for primary cardiovascular prevention as highly viable in high-resource countries. It makes sense to employ it there initially in underserved communities, where a polypill-based approach sidesteps difficulties in monitoring care and adjusting medication doses due to reduced access to health care while minimizing cost and adherence issues, he added.
Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Pais reported receiving institutional research support from the TIPS-3 major sponsors: the Wellcome Trust, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
Simultaneously with their presentation at AHA 2020, the TIPS-3 results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
bjancin@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Yusuf, S. AHA 2020. Session LBS.02.
A once-daily polypill containing four drugs to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 21% relative to placebo in people at intermediate cardiovascular risk in the landmark TIPS-3 trial.
And with the addition of aspirin at 75 mg per day the combination achieved an even more robust 31% relative risk reduction, investigators reported at the.
“Aspirin contributes importantly to the benefits,” Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, emphasized in presenting the International Polycap Study (TIPS-3) results jointly with study coprincipal investigator Prem Pais, MD, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The multinational study provides powerful new support for a broad, population health–based approach to primary cardiovascular prevention.
“If half of eligible people [were to] use a polypill with aspirin, 3-5 million cardiovascular events per year would be avoided globally,” according to Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine and director of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.
“This is likely a cost-effective strategy to meet global targets of reducing cardiovascular disease by 30% by 2020,” added Dr. Pais of St. John’s Research Institute in Bangalore, India.
TIPS-3 included 5,713 participants at intermediate cardiovascular risk, with an estimated event risk of 1.8% per year using the INTERHEART Risk Score. Half were women. More than 80% of participants had hypertension, and nearly 40% had diabetes or impaired fasting glucose. Nearly 90% of participants came from India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Bangladesh. All participants received advice about lifestyle management.
They were then randomized to receive a polypill or placebo, and then each group was further randomized to receive 75 mg/day of aspirin or matching placebo. The polypill contained 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril.
During a mean 4.6 years of follow-up, the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event rate occurred in 4.4% of the polypill group, 4.1% of the polypill-plus-aspirin group, and 5.8% of the double-placebo group. This translated to a 21% reduction in cardiovascular disease with the polypill, a 31% reduction with polypill plus aspirin, and a 14% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke with aspirin alone.
The polypill and placebo groups diverged in terms of the primary outcome starting about 6 months into the study, Dr. Pais noted.
Serious adverse events were less common with the polypill than with placebo. Importantly, there was no difference in major, minor, or GI bleeding between the polypill-plus-aspirin group and placebo-treated controls. Dr. Yusuf attributed the lack of excess bleeding in aspirin recipients to two factors: people with a history of bleeding or GI symptoms were excluded from TIPS-3, and the dose of aspirin used was lower than in other primary prevention trials, where bleeding offset the reduction in cardiovascular events.
Nonadherence was a major issue in TIPS-3, mainly because of delays in polypill production and distribution, coupled late in the trial with the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonadherence rate was 19% at 2 years, 32% at 4 years, and 43% at the study’s end. Only 5% of discontinuations were due to side effects. In a sensitivity analysis carried out in participants without discontinuation for nonmedical reasons, the benefits of the polypill plus aspirin were larger than in the overall study: a 39% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint that probably offers a more accurate picture of the combination’s likely real-world performance.
Discussant Anushka Patel, MBBS, PhD, noted that TIPS-3 is the third randomized trial to provide direct evidence that a polypill-based strategy improves clinical outcomes. The effect sizes of the benefits – a 20%-30% reduction in major cardiovascular events – has been consistent in TIPS-3, PolyIran, and HOPE-3, each of which tested a different polypill drug combination.
“If implementation and adherence challenges can be addressed at the system, prescriber, and patient levels, and if high-quality polypills can be made affordable, the public health impact could actually be enormous,” said Dr. Patel, chief scientist at the George Institute for Global Health and professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
However, she parted company with Dr. Yusuf regarding routine incorporation of aspirin into polypills.
“I think the totality of evidence would still probably favor taking an individualized approach that also considers bleeding risk,” the cardiologist said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference highlighting TIPS-3, declared, “You’re seeing a paradigm shift right here in front of your eyes today. This could be a game changer in terms of preventing large numbers of cardiovascular events.”
While TIPS-3 was conducted mainly in low- and middle-income countries, it’s important to recognize that’s where 75% of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths now occur.
“This is very much a disease that has emerged in the developing world,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, the AHA president-elect, chair of the AHA Council on Scientific Sessions Programming, and professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.
He also sees a polypill strategy for primary cardiovascular prevention as highly viable in high-resource countries. It makes sense to employ it there initially in underserved communities, where a polypill-based approach sidesteps difficulties in monitoring care and adjusting medication doses due to reduced access to health care while minimizing cost and adherence issues, he added.
Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Pais reported receiving institutional research support from the TIPS-3 major sponsors: the Wellcome Trust, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.
Simultaneously with their presentation at AHA 2020, the TIPS-3 results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
bjancin@mdedge.com
SOURCE: Yusuf, S. AHA 2020. Session LBS.02.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2020
GALACTIC-HF: New ‘myotropic’ drug class shows modest HFrEF benefit
Omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, safely produced a significant but modest improvement in heart failure events or cardiovascular death in a pivotal trial with HFrEF patients, leaving experts unsure about the role this drug could have on top of an already crowded list of four first-line drug classes for this condition.
“It remains to be investigated and discussed where omecamtiv mecarbil fits in” the overall approach to treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), commented Paul Heidenreich, MD, designated discussant for the report at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) treatment produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute cut in the combined rate of cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or first urgent visit for heart failure compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months This represented an 8% relative risk reduction, reported John R. Teerlink, MD, at the meeting, and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in cardiovascular death compared with the placebo arm, a 0.7% cut in heart failure hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient visits for heart failure. Dr. Teerlink and his associates called this benefit “modest” in their simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Room for a fifth HFrEF drug?
In addition to the limited benefit, another question raised by the trial is how OM would perform when used on top of what is now considered standard, quadruple therapy for most HFrEF patients: a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto), and an agent from the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or empagliflozin (Jardiance). During the period when the new OM trial was run, 2017-2019, the SGLT2 inhibitors had not yet been established as a key part of standard HFrEF treatment, and hence fewer than 3% of enrolled patients were on one of these drugs.
Because of this evidence gap, OM “can’t be across the board a fifth drug on top of standard treatment,” based on the new results, cautioned Dr. Heidenreich, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.
The new evidence for OM’s efficacy is “not compelling” when compared with what dapagliflozin and empagliflozin each showed in recent trials, with the SGLT2 inhibitors producing about a 25% cut compared with placebo in a primary outcome that was similar to the one used in the OM trial, commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “Would OM still show a benefit with an SGLT2 inhibitor? That’s not known” on the basis of the available data, he said in an interview.
A related factor that could influence potential use of OM in routine practice is that with four established, foundational drug classes, adding a fifth drug that will only be available in a branded formulation raises issues of incremental cost and compliance issues, Dr. Mann noted.
The positives of omecamtiv mercarbil
But in addition to its positive result in the GALACTIC-HF trial, treatment with OM showed other attractive characteristics in a study that treated a wide spectrum of 4,120 patients with HFrEF as well as including 4,112 patients randomized to placebo. Most notably, OM had a very clean safety profile, with adverse event rates similar to placebo patients across all adverse event subtypes, as well as causing no drop in blood pressure and actually an average 2.0–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure, no increase in potassium, no apparent impact on renal function, and a small but significant decline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with placebo.
This coupled with the novel mechanism of action of OM – direct augmentation of cardiac sarcomere function by increasing myosin attachment to actin – suggests that OM can be safely added on top of existing HFrEF treatment to provide an unique and incremental benefit.
“Other heart failure drugs [like beta-blockers and sacubitril-valsartan] lower blood pressure, so what can happen is that clinicians run out of room to add full dosages” when patients’ pressures fall too low, commented Gregory D. Lewis, MD, head of Heart Failure at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He is principle investigator for another OM trial, METEORIC-HF, which is examining the possible impact of the drug on exercise capacity in a randomized study with about 270 HFrEF patients.
If the METEORIC-HF results can could confirm some of the GALACTIC-HF results that suggested improvements in patient function, the combined data could potentially lead to regulatory approval for U.S. marketing of the drug, Dr. Lewis suggested. Results from that study are expected in 2021, he said in an interview.
The GALACTIC-HF results hinted at possible functional improvement after 24 weeks on treatment among patients who required hospitalization as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which measures quality life. However, this difference failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a significant effect.
Another intriguing suggestion of focused benefit was in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction at or below the median in GALACTIC-HF of 28%. In that subgroup, OM treatment was linked with a significant 16% relative reduction in the primary endpoint compared with placebo, while it had no significant effect in the other 50% of patients with higher ejection fractions. (The maximum left ventricular ejection fraction for enrollment was 35%.) This apparent subgroup interaction was statistically significant, reported Dr. Teerlink, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center.
Further analysis of the study data “will provide greater insight into subgroups who may demonstrate greater benefit, such as patients with lower ejection fraction in whom improving cardiac function may have a greater role,” he said. The idea that a drug that improves myocyte function at the molecular level could especially benefit patients with the lowest ejection fractions is “biologically plausible,” Dr. Teerlink said.
This scenario looks reasonable, and could make OM something of a niche drug for at least the near term, said Dr. Mann.
The world’s first myotropic drug
Possibly the most notable aspect of GALACTIC-HF is that it proved the efficacy, modest though it was, of a novel drug mechanism that fulfills a decades-long quest of heart failure researchers: a safe way to improve the heart’s pumping action.
“For years, the heart failure community struggled with treatment to improve cardiac performance, but invariably it ended in disaster by worsening cardiac deaths,” problems that led to abandonment of early inotropic drugs more than a generation ago, noted Dr. Mann.
But a more nuanced approach to inotropic agents recently has emerged from Dr. Teerlink and his associates, built on the premise that the dangers seen years ago related to the calcium modulations they caused. Their new paradigm is that the dangers of these “calcitropic” agents can be sidestepped with different agents that either mediate their effects via myosin, the myotropes like OM, or mitochondrial effects from mitotropic drugs.
The inotrope debacle from the 1990s made that drug-class name “a dirty word that causes fear and loathing in the heart failure community,” observed Dr. Mann. While the term myotrope has not yet really caught on, “If omecamtiv mecarbil starts getting used in routine practice, then I think you’ll start seeing uptake of the term myotrope,” he predicted.
GALACTIC-HF was sponsored by Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, the companies developing omecamtiv mecarbil. Dr. Teerlink has received research support from and been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, as well as Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures. Dr. Mann is on a steering committee for a trial sponsored by Novartis and has no other commercial disclosures. Dr. Lewis is principal investigator for a trial of omecamtiv mecarbil and has no other commercial disclosures.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, safely produced a significant but modest improvement in heart failure events or cardiovascular death in a pivotal trial with HFrEF patients, leaving experts unsure about the role this drug could have on top of an already crowded list of four first-line drug classes for this condition.
“It remains to be investigated and discussed where omecamtiv mecarbil fits in” the overall approach to treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), commented Paul Heidenreich, MD, designated discussant for the report at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) treatment produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute cut in the combined rate of cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or first urgent visit for heart failure compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months This represented an 8% relative risk reduction, reported John R. Teerlink, MD, at the meeting, and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in cardiovascular death compared with the placebo arm, a 0.7% cut in heart failure hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient visits for heart failure. Dr. Teerlink and his associates called this benefit “modest” in their simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Room for a fifth HFrEF drug?
In addition to the limited benefit, another question raised by the trial is how OM would perform when used on top of what is now considered standard, quadruple therapy for most HFrEF patients: a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto), and an agent from the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or empagliflozin (Jardiance). During the period when the new OM trial was run, 2017-2019, the SGLT2 inhibitors had not yet been established as a key part of standard HFrEF treatment, and hence fewer than 3% of enrolled patients were on one of these drugs.
Because of this evidence gap, OM “can’t be across the board a fifth drug on top of standard treatment,” based on the new results, cautioned Dr. Heidenreich, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.
The new evidence for OM’s efficacy is “not compelling” when compared with what dapagliflozin and empagliflozin each showed in recent trials, with the SGLT2 inhibitors producing about a 25% cut compared with placebo in a primary outcome that was similar to the one used in the OM trial, commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “Would OM still show a benefit with an SGLT2 inhibitor? That’s not known” on the basis of the available data, he said in an interview.
A related factor that could influence potential use of OM in routine practice is that with four established, foundational drug classes, adding a fifth drug that will only be available in a branded formulation raises issues of incremental cost and compliance issues, Dr. Mann noted.
The positives of omecamtiv mercarbil
But in addition to its positive result in the GALACTIC-HF trial, treatment with OM showed other attractive characteristics in a study that treated a wide spectrum of 4,120 patients with HFrEF as well as including 4,112 patients randomized to placebo. Most notably, OM had a very clean safety profile, with adverse event rates similar to placebo patients across all adverse event subtypes, as well as causing no drop in blood pressure and actually an average 2.0–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure, no increase in potassium, no apparent impact on renal function, and a small but significant decline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with placebo.
This coupled with the novel mechanism of action of OM – direct augmentation of cardiac sarcomere function by increasing myosin attachment to actin – suggests that OM can be safely added on top of existing HFrEF treatment to provide an unique and incremental benefit.
“Other heart failure drugs [like beta-blockers and sacubitril-valsartan] lower blood pressure, so what can happen is that clinicians run out of room to add full dosages” when patients’ pressures fall too low, commented Gregory D. Lewis, MD, head of Heart Failure at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He is principle investigator for another OM trial, METEORIC-HF, which is examining the possible impact of the drug on exercise capacity in a randomized study with about 270 HFrEF patients.
If the METEORIC-HF results can could confirm some of the GALACTIC-HF results that suggested improvements in patient function, the combined data could potentially lead to regulatory approval for U.S. marketing of the drug, Dr. Lewis suggested. Results from that study are expected in 2021, he said in an interview.
The GALACTIC-HF results hinted at possible functional improvement after 24 weeks on treatment among patients who required hospitalization as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which measures quality life. However, this difference failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a significant effect.
Another intriguing suggestion of focused benefit was in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction at or below the median in GALACTIC-HF of 28%. In that subgroup, OM treatment was linked with a significant 16% relative reduction in the primary endpoint compared with placebo, while it had no significant effect in the other 50% of patients with higher ejection fractions. (The maximum left ventricular ejection fraction for enrollment was 35%.) This apparent subgroup interaction was statistically significant, reported Dr. Teerlink, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center.
Further analysis of the study data “will provide greater insight into subgroups who may demonstrate greater benefit, such as patients with lower ejection fraction in whom improving cardiac function may have a greater role,” he said. The idea that a drug that improves myocyte function at the molecular level could especially benefit patients with the lowest ejection fractions is “biologically plausible,” Dr. Teerlink said.
This scenario looks reasonable, and could make OM something of a niche drug for at least the near term, said Dr. Mann.
The world’s first myotropic drug
Possibly the most notable aspect of GALACTIC-HF is that it proved the efficacy, modest though it was, of a novel drug mechanism that fulfills a decades-long quest of heart failure researchers: a safe way to improve the heart’s pumping action.
“For years, the heart failure community struggled with treatment to improve cardiac performance, but invariably it ended in disaster by worsening cardiac deaths,” problems that led to abandonment of early inotropic drugs more than a generation ago, noted Dr. Mann.
But a more nuanced approach to inotropic agents recently has emerged from Dr. Teerlink and his associates, built on the premise that the dangers seen years ago related to the calcium modulations they caused. Their new paradigm is that the dangers of these “calcitropic” agents can be sidestepped with different agents that either mediate their effects via myosin, the myotropes like OM, or mitochondrial effects from mitotropic drugs.
The inotrope debacle from the 1990s made that drug-class name “a dirty word that causes fear and loathing in the heart failure community,” observed Dr. Mann. While the term myotrope has not yet really caught on, “If omecamtiv mecarbil starts getting used in routine practice, then I think you’ll start seeing uptake of the term myotrope,” he predicted.
GALACTIC-HF was sponsored by Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, the companies developing omecamtiv mecarbil. Dr. Teerlink has received research support from and been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, as well as Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures. Dr. Mann is on a steering committee for a trial sponsored by Novartis and has no other commercial disclosures. Dr. Lewis is principal investigator for a trial of omecamtiv mecarbil and has no other commercial disclosures.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Omecamtiv mecarbil, a member of the novel myotropic drug class that improves cardiac performance, safely produced a significant but modest improvement in heart failure events or cardiovascular death in a pivotal trial with HFrEF patients, leaving experts unsure about the role this drug could have on top of an already crowded list of four first-line drug classes for this condition.
“It remains to be investigated and discussed where omecamtiv mecarbil fits in” the overall approach to treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), commented Paul Heidenreich, MD, designated discussant for the report at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
Omecamtiv mecarbil (OM) treatment produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute cut in the combined rate of cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or first urgent visit for heart failure compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months This represented an 8% relative risk reduction, reported John R. Teerlink, MD, at the meeting, and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in cardiovascular death compared with the placebo arm, a 0.7% cut in heart failure hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient visits for heart failure. Dr. Teerlink and his associates called this benefit “modest” in their simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Room for a fifth HFrEF drug?
In addition to the limited benefit, another question raised by the trial is how OM would perform when used on top of what is now considered standard, quadruple therapy for most HFrEF patients: a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto), and an agent from the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class, specifically dapagliflozin (Farxiga) or empagliflozin (Jardiance). During the period when the new OM trial was run, 2017-2019, the SGLT2 inhibitors had not yet been established as a key part of standard HFrEF treatment, and hence fewer than 3% of enrolled patients were on one of these drugs.
Because of this evidence gap, OM “can’t be across the board a fifth drug on top of standard treatment,” based on the new results, cautioned Dr. Heidenreich, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.
The new evidence for OM’s efficacy is “not compelling” when compared with what dapagliflozin and empagliflozin each showed in recent trials, with the SGLT2 inhibitors producing about a 25% cut compared with placebo in a primary outcome that was similar to the one used in the OM trial, commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, a heart failure physician and professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “Would OM still show a benefit with an SGLT2 inhibitor? That’s not known” on the basis of the available data, he said in an interview.
A related factor that could influence potential use of OM in routine practice is that with four established, foundational drug classes, adding a fifth drug that will only be available in a branded formulation raises issues of incremental cost and compliance issues, Dr. Mann noted.
The positives of omecamtiv mercarbil
But in addition to its positive result in the GALACTIC-HF trial, treatment with OM showed other attractive characteristics in a study that treated a wide spectrum of 4,120 patients with HFrEF as well as including 4,112 patients randomized to placebo. Most notably, OM had a very clean safety profile, with adverse event rates similar to placebo patients across all adverse event subtypes, as well as causing no drop in blood pressure and actually an average 2.0–mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure, no increase in potassium, no apparent impact on renal function, and a small but significant decline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) compared with placebo.
This coupled with the novel mechanism of action of OM – direct augmentation of cardiac sarcomere function by increasing myosin attachment to actin – suggests that OM can be safely added on top of existing HFrEF treatment to provide an unique and incremental benefit.
“Other heart failure drugs [like beta-blockers and sacubitril-valsartan] lower blood pressure, so what can happen is that clinicians run out of room to add full dosages” when patients’ pressures fall too low, commented Gregory D. Lewis, MD, head of Heart Failure at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. He is principle investigator for another OM trial, METEORIC-HF, which is examining the possible impact of the drug on exercise capacity in a randomized study with about 270 HFrEF patients.
If the METEORIC-HF results can could confirm some of the GALACTIC-HF results that suggested improvements in patient function, the combined data could potentially lead to regulatory approval for U.S. marketing of the drug, Dr. Lewis suggested. Results from that study are expected in 2021, he said in an interview.
The GALACTIC-HF results hinted at possible functional improvement after 24 weeks on treatment among patients who required hospitalization as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, which measures quality life. However, this difference failed to meet the study’s prespecified definition of a significant effect.
Another intriguing suggestion of focused benefit was in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction at or below the median in GALACTIC-HF of 28%. In that subgroup, OM treatment was linked with a significant 16% relative reduction in the primary endpoint compared with placebo, while it had no significant effect in the other 50% of patients with higher ejection fractions. (The maximum left ventricular ejection fraction for enrollment was 35%.) This apparent subgroup interaction was statistically significant, reported Dr. Teerlink, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of Heart Failure at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center.
Further analysis of the study data “will provide greater insight into subgroups who may demonstrate greater benefit, such as patients with lower ejection fraction in whom improving cardiac function may have a greater role,” he said. The idea that a drug that improves myocyte function at the molecular level could especially benefit patients with the lowest ejection fractions is “biologically plausible,” Dr. Teerlink said.
This scenario looks reasonable, and could make OM something of a niche drug for at least the near term, said Dr. Mann.
The world’s first myotropic drug
Possibly the most notable aspect of GALACTIC-HF is that it proved the efficacy, modest though it was, of a novel drug mechanism that fulfills a decades-long quest of heart failure researchers: a safe way to improve the heart’s pumping action.
“For years, the heart failure community struggled with treatment to improve cardiac performance, but invariably it ended in disaster by worsening cardiac deaths,” problems that led to abandonment of early inotropic drugs more than a generation ago, noted Dr. Mann.
But a more nuanced approach to inotropic agents recently has emerged from Dr. Teerlink and his associates, built on the premise that the dangers seen years ago related to the calcium modulations they caused. Their new paradigm is that the dangers of these “calcitropic” agents can be sidestepped with different agents that either mediate their effects via myosin, the myotropes like OM, or mitochondrial effects from mitotropic drugs.
The inotrope debacle from the 1990s made that drug-class name “a dirty word that causes fear and loathing in the heart failure community,” observed Dr. Mann. While the term myotrope has not yet really caught on, “If omecamtiv mecarbil starts getting used in routine practice, then I think you’ll start seeing uptake of the term myotrope,” he predicted.
GALACTIC-HF was sponsored by Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, the companies developing omecamtiv mecarbil. Dr. Teerlink has received research support from and been a consultant to Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Servier, as well as Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures. Dr. Mann is on a steering committee for a trial sponsored by Novartis and has no other commercial disclosures. Dr. Lewis is principal investigator for a trial of omecamtiv mecarbil and has no other commercial disclosures.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
FROM AHA 2020
Escalate HIV adherence strategies amid COVID-19
"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.
That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.
“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
Early data, tiered interventions
Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.
Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.
“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”
That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.
He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.
Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.
“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:
- Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
- How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
- Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
- How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
- Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
- Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?
Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.
These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.
He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.
For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.
“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
Stigma on stigma
The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.
Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.
The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.
“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”
During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.
For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.
They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.
“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.
That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.
“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
Early data, tiered interventions
Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.
Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.
“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”
That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.
He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.
Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.
“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:
- Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
- How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
- Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
- How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
- Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
- Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?
Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.
These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.
He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.
For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.
“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
Stigma on stigma
The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.
Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.
The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.
“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”
During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.
For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.
They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.
“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
"The writing is on the wall” that virtual care is not meeting the needs of people with HIV who struggled with viral suppression even before the COVID-19 pandemic, said Jason Farley, PhD, ANP-BC, AACRN, associate professor of nursing at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. So it’s time for HIV care teams, especially clinics in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, to get creative in bringing wraparound services to patients.
That may mean reallocating the workforce so that one person serves as a community health worker. Or it could mean increasing texts and video calls; helping patients find online support groups to address problems with alcohol or drug use; and conducting an overall assessment of patients’ needs as the pandemic continues.
“The virtual patient-centered medical home may be the new normal after COVID-19, and we have to be thinking about how we use this model with patients for whom it works, but supplement this model in patients that it does not,” Farley said at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care (ANAC) 2020 Annual Meeting. That work “is essential to our being able to facilitate the best patient outcomes possible.”
Early data, tiered interventions
Farley referred to an article published in September in the Journal AIDS that confirmed unpublished data mentioned at the International AIDS Conference 2020. The article reported that viral suppression rates among people with HIV who attended San Francisco’s Ward 86 HIV clinic dropped by 31% from pre-COVID levels.
Of the 1766 people who attended the clinic, about 1 in 5 had detectable HIV viral loads at any point in 2019. But that rate was 31% higher after shelter-in-place orders were issued. And although patients participated in telemedicine visits at more or less the same rate before and after the pandemic (31% vs. 30% no-shows), viral suppression rates dropped. The impact was especially acute for homeless individuals.
“This destabilization occurred despite our population attending telemedicine visits at a higher rate than expected, given the 60% drop in ambulatory care visit volume nationwide,” the authors stated in their article. “Telehealth visits, while offering greater patient convenience, may lead to less access to clinic-based social support services essential to achieving viral suppression among vulnerable groups.”
That’s the challenge HIV clinics now face, Farley said at the ANAC meeting.
He suggested a differentiated care approach in which there are four tiers of care, starting with the standard level of outreach, which may include email, electronic health record blasts, and robo-calls to remind people of their appointments and to refill their medications. Those with sustained viral suppression may only need 90-day automatic refills of their medications. Those who are vulnerable to nonadherence may need to be contacted weekly or more often by the clinic. Such contact could be made by a social worker, a community health worker, or through some form of virtual support.
Patients at tier 4, who have labile viral suppression, need far more than that. These are the 15% of patients with HIV who struggled with viral suppression before the pandemic. They are the patients that Farley’s team focuses on at Baltimore’s John G. Bartlett Specialty Clinic for Infectious Disease.
“We’ve completely deconstructed the patient-centered medical home,” he said of the early move to virtual care. He suggested that clinicians assess their services and ask themselves some questions:
- Has someone on the team reached out to every patient and checked in to see what their biggest needs are, medical or not, during the pandemic? Have they assessed the patient’s ability to receive video calls or text messages?
- How have group-support programs that address stigma or the social determinants of health fared in the transition to virtual medicine?
- Are patients who are in recovery being supported in order that they may engage with recovery programs online?
- How well have counseling services done in engaging people in virtual care? Currently, given the overall increase in mental health challenges during the pandemic, one would expect that the use of mental health counseling is increasing. “If they’re stagnant or going down, someone needs to be reflecting on that issue internally in the clinic,” he said.
- Are patients being contacted regarding the effects that isolation is having on their lives? “The things that would normally allow us to self-mitigate and self-manage these conditions, like going to the gym, meeting with friends, religious services – all of those are being cut,” he said.
- Is there an early alert from an in-person pharmacy to trigger outreach via a community health worker for patients who haven’t picked up their medications in a week or more?
Farley pointed to a 2015 model for an enhanced e-health approach to chronic care management that called for e-support from the community and that was enhanced through virtual communities.
These are some of the approaches Farley has taken at his clinic. He leads a team that focuses specifically on patients who struggled with engagement before the pandemic. Through a grant from the US Department of Health & Human Services’ Health Resources and Services Administration – even before the pandemic – that team has been funding community health workers who have multiple contacts with patients online and virtually and are able to offer what he calls “unapologetically enabling” support for patients so that they are able to focus on their health.
He gave the following example. Before the pandemic, a community health worker on the team had been working with a patient who showed up at every scheduled visit and swore that she was taking her medications, although clearly she was not. A community health worker, who was made available through the grant, was able to recognize that the patient’s biggest challenge in her life was providing childcare for her special-needs child. The community health worker worked with the patient for months to find stable childcare for the child, paid 2 months of rent for the patient so that she would not become homeless, and helped her find transitional housing. When the pandemic hit, the community health worker was already texting and conducting video calls with the patient regularly.
For the past 9 months, that patient has had an undetectable viral load, Farley said.
“Nine months during a pandemic,” Farley reiterated, “and the community health worker keeps working with her, keeps meeting with her.”
Stigma on stigma
The need for this level of support from the clinic may be even more important for people with HIV who acquire COVID-19, said Orlando Harris, PhD, assistant professor of community health systems at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Nursing. HIV-related stigma is a well-known deterrent to care for people living with the virus. During the presentation, Harris asked Farley about the impact of COVID-19 stigma on people with both HIV and COVID-19.
Farley said that patients at his clinic have told him that they have “ostracized” friends who have tested positive for COVID-19. Harris remembered a person with HIV who participated in one of his trials telling the researchers that despite all his precautions – wearing a mask, staying socially distant – he still acquired COVID-19. There was nothing he could have done, Harris said, other than just not go to the grocery store.
The fear of contracting another disease that is associated with stigma, as well as the need to disclose it, can inflame memories of the trauma of being diagnosed with HIV, Harris said. And with patient-centered medical homes struggling to reconstitute their wraparound services via telehealth, he said he wonders whether clinicians should be doing more.
“I worry about people who have survived being diagnosed with HIV in the ‘80s and the ‘90s before antiretroviral therapy showed up on the scene,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I worry that the folks that survived one pandemic [may] be feeling fearful or living in that fear that this new pandemic might take them out. That’s why I’m stressing the need for us to really consider, as clinicians and also as researchers the support systems, the coping mechanisms, the counseling, or what have you to support those living with HIV and vulnerable to COVID-19.”
During telehealth visits, that can be achieved simply by asking people how they are really doing and what their coping mechanisms are.
For their part, the clinicians at San Francisco’s Ward 86 are not trying to provide that support through telehealth on the same level as they were at the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Spinelli, MD, assistant professor of medicine, and Monica Gandhi, MD, associate chief of the Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases and Global Medicine, who are both at UCSF and are coauthors of the study.
They still offer telemedicine appointments to patients who request them, said Spinelli. He said about one-third of his patients still prefer to receive their care virtually. The rest have gone back to face-to-face support.
“The analysis led us to promptly open up care as much as possible to our patients, with the idea that telehealth is not cutting it for vulnerable patients with HIV,” Gandhi told Medscape Medical News via email. “We don’t think it’s right for a population who relies on social support from the clinic.”
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Don’t miss cardiovascular risk factors in transgender patients
Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.
The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.
Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.
To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.
Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.
She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.
However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
Growing transgender population is medically underserved
The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.
“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”
The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.
“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
Additional research can inform practice
Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.
Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added.
“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies
“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.
Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.
Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.
The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.
Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.
To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.
Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.
She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.
However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
Growing transgender population is medically underserved
The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.
“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”
The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.
“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
Additional research can inform practice
Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.
Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added.
“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies
“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.
Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.
Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.
The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.
Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.
To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.
Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.
She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.
However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
Growing transgender population is medically underserved
The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.
“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”
The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.
“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
Additional research can inform practice
Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.
Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added.
“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies
“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.
Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.
FROM AHA 2020
Major breakthrough? Average 10% weight loss with semaglutide
In a phase 3 trial where all participants received intensive behavior therapy, investigational 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (Novo Nordisk) resulted in a 10.3% greater average weight loss than placebo over a period of 68 weeks.
If approved, this medication could be a “potential major breakthrough” in obesity management, the investigators suggested. But other experts urged caution, as cost and uptake are important considerations.
‘Potential weight loss that patients would be happy with’
Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, presented results from the study of 611 adults with overweight or obesity but no diabetes at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.
“Perhaps even more impressive was the finding that 75% of patients lost 10% or more of baseline body weight,” said Dr. Wadden, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Moreover, in this trial of semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is approved for treating type 2 diabetes at a weekly subcutaneous dose of 1 mg, but is being investigated at the higher dose for weight loss – 55% of patients lost ≥15% of their initial weight, and 36% lost ≥20% of their initial weight.
“These large categorical weight losses – particularly of 15% and 20% of initial weight – are potentially a major breakthrough in the management of obesity,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.
Weight losses of this size, he added, “should confer greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors (such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and type 2 diabetes) as compared with losses of 5%-10% achieved with current behavioral or pharmacological approaches.” And patients are generally not satisfied with losses of less than 10% of initial weight when participating in intensive behavior programs or taking weight-loss medications.
Now, “the larger categorical weight losses will mean that a greater number of patients with obesity will be able to achieve a weight loss with which they are ... happy,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.
According to Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Professor of Metabolic Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who is an investigator for another trial of semaglutide: “Even though it has the same mechanism of action [as liraglutide], the weight loss is two or more times greater [with semaglutide]. In my opinion, it’s really going to be a major advance in the treatment of obesity.”
In the discussion that followed the virtual presentation, one attendee asked about potential weight regain if a patient stopped taking the drug. Based on experience with another subcutaneous injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (Saxenda), already approved for obesity, it may be that taking medicine for chronic overweight may become like taking a statin for elevated cholesterol, said Dr. Wadden.
Novo Nordisk has now completed the four trials in the STEP (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) global phase 3 clinical development program, and plans to file applications with the Food and Drug Administration later this year and with the European Medicines Agency in early 2021 for review of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management.
“Fundamental issues need to be figured out”
Invited to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, said: “This is impressive data, confirming that semaglutide, particularly when used in concert with evidence-based counseling, is a highly effective agent for obesity management.”
However, “the real question, though, is what comes next,” stressed Dr. Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, DC.
“Will it be approved by the U.S. FDA? I believe so,” he said in an interview. “Yet we already have several effective obesity medications approved over the past decade – all of which are rarely used and therefore make little impact for patients in the real world.”
“Will there be insurance coverage, and therefore practical access for those who could most benefit?” he continued. “Will prescribers counsel their patients about obesity management, including the use of effective medications? Will patients utilize available options?”
“These and other fundamental issues must be figured out before we anoint any treatment option as a meaningful step forward, let alone a transformative development,” according to Dr. Kahan.
Similarly, Irl B. Hirsch, MD, stressed that, should this medication be approved for weight loss, cost would be a major factor in its uptake.
“I’m old enough to recall when we started using lovastatin in the late 1980s,” Dr. Hirsch, professor of medicine, University of Washington Medicine Diabetes Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
“We used it without the type of evidence of statin use we have today. A pill, but in those days the statins were expensive. But over time, the evidence for statins grew and over the next 15 years it was quite clear that for both primary prevention (for those with diabetes) and secondary intervention these drugs needed to be used by millions of people. These recommendations became easier once the drugs became generic.
“Will the same thing happen for GLP-1 agonists? The problem is we need both ‘hard-outcome data’ [such as 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events] and more reasonable cost before we see this expanding to an entire population.
“In the future perhaps we could have a biosimilar GLP-1 agonist that would be more affordable than what we pay now, but even before that we need agreement from our reimbursement thought leaders that our society should reimburse these agents.
“My thinking now is the cost-benefit could be favorable, but this is all dependent on what happens to the cost of the drugs over time,” he said.
Additive effect of intensive behavior therapy plus medication
Dr. Wadden explained that intensive behavioral therapy “provides 14 or more counseling sessions in 6 months to modify diet and physical activity, through the patients’ use of behavioral strategies (such as keeping daily food and activity diaries).”
Such programs typically produce mean weight loss of 5%-8% of initial weight; less frequent (e.g., monthly) programs typically produce weight loss of only 1%-3%.
Prior studies suggest that intensive behavioral therapy and medication have additive effects. To investigate this, Dr. Wadden and colleagues randomized 611 adults (81% women) who were a mean age of 46 years and had a mean body mass index of 38 kg/m2.
All participants received 30 intensive behavior therapy sessions provided by a registered dietitian (or other qualified provider), which typically lasted 20-30 minutes and were given weekly for 12 weeks, every other week for the next 12 weeks, and then monthly.
The dietitian gave participants behavioral strategies to help them adhere to diet and physical activity goals.
During the first 8 weeks, participants were provided with a 1,000-1,200 kcal/day meal replacement diet that included liquid shakes, meal bars, and prepared entrees designed to facilitate a large initial weight loss.
They then transitioned to a diet of conventional foods (of their choosing), with a goal of 1,200-1,800 kcal/day based on body weight.
The physical activity goal was 100 minutes/week of walking or other aerobic activity in the first month, building up to 200 minutes/week by month 6.
‘More effective than current FDA-approved weight-loss medications’
At week 68, mean body weight decreased from baseline by 16.0% in the semaglutide group versus 5.7% in the placebo group (P < .0001).
In this trial, where all participants received extensive intensive behavior therapy, more participants had weight loss ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, and ≥20% of their initial weight with semaglutide versus placebo (87% vs. 48%; 75% vs. 27%; 56% vs. 13%; 36% vs. 4%, respectively; all P < .0001).
From baseline to week 68, the proportion of participants with prediabetes decreased from 48% to 7% in the semaglutide group and from 53% to 26% in the placebo group.
Patients who received semaglutide had greater improvements in lipids, too.
Although the weight loss was 10.3% (10.6 kg) greater with semaglutide, Dr. Wadden noted, “additional studies have shown this net benefit to be as great as 11%-12%, which would make semaglutide 2.4 mg more effective than current [FDA-approved] weight-loss medications.”
“Naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave) with lifestyle counseling, for example,” he continued, “produces a loss that is 5 kg greater than lifestyle counseling plus placebo, liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda) a loss 5.3 kg greater than placebo, and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) a loss that is 8.8 kg greater than placebo.”
Semaglutide was well tolerated. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common type, occurred in 83% of patients in the semaglutide group and 63% of patients in the placebo group.
Nausea, as well as constipation and diarrhea, are common in medications that increase GLP-1 levels, Dr. Wadden noted. Side effects can be managed by slowly increasing the medication dose over 4 months.
Dr. Wadden expects that, if approved, semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once-weekly will be recommended as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Additional studies suggest that monthly counseling should be sufficient to obtain similar weight losses as those seen in the current trial, which had more intensive counseling.
As well as being approved as a weekly subcutaneous injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, semaglutide is also approved as an once-daily oral agent for the same indication (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
Dr. Wadden serves on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and WW (formerly Weight Watchers), and has received grant support, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne is an investigator in a long-term trial of semaglutide and has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk in the past. He also has other industry relationships that are not related to semaglutide.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a phase 3 trial where all participants received intensive behavior therapy, investigational 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (Novo Nordisk) resulted in a 10.3% greater average weight loss than placebo over a period of 68 weeks.
If approved, this medication could be a “potential major breakthrough” in obesity management, the investigators suggested. But other experts urged caution, as cost and uptake are important considerations.
‘Potential weight loss that patients would be happy with’
Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, presented results from the study of 611 adults with overweight or obesity but no diabetes at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.
“Perhaps even more impressive was the finding that 75% of patients lost 10% or more of baseline body weight,” said Dr. Wadden, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Moreover, in this trial of semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is approved for treating type 2 diabetes at a weekly subcutaneous dose of 1 mg, but is being investigated at the higher dose for weight loss – 55% of patients lost ≥15% of their initial weight, and 36% lost ≥20% of their initial weight.
“These large categorical weight losses – particularly of 15% and 20% of initial weight – are potentially a major breakthrough in the management of obesity,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.
Weight losses of this size, he added, “should confer greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors (such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and type 2 diabetes) as compared with losses of 5%-10% achieved with current behavioral or pharmacological approaches.” And patients are generally not satisfied with losses of less than 10% of initial weight when participating in intensive behavior programs or taking weight-loss medications.
Now, “the larger categorical weight losses will mean that a greater number of patients with obesity will be able to achieve a weight loss with which they are ... happy,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.
According to Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Professor of Metabolic Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who is an investigator for another trial of semaglutide: “Even though it has the same mechanism of action [as liraglutide], the weight loss is two or more times greater [with semaglutide]. In my opinion, it’s really going to be a major advance in the treatment of obesity.”
In the discussion that followed the virtual presentation, one attendee asked about potential weight regain if a patient stopped taking the drug. Based on experience with another subcutaneous injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (Saxenda), already approved for obesity, it may be that taking medicine for chronic overweight may become like taking a statin for elevated cholesterol, said Dr. Wadden.
Novo Nordisk has now completed the four trials in the STEP (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) global phase 3 clinical development program, and plans to file applications with the Food and Drug Administration later this year and with the European Medicines Agency in early 2021 for review of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management.
“Fundamental issues need to be figured out”
Invited to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, said: “This is impressive data, confirming that semaglutide, particularly when used in concert with evidence-based counseling, is a highly effective agent for obesity management.”
However, “the real question, though, is what comes next,” stressed Dr. Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, DC.
“Will it be approved by the U.S. FDA? I believe so,” he said in an interview. “Yet we already have several effective obesity medications approved over the past decade – all of which are rarely used and therefore make little impact for patients in the real world.”
“Will there be insurance coverage, and therefore practical access for those who could most benefit?” he continued. “Will prescribers counsel their patients about obesity management, including the use of effective medications? Will patients utilize available options?”
“These and other fundamental issues must be figured out before we anoint any treatment option as a meaningful step forward, let alone a transformative development,” according to Dr. Kahan.
Similarly, Irl B. Hirsch, MD, stressed that, should this medication be approved for weight loss, cost would be a major factor in its uptake.
“I’m old enough to recall when we started using lovastatin in the late 1980s,” Dr. Hirsch, professor of medicine, University of Washington Medicine Diabetes Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
“We used it without the type of evidence of statin use we have today. A pill, but in those days the statins were expensive. But over time, the evidence for statins grew and over the next 15 years it was quite clear that for both primary prevention (for those with diabetes) and secondary intervention these drugs needed to be used by millions of people. These recommendations became easier once the drugs became generic.
“Will the same thing happen for GLP-1 agonists? The problem is we need both ‘hard-outcome data’ [such as 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events] and more reasonable cost before we see this expanding to an entire population.
“In the future perhaps we could have a biosimilar GLP-1 agonist that would be more affordable than what we pay now, but even before that we need agreement from our reimbursement thought leaders that our society should reimburse these agents.
“My thinking now is the cost-benefit could be favorable, but this is all dependent on what happens to the cost of the drugs over time,” he said.
Additive effect of intensive behavior therapy plus medication
Dr. Wadden explained that intensive behavioral therapy “provides 14 or more counseling sessions in 6 months to modify diet and physical activity, through the patients’ use of behavioral strategies (such as keeping daily food and activity diaries).”
Such programs typically produce mean weight loss of 5%-8% of initial weight; less frequent (e.g., monthly) programs typically produce weight loss of only 1%-3%.
Prior studies suggest that intensive behavioral therapy and medication have additive effects. To investigate this, Dr. Wadden and colleagues randomized 611 adults (81% women) who were a mean age of 46 years and had a mean body mass index of 38 kg/m2.
All participants received 30 intensive behavior therapy sessions provided by a registered dietitian (or other qualified provider), which typically lasted 20-30 minutes and were given weekly for 12 weeks, every other week for the next 12 weeks, and then monthly.
The dietitian gave participants behavioral strategies to help them adhere to diet and physical activity goals.
During the first 8 weeks, participants were provided with a 1,000-1,200 kcal/day meal replacement diet that included liquid shakes, meal bars, and prepared entrees designed to facilitate a large initial weight loss.
They then transitioned to a diet of conventional foods (of their choosing), with a goal of 1,200-1,800 kcal/day based on body weight.
The physical activity goal was 100 minutes/week of walking or other aerobic activity in the first month, building up to 200 minutes/week by month 6.
‘More effective than current FDA-approved weight-loss medications’
At week 68, mean body weight decreased from baseline by 16.0% in the semaglutide group versus 5.7% in the placebo group (P < .0001).
In this trial, where all participants received extensive intensive behavior therapy, more participants had weight loss ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, and ≥20% of their initial weight with semaglutide versus placebo (87% vs. 48%; 75% vs. 27%; 56% vs. 13%; 36% vs. 4%, respectively; all P < .0001).
From baseline to week 68, the proportion of participants with prediabetes decreased from 48% to 7% in the semaglutide group and from 53% to 26% in the placebo group.
Patients who received semaglutide had greater improvements in lipids, too.
Although the weight loss was 10.3% (10.6 kg) greater with semaglutide, Dr. Wadden noted, “additional studies have shown this net benefit to be as great as 11%-12%, which would make semaglutide 2.4 mg more effective than current [FDA-approved] weight-loss medications.”
“Naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave) with lifestyle counseling, for example,” he continued, “produces a loss that is 5 kg greater than lifestyle counseling plus placebo, liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda) a loss 5.3 kg greater than placebo, and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) a loss that is 8.8 kg greater than placebo.”
Semaglutide was well tolerated. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common type, occurred in 83% of patients in the semaglutide group and 63% of patients in the placebo group.
Nausea, as well as constipation and diarrhea, are common in medications that increase GLP-1 levels, Dr. Wadden noted. Side effects can be managed by slowly increasing the medication dose over 4 months.
Dr. Wadden expects that, if approved, semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once-weekly will be recommended as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Additional studies suggest that monthly counseling should be sufficient to obtain similar weight losses as those seen in the current trial, which had more intensive counseling.
As well as being approved as a weekly subcutaneous injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, semaglutide is also approved as an once-daily oral agent for the same indication (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
Dr. Wadden serves on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and WW (formerly Weight Watchers), and has received grant support, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne is an investigator in a long-term trial of semaglutide and has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk in the past. He also has other industry relationships that are not related to semaglutide.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a phase 3 trial where all participants received intensive behavior therapy, investigational 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (Novo Nordisk) resulted in a 10.3% greater average weight loss than placebo over a period of 68 weeks.
If approved, this medication could be a “potential major breakthrough” in obesity management, the investigators suggested. But other experts urged caution, as cost and uptake are important considerations.
‘Potential weight loss that patients would be happy with’
Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, presented results from the study of 611 adults with overweight or obesity but no diabetes at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.
“Perhaps even more impressive was the finding that 75% of patients lost 10% or more of baseline body weight,” said Dr. Wadden, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Moreover, in this trial of semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is approved for treating type 2 diabetes at a weekly subcutaneous dose of 1 mg, but is being investigated at the higher dose for weight loss – 55% of patients lost ≥15% of their initial weight, and 36% lost ≥20% of their initial weight.
“These large categorical weight losses – particularly of 15% and 20% of initial weight – are potentially a major breakthrough in the management of obesity,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.
Weight losses of this size, he added, “should confer greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors (such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and type 2 diabetes) as compared with losses of 5%-10% achieved with current behavioral or pharmacological approaches.” And patients are generally not satisfied with losses of less than 10% of initial weight when participating in intensive behavior programs or taking weight-loss medications.
Now, “the larger categorical weight losses will mean that a greater number of patients with obesity will be able to achieve a weight loss with which they are ... happy,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.
According to Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Professor of Metabolic Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who is an investigator for another trial of semaglutide: “Even though it has the same mechanism of action [as liraglutide], the weight loss is two or more times greater [with semaglutide]. In my opinion, it’s really going to be a major advance in the treatment of obesity.”
In the discussion that followed the virtual presentation, one attendee asked about potential weight regain if a patient stopped taking the drug. Based on experience with another subcutaneous injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (Saxenda), already approved for obesity, it may be that taking medicine for chronic overweight may become like taking a statin for elevated cholesterol, said Dr. Wadden.
Novo Nordisk has now completed the four trials in the STEP (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) global phase 3 clinical development program, and plans to file applications with the Food and Drug Administration later this year and with the European Medicines Agency in early 2021 for review of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management.
“Fundamental issues need to be figured out”
Invited to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, said: “This is impressive data, confirming that semaglutide, particularly when used in concert with evidence-based counseling, is a highly effective agent for obesity management.”
However, “the real question, though, is what comes next,” stressed Dr. Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, DC.
“Will it be approved by the U.S. FDA? I believe so,” he said in an interview. “Yet we already have several effective obesity medications approved over the past decade – all of which are rarely used and therefore make little impact for patients in the real world.”
“Will there be insurance coverage, and therefore practical access for those who could most benefit?” he continued. “Will prescribers counsel their patients about obesity management, including the use of effective medications? Will patients utilize available options?”
“These and other fundamental issues must be figured out before we anoint any treatment option as a meaningful step forward, let alone a transformative development,” according to Dr. Kahan.
Similarly, Irl B. Hirsch, MD, stressed that, should this medication be approved for weight loss, cost would be a major factor in its uptake.
“I’m old enough to recall when we started using lovastatin in the late 1980s,” Dr. Hirsch, professor of medicine, University of Washington Medicine Diabetes Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
“We used it without the type of evidence of statin use we have today. A pill, but in those days the statins were expensive. But over time, the evidence for statins grew and over the next 15 years it was quite clear that for both primary prevention (for those with diabetes) and secondary intervention these drugs needed to be used by millions of people. These recommendations became easier once the drugs became generic.
“Will the same thing happen for GLP-1 agonists? The problem is we need both ‘hard-outcome data’ [such as 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events] and more reasonable cost before we see this expanding to an entire population.
“In the future perhaps we could have a biosimilar GLP-1 agonist that would be more affordable than what we pay now, but even before that we need agreement from our reimbursement thought leaders that our society should reimburse these agents.
“My thinking now is the cost-benefit could be favorable, but this is all dependent on what happens to the cost of the drugs over time,” he said.
Additive effect of intensive behavior therapy plus medication
Dr. Wadden explained that intensive behavioral therapy “provides 14 or more counseling sessions in 6 months to modify diet and physical activity, through the patients’ use of behavioral strategies (such as keeping daily food and activity diaries).”
Such programs typically produce mean weight loss of 5%-8% of initial weight; less frequent (e.g., monthly) programs typically produce weight loss of only 1%-3%.
Prior studies suggest that intensive behavioral therapy and medication have additive effects. To investigate this, Dr. Wadden and colleagues randomized 611 adults (81% women) who were a mean age of 46 years and had a mean body mass index of 38 kg/m2.
All participants received 30 intensive behavior therapy sessions provided by a registered dietitian (or other qualified provider), which typically lasted 20-30 minutes and were given weekly for 12 weeks, every other week for the next 12 weeks, and then monthly.
The dietitian gave participants behavioral strategies to help them adhere to diet and physical activity goals.
During the first 8 weeks, participants were provided with a 1,000-1,200 kcal/day meal replacement diet that included liquid shakes, meal bars, and prepared entrees designed to facilitate a large initial weight loss.
They then transitioned to a diet of conventional foods (of their choosing), with a goal of 1,200-1,800 kcal/day based on body weight.
The physical activity goal was 100 minutes/week of walking or other aerobic activity in the first month, building up to 200 minutes/week by month 6.
‘More effective than current FDA-approved weight-loss medications’
At week 68, mean body weight decreased from baseline by 16.0% in the semaglutide group versus 5.7% in the placebo group (P < .0001).
In this trial, where all participants received extensive intensive behavior therapy, more participants had weight loss ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, and ≥20% of their initial weight with semaglutide versus placebo (87% vs. 48%; 75% vs. 27%; 56% vs. 13%; 36% vs. 4%, respectively; all P < .0001).
From baseline to week 68, the proportion of participants with prediabetes decreased from 48% to 7% in the semaglutide group and from 53% to 26% in the placebo group.
Patients who received semaglutide had greater improvements in lipids, too.
Although the weight loss was 10.3% (10.6 kg) greater with semaglutide, Dr. Wadden noted, “additional studies have shown this net benefit to be as great as 11%-12%, which would make semaglutide 2.4 mg more effective than current [FDA-approved] weight-loss medications.”
“Naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave) with lifestyle counseling, for example,” he continued, “produces a loss that is 5 kg greater than lifestyle counseling plus placebo, liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda) a loss 5.3 kg greater than placebo, and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) a loss that is 8.8 kg greater than placebo.”
Semaglutide was well tolerated. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common type, occurred in 83% of patients in the semaglutide group and 63% of patients in the placebo group.
Nausea, as well as constipation and diarrhea, are common in medications that increase GLP-1 levels, Dr. Wadden noted. Side effects can be managed by slowly increasing the medication dose over 4 months.
Dr. Wadden expects that, if approved, semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once-weekly will be recommended as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Additional studies suggest that monthly counseling should be sufficient to obtain similar weight losses as those seen in the current trial, which had more intensive counseling.
As well as being approved as a weekly subcutaneous injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, semaglutide is also approved as an once-daily oral agent for the same indication (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
Dr. Wadden serves on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and WW (formerly Weight Watchers), and has received grant support, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne is an investigator in a long-term trial of semaglutide and has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk in the past. He also has other industry relationships that are not related to semaglutide.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Lung cancer: Proton beam radiotherapy likely reduces cardiovascular events
The findings were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
Patients with lung cancer often have underlying cardiac risk factors, noted lead investigator Timothy Kegelman, MD, PhD, of University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“The dose to the heart correlates with adverse cardiovascular events following radiation therapy. One strategy to minimize dose to the heart is proton beam radiation,” Dr. Kegelman said.
He and his colleagues retrospectively studied consecutive patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy plus either proton beam radiotherapy or conventional photon radiotherapy.
The team used electronic health records to ascertain incidence of six cardiovascular events: MI, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and transient ischemic attack. Patients who had previously experienced an event were not considered as part of the at-risk population for that specific event after radiotherapy.
Analyses were based on 98 patients who received proton beam radiotherapy and 104 patients who received conventional photon radiotherapy.
At baseline, the proton cohort was older, had a heavier smoking history, and had a higher prevalence of previous cardiovascular events (46.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .03).
The total median radiation dose was identical for the proton and photon groups (66.6 Gy), but the former group had significantly lower measures of cardiac radiation dose, including roughly half the mean dose to the heart (6.9 vs. 13.3 Gy).
Outcomes and next steps
At a median follow-up of 29 months, the proton beam radiotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence of transient ischemic attack, compared with the photon radiotherapy group (1.1% vs. 8.2%; P = .04).
The proton group also had numerically lower incidences of MI (2.3% vs. 9.0%; P = .06) and stroke (3.2% vs. 6.1%; P = .50).
The proton and photon groups were similar as far as the incidence of total cardiovascular events (53.1% vs. 47.1%; P = .48) and the 3-year overall survival rate (38.8% vs. 42.1%; P = .99).
“Our future studies aim to examine the potential relationships between grade of cardiac event and type of radiotherapy and dose to cardiac substructures,” Dr. Kegelman commented.
In addition, his institution is participating in RTOG 1308, a phase 3 trial comparing photon and proton beam radiotherapy in patients with inoperable lung cancer that will better assess cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. The trial is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
Accumulating evidence
“This study adds to a growing body of evidence about the potential importance of heart dose in any radiation modality,” said Daniel Gomez, MD, MBA, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved in the study.
The RTOG 0617 trial and the Lung ART trial previously showed correlations between lower radiation dose to the heart and better survival in patients with lung cancer, Dr. Gomez noted.
“It’s been well established that protons can improve heart dose, and therefore it’s been inferred that they may improve outcomes, but the exact mechanisms remain unclear,” Dr. Gomez said.
Proton beam radiotherapy performed well in a single-arm, phase 2 trial among patients with unresectable NSCLC.
“The ongoing phase 3 trial is using a more modern proton technique and has a larger population, with a randomized study design. It will be much more informative,” Dr. Gomez predicted.
The current study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Kegelman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Gomez disclosed honoraria from Varian.
SOURCE: Kegelman TP et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1046.
The findings were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
Patients with lung cancer often have underlying cardiac risk factors, noted lead investigator Timothy Kegelman, MD, PhD, of University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“The dose to the heart correlates with adverse cardiovascular events following radiation therapy. One strategy to minimize dose to the heart is proton beam radiation,” Dr. Kegelman said.
He and his colleagues retrospectively studied consecutive patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy plus either proton beam radiotherapy or conventional photon radiotherapy.
The team used electronic health records to ascertain incidence of six cardiovascular events: MI, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and transient ischemic attack. Patients who had previously experienced an event were not considered as part of the at-risk population for that specific event after radiotherapy.
Analyses were based on 98 patients who received proton beam radiotherapy and 104 patients who received conventional photon radiotherapy.
At baseline, the proton cohort was older, had a heavier smoking history, and had a higher prevalence of previous cardiovascular events (46.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .03).
The total median radiation dose was identical for the proton and photon groups (66.6 Gy), but the former group had significantly lower measures of cardiac radiation dose, including roughly half the mean dose to the heart (6.9 vs. 13.3 Gy).
Outcomes and next steps
At a median follow-up of 29 months, the proton beam radiotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence of transient ischemic attack, compared with the photon radiotherapy group (1.1% vs. 8.2%; P = .04).
The proton group also had numerically lower incidences of MI (2.3% vs. 9.0%; P = .06) and stroke (3.2% vs. 6.1%; P = .50).
The proton and photon groups were similar as far as the incidence of total cardiovascular events (53.1% vs. 47.1%; P = .48) and the 3-year overall survival rate (38.8% vs. 42.1%; P = .99).
“Our future studies aim to examine the potential relationships between grade of cardiac event and type of radiotherapy and dose to cardiac substructures,” Dr. Kegelman commented.
In addition, his institution is participating in RTOG 1308, a phase 3 trial comparing photon and proton beam radiotherapy in patients with inoperable lung cancer that will better assess cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. The trial is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
Accumulating evidence
“This study adds to a growing body of evidence about the potential importance of heart dose in any radiation modality,” said Daniel Gomez, MD, MBA, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved in the study.
The RTOG 0617 trial and the Lung ART trial previously showed correlations between lower radiation dose to the heart and better survival in patients with lung cancer, Dr. Gomez noted.
“It’s been well established that protons can improve heart dose, and therefore it’s been inferred that they may improve outcomes, but the exact mechanisms remain unclear,” Dr. Gomez said.
Proton beam radiotherapy performed well in a single-arm, phase 2 trial among patients with unresectable NSCLC.
“The ongoing phase 3 trial is using a more modern proton technique and has a larger population, with a randomized study design. It will be much more informative,” Dr. Gomez predicted.
The current study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Kegelman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Gomez disclosed honoraria from Varian.
SOURCE: Kegelman TP et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1046.
The findings were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.
Patients with lung cancer often have underlying cardiac risk factors, noted lead investigator Timothy Kegelman, MD, PhD, of University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“The dose to the heart correlates with adverse cardiovascular events following radiation therapy. One strategy to minimize dose to the heart is proton beam radiation,” Dr. Kegelman said.
He and his colleagues retrospectively studied consecutive patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy plus either proton beam radiotherapy or conventional photon radiotherapy.
The team used electronic health records to ascertain incidence of six cardiovascular events: MI, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and transient ischemic attack. Patients who had previously experienced an event were not considered as part of the at-risk population for that specific event after radiotherapy.
Analyses were based on 98 patients who received proton beam radiotherapy and 104 patients who received conventional photon radiotherapy.
At baseline, the proton cohort was older, had a heavier smoking history, and had a higher prevalence of previous cardiovascular events (46.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .03).
The total median radiation dose was identical for the proton and photon groups (66.6 Gy), but the former group had significantly lower measures of cardiac radiation dose, including roughly half the mean dose to the heart (6.9 vs. 13.3 Gy).
Outcomes and next steps
At a median follow-up of 29 months, the proton beam radiotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence of transient ischemic attack, compared with the photon radiotherapy group (1.1% vs. 8.2%; P = .04).
The proton group also had numerically lower incidences of MI (2.3% vs. 9.0%; P = .06) and stroke (3.2% vs. 6.1%; P = .50).
The proton and photon groups were similar as far as the incidence of total cardiovascular events (53.1% vs. 47.1%; P = .48) and the 3-year overall survival rate (38.8% vs. 42.1%; P = .99).
“Our future studies aim to examine the potential relationships between grade of cardiac event and type of radiotherapy and dose to cardiac substructures,” Dr. Kegelman commented.
In addition, his institution is participating in RTOG 1308, a phase 3 trial comparing photon and proton beam radiotherapy in patients with inoperable lung cancer that will better assess cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. The trial is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
Accumulating evidence
“This study adds to a growing body of evidence about the potential importance of heart dose in any radiation modality,” said Daniel Gomez, MD, MBA, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved in the study.
The RTOG 0617 trial and the Lung ART trial previously showed correlations between lower radiation dose to the heart and better survival in patients with lung cancer, Dr. Gomez noted.
“It’s been well established that protons can improve heart dose, and therefore it’s been inferred that they may improve outcomes, but the exact mechanisms remain unclear,” Dr. Gomez said.
Proton beam radiotherapy performed well in a single-arm, phase 2 trial among patients with unresectable NSCLC.
“The ongoing phase 3 trial is using a more modern proton technique and has a larger population, with a randomized study design. It will be much more informative,” Dr. Gomez predicted.
The current study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Kegelman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Gomez disclosed honoraria from Varian.
SOURCE: Kegelman TP et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1046.
FROM ASTRO 2020
Prevention of HMA failure a goal for high-risk MDS posttransplant
Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.
Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”
Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.
The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”
Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
Novel therapies
Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.
Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.
Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.
The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”
Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.
Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”
Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.
Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”
Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.
The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”
Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
Novel therapies
Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.
Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.
Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.
The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”
Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.
Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”
Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.
Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”
Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.
The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”
Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
Novel therapies
Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.
Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.
Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.
The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”
Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.
Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”
Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.
The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.
FROM ALF 2020
Report may inform first dietary guidelines for Americans from birth to 24 months
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020.
An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.
The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.
Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.
While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
Promote healthy dietary patterns
The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.
Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.
- Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
- Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
- Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
- From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
- The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.
The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
Recommendations during pregnancy
Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.
The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.
Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.
The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
Addressing a gap
The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.
Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.
Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.
For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.
Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.
To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”
Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020.
An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.
The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.
Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.
While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
Promote healthy dietary patterns
The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.
Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.
- Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
- Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
- Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
- From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
- The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.
The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
Recommendations during pregnancy
Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.
The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.
Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.
The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
Addressing a gap
The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.
Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.
Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.
For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.
Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.
To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”
Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020.
An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.
The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.
Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.
While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
Promote healthy dietary patterns
The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.
Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.
- Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
- Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
- Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
- From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
- The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.
The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
Recommendations during pregnancy
Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.
The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.
Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.
The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
Addressing a gap
The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.
“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.
Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.
Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.
For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.
Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.
To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”
Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM AAP 2020