Cardiology

The Food and Drug Administration is reminding health care providers about the risk of major complications if cardiac perforation occurs during leadless pacemaker implantation.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Cardiac perforation is a rare complication and the overall risk associated with leadless pacemaker implantation appears similar to that with traditional transvenous pacemakers, the agency says. However, premarket clinical studies of the Micra leadless pacemaker (Medtronic) suggested major complications related to cardiac perforation appear to be more severe for those receiving a leadless pacemaker.

“Information from real-world use suggests that cardiac perforations associated with Micra leadless pacemakers are more likely to be associated with serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade or death, than with traditional pacemakers,” the FDA said Nov. 17 in a letter to health care professionals.

“The FDA is bringing this information to your attention as a reminder and to encourage you to report leadless pacemaker cardiac perforations and complications related to perforation to the manufacturer and the FDA,” it notes.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System in 2015 was the first leadless pacemaker approved in Europe, and was approved in the United States the following year with a mandated postapproval study to help assess continued safety and efficacy. The Micra device is currently the only approved leadless pacemaker in the United States.

The FDA continues to evaluate outcomes in patients who receive leadless pacing systems and recommends that health care providers discuss the risks and benefits of available pacing system options with patients as part of shared clinical decision-making.

Providers are advised to read and carefully follow the instructions for use and training for Medtronic’s Micra pacemaker.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System or any other pacemaker systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse-event reporting program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration is reminding health care providers about the risk of major complications if cardiac perforation occurs during leadless pacemaker implantation.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Cardiac perforation is a rare complication and the overall risk associated with leadless pacemaker implantation appears similar to that with traditional transvenous pacemakers, the agency says. However, premarket clinical studies of the Micra leadless pacemaker (Medtronic) suggested major complications related to cardiac perforation appear to be more severe for those receiving a leadless pacemaker.

“Information from real-world use suggests that cardiac perforations associated with Micra leadless pacemakers are more likely to be associated with serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade or death, than with traditional pacemakers,” the FDA said Nov. 17 in a letter to health care professionals.

“The FDA is bringing this information to your attention as a reminder and to encourage you to report leadless pacemaker cardiac perforations and complications related to perforation to the manufacturer and the FDA,” it notes.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System in 2015 was the first leadless pacemaker approved in Europe, and was approved in the United States the following year with a mandated postapproval study to help assess continued safety and efficacy. The Micra device is currently the only approved leadless pacemaker in the United States.

The FDA continues to evaluate outcomes in patients who receive leadless pacing systems and recommends that health care providers discuss the risks and benefits of available pacing system options with patients as part of shared clinical decision-making.

Providers are advised to read and carefully follow the instructions for use and training for Medtronic’s Micra pacemaker.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System or any other pacemaker systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse-event reporting program.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration is reminding health care providers about the risk of major complications if cardiac perforation occurs during leadless pacemaker implantation.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Cardiac perforation is a rare complication and the overall risk associated with leadless pacemaker implantation appears similar to that with traditional transvenous pacemakers, the agency says. However, premarket clinical studies of the Micra leadless pacemaker (Medtronic) suggested major complications related to cardiac perforation appear to be more severe for those receiving a leadless pacemaker.

“Information from real-world use suggests that cardiac perforations associated with Micra leadless pacemakers are more likely to be associated with serious complications, such as cardiac tamponade or death, than with traditional pacemakers,” the FDA said Nov. 17 in a letter to health care professionals.

“The FDA is bringing this information to your attention as a reminder and to encourage you to report leadless pacemaker cardiac perforations and complications related to perforation to the manufacturer and the FDA,” it notes.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System in 2015 was the first leadless pacemaker approved in Europe, and was approved in the United States the following year with a mandated postapproval study to help assess continued safety and efficacy. The Micra device is currently the only approved leadless pacemaker in the United States.

The FDA continues to evaluate outcomes in patients who receive leadless pacing systems and recommends that health care providers discuss the risks and benefits of available pacing system options with patients as part of shared clinical decision-making.

Providers are advised to read and carefully follow the instructions for use and training for Medtronic’s Micra pacemaker.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System or any other pacemaker systems should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse-event reporting program.
 

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

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes. 

Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes. 

Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: Despite advances in AFib management, up to 5% of patients will have a major complication each year. Current guidelines favor rate control based on prior studies that did not show mortality benefit with rhythm control. By expanding the rhythm strategy to include catheter ablation in early AFib, this trial re-examines if implementing rhythm control leads to improved clinical outcomes. 

Dr. Korovaichuk is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.

Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.

“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”

VA study details

The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.

The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.

The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.

After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).

Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
 

Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study

In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.

All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.

A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.

Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.

Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.

Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.

“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”

The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research

Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.

Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.

“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”

VA study details

The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.

The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.

The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.

After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).

Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
 

Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study

In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.

All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.

A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.

Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.

Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.

Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.

“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”

The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research

Each month of glucocorticoid use in middle-aged patients with rheumatoid arthritis increases their odds of a major adverse cardiac event by 14%, independent of their baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a Veterans Administration study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A similar study of Medicare and insurance claims data also presented at the meeting similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with long-term glucocorticoid use among patients with RA.

Up to half of patients with RA use long-term glucocorticoids, Beth Wallace, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a staff rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center, told attendees in her presentation.

“Despite previous work suggesting they increase major [adverse] cardiovascular events, or MACE, in a dose-dependent way, prior work suggests long-term glucocorticoid use is common among RA patients with traditional basic risk factors like hyperlipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking,” Dr. Wallace said. “But we know little about the incremental effects of ongoing glucocorticoid use on MACE risk in RA, particularly as traditional predisposing comorbidities might confound its assessment.”

VA study details

The retrospective cohort study relied on VA administrative data for 26,239 patients with RA who had at least one rheumatology visit during 2013-2017. Only adults aged 40-90 were included (85% men), and none had other rheumatologic conditions, a previous MACE, or congestive heart failure in the preceding 5 years.

The researchers used pharmacy dispensing data to determine exposure to glucocorticoids, based on the number of days’ supply per 6 months and claims data to identify the primary outcome of MACE, defined as acute myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, cardiac arrest, or coronary revascularization, in the following 6 months. After a first MACE, a patient was removed from subsequent analysis so that only a participant’s initial event was considered.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for demographics, health care utilization, long-term glucocorticoid use (over 90 days), use of methotrexate or biologics, and baseline cardiac risk based on the Veterans Affairs Risk Score for Cardiovascular Disease (VARS-CVD). The VARS-CVD uses age, sex, race, tobacco use, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes diagnosis, and use of antihypertensives to estimate the risk of a MACE in the next 5 years. A 5-year risk of less than 3% was considered low, 3%-9% medium, and above 9% high.

The population’s median 5-year MACE risk based on VARS-CVD was 5.7%, with nearly a quarter of participants (23%) having a high risk. During the first year of follow-up, 23% of patients overall, including 24% of those with high risk, received at least 90 days of glucocorticoids. An incident MACE occurred in 3.2% of overall patients and in 4.9% of high-risk patients. Median time until an incident MACE was 25 months.

After adjusting for confounders, the researchers calculated that each additional 30 days of glucocorticoid use per 6-month period was linked to a 14% increase in odds of a MACE in the subsequent 6-month period (odds ratio, 1.14). This finding remained independent of baseline cardiovascular risk, previous long-term exposure to glucocorticoids, baseline office visits, methotrexate or biologic use, and baseline Elixhauser Cormobidity Index (except rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and congestive heart failure).

Dr. Wallace noted that the observational study could still include residual confounding because of factors such as rheumatic disease activity, glucocorticoid dose, and care outside the VA. They also did not distinguish between existing and incident RA and were missing some VARS-CVD data, and they did not adjust for hydroxychloroquine use, which can reduce cardiovascular risk.
 

Details of Medicare and private insurance claims study

In the second study, Brian Coburn, MD, a fourth-year internal medicine resident at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented findings on long-term glucocorticoid use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA based on 2006-2015 claims data from Medicare and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. That study similarly found a dose-dependent increase in cardiovascular risk with increasing dosage of long-term glucocorticoids.

All the patients in the two databases had an RA diagnosis and remained on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for at least 180 days without adding a new DMARD or stopping therapy for more than 90 days. Patients were not included if they had a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Using the 180 days before and after starting DMARDs as baseline, the researchers assessed average dose of glucocorticoids during the last 90 days of the baseline period. Participants included 135,583 patients with Medicare, contributing 158,839 years at risk, and 39,272 patients in the Optum database, contributing 36,876 years at risk. The researchers then assessed composite cardiovascular events as a combination of strokes and myocardial infarctions.

A total of 2,067 cardiovascular events occurred among the Medicare patients, for a incidence of 1.3 events per 100 people per year, and 313 cardiovascular events occurred among Optum patients, for an incidence of 0.8 events per 100 people per year.

Over 1 year, a predicted 1.1% of Medicare patients not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack, compared with 1.4% of those taking up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 1.7% of those taking 5-10 mg/day glucocorticoids, and 1.9% of those taking more than 10 mg/day glucocorticoids. The number needed to harm was 400 people for up to 5 mg/day, 192 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 137 people for more than 10 mg/day.

Among Optum patients, 0.7% not taking glucocorticoids would experience a stroke or heart attack over 1 year, compared with 0.9% of those taking up to 5 mg/day and 0.8% of those taking either 5-10 mg/day or more than 10 mg/day. The number needed to harm was 714 people for up to 5 mg/day of glucocorticoids, 5,000 people for 5-10 mg/day, and 1,667 for over 10 mg/day.

Dr. Bartels noted that this study “reported unadjusted rates, without controlling for traditional CVD risk factors, for instance, so it will be interesting to see that report after full analysis and peer review as well.” She added that the rates in the VA study may even be higher if there were uncounted cardiovascular events or deaths outside the VA.

“The key take away is that glucocorticoids have dose-related cardiovascular risk shown in both duration and dose of use now in these three large U.S. cohorts,” Dr. Bartels said. “Providers need to counsel patients in judicious use of glucocorticoids, favoring the role of biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs while balancing unique needs and quality-of-life considerations in our patients.”

The VA retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research. Dr. Wallace and seven other authors reported no disclosures. Several coauthors reported financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare/Optum retrospective cohort study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Coburn and five coauthors had no disclosures, while several others reported financial ties to a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Bartels has received institutional grant support from Pfizer for tobacco cessation research

Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.

“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Streamlining heart failure treatment

The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
 

Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure

The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.

The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
 

Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%

Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:

• The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
• Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
• Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
• Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.

Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.

The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m².

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.

“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Streamlining heart failure treatment

The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
 

Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure

The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.

The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
 

Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%

Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:

• The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
• Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
• Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
• Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.

Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.

The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m².

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Main results from the landmark EMPEROR-Preserved trial, reported in August, established for the first time that treatment with a drug, the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin, could clearly benefit patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The only caveat was that EMPEROR-Preserved enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 41%, while “true” HFpEF means patients with heart failure and an LVEF of at least 50%, according to recent definitions. About one-third of the 5,988 patients enrolled in EMPEROR-Preserved had an LVEF of 41%-49%, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.

Secondary analysis from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has now resolved this ambiguity by showing that, among the 4,005 patients (67%) enrolled in the trial with an LVEF of at least 50%, treatment with empagliflozin (Jardiance) reduced the study’s primary endpoint – cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure – by a significant 17%, relative to patients who received placebo, dismissing any doubt about the relevance of the overall finding to the subgroup of patients with unmitigated HFpEF.

“This is the first large-scale trial to document meaningful and significant improvements associated with drug therapy in patients with ‘true’ HFpEF,” Stefan D. Anker, MD, said in presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Streamlining heart failure treatment

The demonstration that empagliflozin is an effective – and safe – treatment for patients with HFpEF not only provides a new treatment for a disorder that until now had no evidence-based intervention, but also streamlines the management approach for treating patients with heart failure with an agent from empagliflozin’s class, the SGLT2 inhibitors, commented Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis.

That’s because empagliflozin has shown significant and consistent benefit across essentially the full range of LVEFs seen in patients with heart failure based on its performance in EMPEROR-Preserved as well as in a mirror-image trial, EMPEROR-Reduced, run in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Clinicians do not need to stop and assess LVEF with echocardiography or other imaging before they decide on how to treat heart failure patients” with an SGLT2 inhibitor, noted Dr. Walsh, a designated discussant for the report. “Clinicians who are busy can now refer less to LVEF than to the patient’s phenotype.”
 

Treatment prevents hospitalization for heart failure

The more-detailed data reported by Dr. Anker also strengthened the case that the benefit from empagliflozin in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% mostly came from a reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), which dropped following start of empagliflozin treatment by a relative 22%, compared with placebo for first HHF, a significant decline, and by a relative 17% for total HHF, a reduction that missed significance in this secondary analysis. The other half of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, declined by a nonsignificant 11% with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in patients with clear-cut HFpEF.

The significant reduction in first HHF is, by itself, sufficient reason to use empagliflozin (or possibly a different SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with HFpEF, maintained Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.

“Attenuated HHF is a meaningful outcome,” stressed Dr. Yancy, also a discussant for the study. “This is the first time we’ve had evidence supporting that we can change the natural history of patients with HFpEF. While we still need to find interventions that save lives, we cannot overlook that this treatment can improve morbidity, and we cannot overlook that patient quality of life is better.”
 

Further benefits in patients with an LVEF of at least 50%

Dr. Anker, professor of cardiology and metabolism at Charité Medical University in Berlin, also reported results from several other analyses that further defined the effect of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes of patients with “true” HFpEF:

• The impact of empagliflozin, compared with placebo, for reducing both the study’s combined, primary outcome as well as total HHF was statistically consistent across all strata of LVEF, from 50% to greater than 70%. However, both outcome measures also showed a puzzling loss of benefit among patients with an LVEF of 65%-69%. In prior reports, a researcher on the EMPEROR-Preserved team, Milton Packer, MD, speculated that some patients in this LVEF stratum might not actually have had heart failure but instead had a different disorder that mimicked heart failure in clinical presentation, such as atrial fibrillation.
• Patients’ quality of life as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire showed a consistent benefit from empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo, both in patients with an LVEF of at least 50% as well as in those with an LVEF of 41%-49%. In both subgroups the adjusted mean difference from placebo was significant and about 1.5 points.
• Patients showed a significant improvement in average New York Heart Association functional class while on treatment, and a strong trend toward less deterioration in functional class while on treatment.
• Deterioration of renal function on treatment slowed by an average 1.24 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in patients on empagliflozin, compared with placebo, in the subgroup with an LVEF of at least 50%.

Dr. Anker also reported the primary outcome and component results for the subgroup of patients with a baseline LVEF of 41%-49%. These patients had what looked like a “bigger magnitude” of effect from treatment, he noted, showing a significant 29% relative decline in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, and a significant 42% relative drop in first HHF and a significant 43% relative decline in total HHF, compared with placebo.

The primary analysis from EMPEROR-Preserved, which included all 5,988 randomized patients with heart failure and an LVEF of 41% or greater, showed a significant reduction in the combined, primary endpoint with empagliflozin treatment of 21%, compared with control patients during a median follow-up of about 26 months. The absolute rate reduction of the combined primary endpoint was 3.3% during 26-months’ follow-up. Statistical tests have shown no heterogeneity of this effect by diabetes status (49% of patients had diabetes), nor by renal function down to an estimated glomerular filtration rate at entry as low as 20 mL/min per 1.73 m².

EMPEROR-Preserved was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Anker has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim as well as to Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Brahms, Cardiac Dimensions, Cordio, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Walsh and Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.

“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.

Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.

REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
 

Platelet function assays test reversal

On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.

On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.

The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
 

Hemostasis documented in all but one patient

Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.

Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.

There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.

While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.

The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
 

No good current options for reversal

Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.

“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.

Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.

“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.

For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”

Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.

Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
 

The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.

“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.

Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.

REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
 

Platelet function assays test reversal

On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.

On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.

The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
 

Hemostasis documented in all but one patient

Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.

Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.

There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.

While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.

The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
 

No good current options for reversal

Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.

“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.

Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.

“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.

For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”

Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.

Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
 

The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.

“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.

Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.

REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
 

Platelet function assays test reversal

On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.

On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.

The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
 

Hemostasis documented in all but one patient

Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.

Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.

There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.

While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.

The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
 

No good current options for reversal

Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.

“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.

Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.

“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.

For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”

Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.

Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
 

Lowering blood pressure – known to prevent the vascular complications of type 2 diabetes – can also stop the onset of diabetes itself, although the effects vary according to antihypertensive drug class, results from a new meta-analysis show.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) – so-called renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers – showed the strongest association with preventive effects, while conversely, beta-blocker and thiazide diuretic antihypertensives were linked to an increased risk of new-onset diabetes.

“This study suggests that blood pressure lowering can help prevent diabetes in addition to its well-established beneficial effects in reducing cardiovascular events,” write Milad Nazarzadeh and colleagues with the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration in their article published in The Lancet.

“The differing effects of the drug classes support decision-making for antihypertensive drug choice according to an individual’s risk profile,” note Mr. Nazarzadeh, of Deep Medicine, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, U.K., and colleagues.

“In particular, [RAS inhibitors], ACE inhibitors and ARBs, should become the drugs of choice when clinical risk of diabetes is of concern, whereas beta blockers and thiazide diuretics should be avoided where possible,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Matthew A. Cavender, MD, MPH, and Robert C. Wirka, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agree that the new findings, along with the bulk of previous evidence, point to an important role of RAS-inhibiting drugs in diabetes prevention.

“Based on the accumulated evidence, including the results of these analyses, blood pressure control, particularly with RAS inhibition, should be considered as a possible strategy to reduce the risk of developing diabetes,” they write.

They note that, while “the absolute risk reduction found in this meta-analysis is modest, interventions with small benefits can have an outsized effect when applied to conditions as common as hypertension.”

And commenting on the findings to the U.K. Science & Media Centre, Marc George, MBChB, PhD, blood pressure clinical lead for University College London Hospital, U.K., said: “Lowering blood pressure prevents heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure, and this new large and comprehensive study published in The Lancet also shows that it lowers the risk of developing diabetes. Until now this effect was not clear.”

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics, The Open University, U.K., similarly concurs: “Though there is good evidence that lowering people’s blood pressure, if it is too high, can have important health benefits in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, it hasn’t been clear whether lowering blood pressure can reduce the chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. This is an impressive study.”
 

RAS blockers associated with lower diabetes risk

The findings are from an individual data meta-analysis of 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted between 1973 and 2008 and involving five major classes of antihypertensive drugs: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers.

Overall, the studies included 145,939 participants, of whom 60.6% were men.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 9,883 of the study participants developed new-onset type 2 diabetes.

Those treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs had a reduced relative risk of new-onset diabetes that was nearly identical (risk reduction, 0.84 for both) versus placebo.

However, treatment with beta-blockers or thiazide diuretics was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.48 and 1.20, respectively), consistent with previous evidence that, specifically, second-line thiazide diuretics and third-line beta blockers increase the risk of diabetes.

No significant reduction or increase in risk was observed with calcium channel blockers (RR, 1.02).

For the reductions with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, each reduction in systolic blood pressure of 5-mm Hg was associated with an 11% reduced risk of developing diabetes.

“The relative magnitude of reduction per 5-mm Hg systolic blood pressure lowering was similar to those reported for prevention of major cardiovascular events,” the authors say.

“[This] will strengthen the case for blood pressure reduction through lifestyle interventions known to reduce blood pressure, and blood pressure lowering treatments with drugs, and possibly device therapies,” they say.

In the opposite direction, research has suggested that each 20-mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure is associated with as much as a 77% increased risk of type 2 diabetes; however, the causality of that association is uncertain, the authors note.
 

Results fill gap in evidence for guidelines

The meta-analysis findings were further validated in a supplemental mendelian randomization analysis, which used data from the International Consortium for Blood Pressure genome-wide association study and the UK Biobank. The analysis showed that people with genetic variants that have a similar effect on the RAS pathway as ACE inhibitors and ARBs also had a reduced risk of diabetes.

On this point, Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, lecturer in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at St. George’s, University of London, told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is a comprehensive study triangulating clinical trial and genetic data to find support for effects of blood pressure reduction through particular pharmacological targets on glycemic control and risk of type 2 diabetes.” 

Mr. Nazarzadeh and colleagues say that uncertainty regarding whether the reduction in diabetes risk is caused by blood pressure lowering itself, or by some other effect of the antihypertensive drugs, has meant that guideline recommendations on the role of antihypertensive drugs have been lacking.

However, the authors assert that “our study fills this gap in evidence using individual participant data from randomized controlled trials and assessing effects for a standardized fixed degree of blood pressure reduction.”

“With consistent results from both randomized controlled trials and genetic analyses, we have shown that elevated blood pressure is indeed a modifiable risk factor for new-onset type 2 diabetes in people without a diagnosis of diabetes, with a relative effect size similar to those seen for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease,” they state.
 

Authors of U.S. hypertension guidelines should follow lead of ESC

Under the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, RAS inhibitors (in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic) have a class 1 recommendation for the treatment of hypertension; however, diabetes and cardiology societies in the United States only recommend a preference for a RAS inhibitor over other agents among those with concomitant albuminuria.

But with an estimated 13% of Americans having diabetes and a striking 34.5% having prediabetes, the need for more measures to tackle the problem is urgent, say Dr. Cavender and Dr. Wirka in their editorial.

“Perhaps these data are enough to encourage the writers of the hypertension guidelines in the U.S. to follow the lead of the ESC to make RAS inhibitors the first-line hypertension treatment for all patients and not just in those with albuminuria,” they state.

Dr. Cavender has reported receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL Behring, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Wirka and Dr. George have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the SMC and member of its advisory committee. Dr. Gill is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk.

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

Lowering blood pressure – known to prevent the vascular complications of type 2 diabetes – can also stop the onset of diabetes itself, although the effects vary according to antihypertensive drug class, results from a new meta-analysis show.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) – so-called renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers – showed the strongest association with preventive effects, while conversely, beta-blocker and thiazide diuretic antihypertensives were linked to an increased risk of new-onset diabetes.

“This study suggests that blood pressure lowering can help prevent diabetes in addition to its well-established beneficial effects in reducing cardiovascular events,” write Milad Nazarzadeh and colleagues with the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration in their article published in The Lancet.

“The differing effects of the drug classes support decision-making for antihypertensive drug choice according to an individual’s risk profile,” note Mr. Nazarzadeh, of Deep Medicine, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, U.K., and colleagues.

“In particular, [RAS inhibitors], ACE inhibitors and ARBs, should become the drugs of choice when clinical risk of diabetes is of concern, whereas beta blockers and thiazide diuretics should be avoided where possible,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Matthew A. Cavender, MD, MPH, and Robert C. Wirka, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agree that the new findings, along with the bulk of previous evidence, point to an important role of RAS-inhibiting drugs in diabetes prevention.

“Based on the accumulated evidence, including the results of these analyses, blood pressure control, particularly with RAS inhibition, should be considered as a possible strategy to reduce the risk of developing diabetes,” they write.

They note that, while “the absolute risk reduction found in this meta-analysis is modest, interventions with small benefits can have an outsized effect when applied to conditions as common as hypertension.”

And commenting on the findings to the U.K. Science & Media Centre, Marc George, MBChB, PhD, blood pressure clinical lead for University College London Hospital, U.K., said: “Lowering blood pressure prevents heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure, and this new large and comprehensive study published in The Lancet also shows that it lowers the risk of developing diabetes. Until now this effect was not clear.”

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics, The Open University, U.K., similarly concurs: “Though there is good evidence that lowering people’s blood pressure, if it is too high, can have important health benefits in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, it hasn’t been clear whether lowering blood pressure can reduce the chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. This is an impressive study.”
 

RAS blockers associated with lower diabetes risk

The findings are from an individual data meta-analysis of 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted between 1973 and 2008 and involving five major classes of antihypertensive drugs: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers.

Overall, the studies included 145,939 participants, of whom 60.6% were men.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 9,883 of the study participants developed new-onset type 2 diabetes.

Those treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs had a reduced relative risk of new-onset diabetes that was nearly identical (risk reduction, 0.84 for both) versus placebo.

However, treatment with beta-blockers or thiazide diuretics was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.48 and 1.20, respectively), consistent with previous evidence that, specifically, second-line thiazide diuretics and third-line beta blockers increase the risk of diabetes.

No significant reduction or increase in risk was observed with calcium channel blockers (RR, 1.02).

For the reductions with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, each reduction in systolic blood pressure of 5-mm Hg was associated with an 11% reduced risk of developing diabetes.

“The relative magnitude of reduction per 5-mm Hg systolic blood pressure lowering was similar to those reported for prevention of major cardiovascular events,” the authors say.

“[This] will strengthen the case for blood pressure reduction through lifestyle interventions known to reduce blood pressure, and blood pressure lowering treatments with drugs, and possibly device therapies,” they say.

In the opposite direction, research has suggested that each 20-mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure is associated with as much as a 77% increased risk of type 2 diabetes; however, the causality of that association is uncertain, the authors note.
 

Results fill gap in evidence for guidelines

The meta-analysis findings were further validated in a supplemental mendelian randomization analysis, which used data from the International Consortium for Blood Pressure genome-wide association study and the UK Biobank. The analysis showed that people with genetic variants that have a similar effect on the RAS pathway as ACE inhibitors and ARBs also had a reduced risk of diabetes.

On this point, Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, lecturer in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at St. George’s, University of London, told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is a comprehensive study triangulating clinical trial and genetic data to find support for effects of blood pressure reduction through particular pharmacological targets on glycemic control and risk of type 2 diabetes.” 

Mr. Nazarzadeh and colleagues say that uncertainty regarding whether the reduction in diabetes risk is caused by blood pressure lowering itself, or by some other effect of the antihypertensive drugs, has meant that guideline recommendations on the role of antihypertensive drugs have been lacking.

However, the authors assert that “our study fills this gap in evidence using individual participant data from randomized controlled trials and assessing effects for a standardized fixed degree of blood pressure reduction.”

“With consistent results from both randomized controlled trials and genetic analyses, we have shown that elevated blood pressure is indeed a modifiable risk factor for new-onset type 2 diabetes in people without a diagnosis of diabetes, with a relative effect size similar to those seen for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease,” they state.
 

Authors of U.S. hypertension guidelines should follow lead of ESC

Under the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, RAS inhibitors (in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic) have a class 1 recommendation for the treatment of hypertension; however, diabetes and cardiology societies in the United States only recommend a preference for a RAS inhibitor over other agents among those with concomitant albuminuria.

But with an estimated 13% of Americans having diabetes and a striking 34.5% having prediabetes, the need for more measures to tackle the problem is urgent, say Dr. Cavender and Dr. Wirka in their editorial.

“Perhaps these data are enough to encourage the writers of the hypertension guidelines in the U.S. to follow the lead of the ESC to make RAS inhibitors the first-line hypertension treatment for all patients and not just in those with albuminuria,” they state.

Dr. Cavender has reported receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL Behring, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Wirka and Dr. George have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the SMC and member of its advisory committee. Dr. Gill is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk.

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

Lowering blood pressure – known to prevent the vascular complications of type 2 diabetes – can also stop the onset of diabetes itself, although the effects vary according to antihypertensive drug class, results from a new meta-analysis show.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) – so-called renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers – showed the strongest association with preventive effects, while conversely, beta-blocker and thiazide diuretic antihypertensives were linked to an increased risk of new-onset diabetes.

“This study suggests that blood pressure lowering can help prevent diabetes in addition to its well-established beneficial effects in reducing cardiovascular events,” write Milad Nazarzadeh and colleagues with the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration in their article published in The Lancet.

“The differing effects of the drug classes support decision-making for antihypertensive drug choice according to an individual’s risk profile,” note Mr. Nazarzadeh, of Deep Medicine, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, U.K., and colleagues.

“In particular, [RAS inhibitors], ACE inhibitors and ARBs, should become the drugs of choice when clinical risk of diabetes is of concern, whereas beta blockers and thiazide diuretics should be avoided where possible,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Matthew A. Cavender, MD, MPH, and Robert C. Wirka, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agree that the new findings, along with the bulk of previous evidence, point to an important role of RAS-inhibiting drugs in diabetes prevention.

“Based on the accumulated evidence, including the results of these analyses, blood pressure control, particularly with RAS inhibition, should be considered as a possible strategy to reduce the risk of developing diabetes,” they write.

They note that, while “the absolute risk reduction found in this meta-analysis is modest, interventions with small benefits can have an outsized effect when applied to conditions as common as hypertension.”

And commenting on the findings to the U.K. Science & Media Centre, Marc George, MBChB, PhD, blood pressure clinical lead for University College London Hospital, U.K., said: “Lowering blood pressure prevents heart attacks, strokes, and kidney failure, and this new large and comprehensive study published in The Lancet also shows that it lowers the risk of developing diabetes. Until now this effect was not clear.”

Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics, The Open University, U.K., similarly concurs: “Though there is good evidence that lowering people’s blood pressure, if it is too high, can have important health benefits in reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, it hasn’t been clear whether lowering blood pressure can reduce the chance of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. This is an impressive study.”
 

RAS blockers associated with lower diabetes risk

The findings are from an individual data meta-analysis of 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials conducted between 1973 and 2008 and involving five major classes of antihypertensive drugs: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, thiazide diuretics, and calcium channel blockers.

Overall, the studies included 145,939 participants, of whom 60.6% were men.

Over a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 9,883 of the study participants developed new-onset type 2 diabetes.

Those treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs had a reduced relative risk of new-onset diabetes that was nearly identical (risk reduction, 0.84 for both) versus placebo.

However, treatment with beta-blockers or thiazide diuretics was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR, 1.48 and 1.20, respectively), consistent with previous evidence that, specifically, second-line thiazide diuretics and third-line beta blockers increase the risk of diabetes.

No significant reduction or increase in risk was observed with calcium channel blockers (RR, 1.02).

For the reductions with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, each reduction in systolic blood pressure of 5-mm Hg was associated with an 11% reduced risk of developing diabetes.

“The relative magnitude of reduction per 5-mm Hg systolic blood pressure lowering was similar to those reported for prevention of major cardiovascular events,” the authors say.

“[This] will strengthen the case for blood pressure reduction through lifestyle interventions known to reduce blood pressure, and blood pressure lowering treatments with drugs, and possibly device therapies,” they say.

In the opposite direction, research has suggested that each 20-mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure is associated with as much as a 77% increased risk of type 2 diabetes; however, the causality of that association is uncertain, the authors note.
 

Results fill gap in evidence for guidelines

The meta-analysis findings were further validated in a supplemental mendelian randomization analysis, which used data from the International Consortium for Blood Pressure genome-wide association study and the UK Biobank. The analysis showed that people with genetic variants that have a similar effect on the RAS pathway as ACE inhibitors and ARBs also had a reduced risk of diabetes.

On this point, Dipender Gill, BMBCh, PhD, lecturer in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics at St. George’s, University of London, told the U.K. Science and Media Centre: “This is a comprehensive study triangulating clinical trial and genetic data to find support for effects of blood pressure reduction through particular pharmacological targets on glycemic control and risk of type 2 diabetes.” 

Mr. Nazarzadeh and colleagues say that uncertainty regarding whether the reduction in diabetes risk is caused by blood pressure lowering itself, or by some other effect of the antihypertensive drugs, has meant that guideline recommendations on the role of antihypertensive drugs have been lacking.

However, the authors assert that “our study fills this gap in evidence using individual participant data from randomized controlled trials and assessing effects for a standardized fixed degree of blood pressure reduction.”

“With consistent results from both randomized controlled trials and genetic analyses, we have shown that elevated blood pressure is indeed a modifiable risk factor for new-onset type 2 diabetes in people without a diagnosis of diabetes, with a relative effect size similar to those seen for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease,” they state.
 

Authors of U.S. hypertension guidelines should follow lead of ESC

Under the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, RAS inhibitors (in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic) have a class 1 recommendation for the treatment of hypertension; however, diabetes and cardiology societies in the United States only recommend a preference for a RAS inhibitor over other agents among those with concomitant albuminuria.

But with an estimated 13% of Americans having diabetes and a striking 34.5% having prediabetes, the need for more measures to tackle the problem is urgent, say Dr. Cavender and Dr. Wirka in their editorial.

“Perhaps these data are enough to encourage the writers of the hypertension guidelines in the U.S. to follow the lead of the ESC to make RAS inhibitors the first-line hypertension treatment for all patients and not just in those with albuminuria,” they state.

Dr. Cavender has reported receiving research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CSL Behring, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Wirka and Dr. George have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McConway is a trustee of the SMC and member of its advisory committee. Dr. Gill is employed part-time by Novo Nordisk.

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

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.

jimdeli/Fotolia

A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.

The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.

Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect

Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.

“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”

This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.

The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.

The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin

ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.

These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.

The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)

However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.

The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.

ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.

jimdeli/Fotolia

A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.

The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.

Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect

Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.

“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”

This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.

The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.

The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin

ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.

These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.

The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)

However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.

The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.

ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A regimen of daily, low-dose aspirin failed to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of dementia or cognitive impairment in ASCEND, a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 15,000 people with diabetes followed for an average of more than 9 years, but the results hinted at enough of a benefit to warrant further study, some experts said.

jimdeli/Fotolia

A second metric used a broader outcome definition that tracked EHR entries for not only dementia but also diagnoses of cognitive impairment, delirium, confusion, prescription of dementia medications, and referral to a memory clinic or geriatric psychiatry. The third assessment was a cognitive-function test given to participants at the end of follow-up, but only 58% of enrolled participants completed this part of the study, and it’s also possible that some subjects missed this assessment because of dementia onset. These limitations hamper clear interpretation of this third metric, Dr. Armitage said.

The main findings for the other two, more reliable measures of incident dementia or cognitive deterioration showed a nonsignificant 9% relative risk reduction linked with aspirin use compared with placebo for the more inclusive endpoint, and a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction with aspirin using the narrow definition for dementia only, she reported. The third method, a directly administered assessment of dementia and cognition, also showed a small, nonsignificant effect from daily aspirin use relative to placebo.

Results can’t rule out modest aspirin effect

Dr. Armitage highlighted that the two more reliable measures both appeared to rule out risk for neurologic harm from aspirin because the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for relative effect reached only 1.02 using the broad outcomes, and 1.06 for the narrower endpoint of dementia only. On the other hand, focus on the low end of the 95% confidence interval suggested potentially meaningful benefits, with a possible reduction by aspirin in events relative to placebo of as much as 19% by the broad outcome definition and by 25% with the narrow definition.

“Even if it was only a 15% relative risk reduction, that would be important,” given the high dementia incidence worldwide, Dr. Armitage said during a press briefing. “It’s entirely possible, with our results, that a modest benefit exists.”

This take on the findings won some support. Further studies with more people, longer follow-up, and perhaps enrolling a more selected, higher risk cohort may better address potential neurologic benefit from aspirin, suggested Amytis Towfighi, MD, a stroke neurologist and professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and a designated discussant for the report.

The result “was rather encouraging. I was a little surprised” by the findings, commented Chrystie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor and director of the Center for Cardiometabolic Disease Prevention at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, also a discussant.

The results “don’t mean that no one benefits from aspirin. Perhaps certain people at risk would benefit from dementia protection. It’s an open question,” commented Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Evidence against routine, widespread primary prevention with aspirin

ASCEND had the primary goal of assessing a daily, 100-mg aspirin dose for its safety and efficacy for preventing vascular events such as MIs and ischemic strokes in 15,480 people with diabetes who were at least 40 years old at enrollment and had no history of cardiovascular disease. The main results came out in 2018 and showed that while aspirin produced a significant benefit by reducing thrombotic events, it also resulted in significantly more major bleeding events compared with placebo, and overall the magnitude of benefit roughly matched magnitude of risk.

These findings, along with similar results from two other high-profile aspirin studies reported at about the same time (ASPREE, and ARRIVE), led to recommendations from groups like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that caution against widespread, routine aspirin use for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in most adults.

The groups instead endorsed a tailored strategy of targeting aspirin to people with a higher than average risk for ischemic thrombotic events and a lower than average bleeding risk. (The most recent aspirin recommendations from the USPSTF, currently in draft form, substantially curtail aspirin’s appropriate use, eliminating it in those over age 60 years.)

However, experts and prevailing practice recommendations continue to endorse routine aspirin use for secondary prevention in patients with an established history of cardiovascular disease.

The new findings reported by Dr. Armitage came from additional analyses of dementia and cognitive impairment overlaid on the main ASCEND outcome analyses. ASCEND actively treated and followed study participants for an average of 7.4 years, then researchers tracked further dementia outcomes based on medical-record entries for an average of another 1.8 years.

ASCEND received partial funding or support from Abbott, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage had no disclosures. Dr. Towfighi, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Ballantyne has had financial relationships with numerous companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A large, multicenter, sham-controlled trial in heart failure showed no benefit at all from stem cell delivery on the primary outcome of recurrent nonfatal decompensated HF events, but the results were still promising, according to the DREAM-HF study’s principal investigator.

When added to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF, a single dose of mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPC) significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) – a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – and all-cause death in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II (but not class III patients), reported Emerson C. Perin, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The problem is that none of these outcomes were included in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent events because of nonfatal decompensated heart failure. On this endpoint, the hazard ratio for events by the end of follow-up was nonsignificantly but slightly increased among those randomized to MPCs rather than sham control (HR, 1.2; P = .406).

“We learned a lot in this trial,” said Dr. Perin, who is medical director of the Texas Heart Institute in Houston, acknowledging that the expectation of benefit on the primary endpoint now appears to have been misplaced, but the positive result on other outcomes opens a new research direction.

With a negative result on the primary endpoint, a benefit on secondary endpoints is considered hypothesis generating. But Dr. Perin defended his sense of overall optimism about the results, because all of the endpoints on which benefit was demonstrated were prespecified. The positive findings “are not from a post hoc analyses,” he emphasized.
 

DREAM-HF

In the trial, 537 patients with chronic ischemic or nonischemic heart failure with NYHA class II or III symptoms and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or lower were randomized at 51 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients were required to have elevated N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, at least one prior hospitalization for heart failure, and have been on positive inotropic therapy for more than 1 month (but less than 9 months).

The intracardiac administration of MPCs, which are derived from adult human bone marrow, were delivered by injection guided with the NOGA left ventricular electromechanical mapping system. Multiple transendocardial injections were delivered, all in a single session.

There were no differences in baseline characteristics between those receiving MPCs and those who underwent a sham procedure. In both groups, more than half of patients had a previous MI and a coronary revascularization. Nearly 85% had an implanted defibrillator. Roughly two-thirds were in NYHA class III HF and the remaining were in class II.

Over the follow-up, the lines on a graph documenting nonfatal decompensated heart failure events were largely superimposed for the MPC-treated and sham-treated patients, with no significant differences seen over time.

However, the differences on the secondary events were sizable. For the composite outcome of nonfatal MI and nonfatal stroke over a mean follow-up of about 30 months, the rate of events was less than half as great in those randomized to MPCs (4.6% vs. 13.0%). This translated into about 65% reduction in risk (HR, 0.346; P = .001) overall, and the reduction was about the same in class II or III patients.

For a composite endpoint of MACE, events in the group treated with MPCs were about one-third lower than in the sham procedure group (20.3% vs. 30.1%), a difference that also reached significance (HR, 0.667; P = .021).

For this MACE endpoint, response was evaluated by systemic inflammation. For those with a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level of less than 2 mg/L, the risk reduction was small and not significant (HR, 0.843; P = .519). Conversely, there was a large risk reduction in those with hsCRP of at least 2 mg/L that did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.551; P = .012).

Inflammation was also found to be a discriminator for time to cardiac death among the patients with NYHA class II HF. Again, there was no benefit among those with hsCRP below 2 mg/L (HR, 1.355; P = .672), but an 80% risk reduction for those with hsCRP of at least 2 mg/L (HR, 0.204; P = .005).

In class II patients with hsCRP at least 2 mg/L, there was also a 60% reduction in all-cause death (HR, 0.401; P = .027). Neither the reduction in cardiac death nor all-cause death was observed in class III HF patients whether or not they had elevated hsCRP.

These signals of benefit provide a direction for a new set of studies, but Dr. Perin said that safety analyses from the DREAM-HF trial are reassuring for further clinical development.

In addition to the fact that “treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the MPC-treated and control patients,” Dr. Perin said that MPC administration was not associated with any clinically meaningful immune responses.

MPCs were first injected into a human 15 years ago, according to Dr. Perin. While a phase 2 trial published several years ago did show an association of MPC administration with a reduction in HF-associated events as well as a reduction in adverse ventricular remodeling, the ischemic benefits observed in this trial, particularly in those with elevated hsCRP, provide a new direction for future trials.

“This turns the page in heart failure research. We now have a new mechanism to consider,” Dr. Perin said.
 

Not so fast, expert says

This might be a reasonable conclusion, but the AHA-invited discussant, Larry Allen, MD, believes there is essentially no clinical message from this trial. He reiterated multiple times that this trial was neutral with no trend for benefit on the primary outcome.

“There was benefit on the secondary outcomes of nonfatal MI or stroke, but these are not the outcomes we follow in heart failure patients,” he said, noting that benefit from regenerative therapy on ischemic events has not been a major focus of the trials that preceded DREAM-HF.

Despite these intriguing results, “patients should understand that stem cells remain experimental,” he said. For the patient, it is “more important to double down on the importance of guideline directed medical therapy,” which is still being administered at levels that are suboptimal, according to Dr. Allen, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Keep up the investment” in the promise of stem cell therapy, he said, but he cautioned that some of the secondary benefits observed in DREAM-HF, such as the greater response in patients with elevated hsCRP, appear to be new observations that will require a great deal more study to validate.

Dr. Perin has a financial relationship with Mesoblast, which provided funding for the DREAM-HF trial. Dr. Allen reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A large, multicenter, sham-controlled trial in heart failure showed no benefit at all from stem cell delivery on the primary outcome of recurrent nonfatal decompensated HF events, but the results were still promising, according to the DREAM-HF study’s principal investigator.

When added to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF, a single dose of mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPC) significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) – a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – and all-cause death in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II (but not class III patients), reported Emerson C. Perin, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The problem is that none of these outcomes were included in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent events because of nonfatal decompensated heart failure. On this endpoint, the hazard ratio for events by the end of follow-up was nonsignificantly but slightly increased among those randomized to MPCs rather than sham control (HR, 1.2; P = .406).

“We learned a lot in this trial,” said Dr. Perin, who is medical director of the Texas Heart Institute in Houston, acknowledging that the expectation of benefit on the primary endpoint now appears to have been misplaced, but the positive result on other outcomes opens a new research direction.

With a negative result on the primary endpoint, a benefit on secondary endpoints is considered hypothesis generating. But Dr. Perin defended his sense of overall optimism about the results, because all of the endpoints on which benefit was demonstrated were prespecified. The positive findings “are not from a post hoc analyses,” he emphasized.
 

DREAM-HF

In the trial, 537 patients with chronic ischemic or nonischemic heart failure with NYHA class II or III symptoms and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or lower were randomized at 51 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients were required to have elevated N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, at least one prior hospitalization for heart failure, and have been on positive inotropic therapy for more than 1 month (but less than 9 months).

The intracardiac administration of MPCs, which are derived from adult human bone marrow, were delivered by injection guided with the NOGA left ventricular electromechanical mapping system. Multiple transendocardial injections were delivered, all in a single session.

There were no differences in baseline characteristics between those receiving MPCs and those who underwent a sham procedure. In both groups, more than half of patients had a previous MI and a coronary revascularization. Nearly 85% had an implanted defibrillator. Roughly two-thirds were in NYHA class III HF and the remaining were in class II.

Over the follow-up, the lines on a graph documenting nonfatal decompensated heart failure events were largely superimposed for the MPC-treated and sham-treated patients, with no significant differences seen over time.

However, the differences on the secondary events were sizable. For the composite outcome of nonfatal MI and nonfatal stroke over a mean follow-up of about 30 months, the rate of events was less than half as great in those randomized to MPCs (4.6% vs. 13.0%). This translated into about 65% reduction in risk (HR, 0.346; P = .001) overall, and the reduction was about the same in class II or III patients.

For a composite endpoint of MACE, events in the group treated with MPCs were about one-third lower than in the sham procedure group (20.3% vs. 30.1%), a difference that also reached significance (HR, 0.667; P = .021).

For this MACE endpoint, response was evaluated by systemic inflammation. For those with a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level of less than 2 mg/L, the risk reduction was small and not significant (HR, 0.843; P = .519). Conversely, there was a large risk reduction in those with hsCRP of at least 2 mg/L that did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.551; P = .012).

Inflammation was also found to be a discriminator for time to cardiac death among the patients with NYHA class II HF. Again, there was no benefit among those with hsCRP below 2 mg/L (HR, 1.355; P = .672), but an 80% risk reduction for those with hsCRP of at least 2 mg/L (HR, 0.204; P = .005).

In class II patients with hsCRP at least 2 mg/L, there was also a 60% reduction in all-cause death (HR, 0.401; P = .027). Neither the reduction in cardiac death nor all-cause death was observed in class III HF patients whether or not they had elevated hsCRP.

These signals of benefit provide a direction for a new set of studies, but Dr. Perin said that safety analyses from the DREAM-HF trial are reassuring for further clinical development.

In addition to the fact that “treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the MPC-treated and control patients,” Dr. Perin said that MPC administration was not associated with any clinically meaningful immune responses.

MPCs were first injected into a human 15 years ago, according to Dr. Perin. While a phase 2 trial published several years ago did show an association of MPC administration with a reduction in HF-associated events as well as a reduction in adverse ventricular remodeling, the ischemic benefits observed in this trial, particularly in those with elevated hsCRP, provide a new direction for future trials.

“This turns the page in heart failure research. We now have a new mechanism to consider,” Dr. Perin said.
 

Not so fast, expert says

This might be a reasonable conclusion, but the AHA-invited discussant, Larry Allen, MD, believes there is essentially no clinical message from this trial. He reiterated multiple times that this trial was neutral with no trend for benefit on the primary outcome.

“There was benefit on the secondary outcomes of nonfatal MI or stroke, but these are not the outcomes we follow in heart failure patients,” he said, noting that benefit from regenerative therapy on ischemic events has not been a major focus of the trials that preceded DREAM-HF.

Despite these intriguing results, “patients should understand that stem cells remain experimental,” he said. For the patient, it is “more important to double down on the importance of guideline directed medical therapy,” which is still being administered at levels that are suboptimal, according to Dr. Allen, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Keep up the investment” in the promise of stem cell therapy, he said, but he cautioned that some of the secondary benefits observed in DREAM-HF, such as the greater response in patients with elevated hsCRP, appear to be new observations that will require a great deal more study to validate.

Dr. Perin has a financial relationship with Mesoblast, which provided funding for the DREAM-HF trial. Dr. Allen reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A large, multicenter, sham-controlled trial in heart failure showed no benefit at all from stem cell delivery on the primary outcome of recurrent nonfatal decompensated HF events, but the results were still promising, according to the DREAM-HF study’s principal investigator.

When added to guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF, a single dose of mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPC) significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) – a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke – and all-cause death in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II (but not class III patients), reported Emerson C. Perin, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The problem is that none of these outcomes were included in the primary endpoint, which was recurrent events because of nonfatal decompensated heart failure. On this endpoint, the hazard ratio for events by the end of follow-up was nonsignificantly but slightly increased among those randomized to MPCs rather than sham control (HR, 1.2; P = .406).

“We learned a lot in this trial,” said Dr. Perin, who is medical director of the Texas Heart Institute in Houston, acknowledging that the expectation of benefit on the primary endpoint now appears to have been misplaced, but the positive result on other outcomes opens a new research direction.

With a negative result on the primary endpoint, a benefit on secondary endpoints is considered hypothesis generating. But Dr. Perin defended his sense of overall optimism about the results, because all of the endpoints on which benefit was demonstrated were prespecified. The positive findings “are not from a post hoc analyses,” he emphasized.
 

DREAM-HF

In the trial, 537 patients with chronic ischemic or nonischemic heart failure with NYHA class II or III symptoms and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or lower were randomized at 51 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients were required to have elevated N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels, at least one prior hospitalization for heart failure, and have been on positive inotropic therapy for more than 1 month (but less than 9 months).

The intracardiac administration of MPCs, which are derived from adult human bone marrow, were delivered by injection guided with the NOGA left ventricular electromechanical mapping system. Multiple transendocardial injections were delivered, all in a single session.

There were no differences in baseline characteristics between those receiving MPCs and those who underwent a sham procedure. In both groups, more than half of patients had a previous MI and a coronary revascularization. Nearly 85% had an implanted defibrillator. Roughly two-thirds were in NYHA class III HF and the remaining were in class II.

Over the follow-up, the lines on a graph documenting nonfatal decompensated heart failure events were largely superimposed for the MPC-treated and sham-treated patients, with no significant differences seen over time.

However, the differences on the secondary events were sizable. For the composite outcome of nonfatal MI and nonfatal stroke over a mean follow-up of about 30 months, the rate of events was less than half as great in those randomized to MPCs (4.6% vs. 13.0%). This translated into about 65% reduction in risk (HR, 0.346; P = .001) overall, and the reduction was about the same in class II or III patients.

For a composite endpoint of MACE, events in the group treated with MPCs were about one-third lower than in the sham procedure group (20.3% vs. 30.1%), a difference that also reached significance (HR, 0.667; P = .021).

For this MACE endpoint, response was evaluated by systemic inflammation. For those with a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level of less than 2 mg/L, the risk reduction was small and not significant (HR, 0.843; P = .519). Conversely, there was a large risk reduction in those with hsCRP of at least 2 mg/L that did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.551; P = .012).

Inflammation was also found to be a discriminator for time to cardiac death among the patients with NYHA class II HF. Again, there was no benefit among those with hsCRP below 2 mg/L (HR, 1.355; P = .672), but an 80% risk reduction for those with hsCRP of at least 2 mg/L (HR, 0.204; P = .005).

In class II patients with hsCRP at least 2 mg/L, there was also a 60% reduction in all-cause death (HR, 0.401; P = .027). Neither the reduction in cardiac death nor all-cause death was observed in class III HF patients whether or not they had elevated hsCRP.

These signals of benefit provide a direction for a new set of studies, but Dr. Perin said that safety analyses from the DREAM-HF trial are reassuring for further clinical development.

In addition to the fact that “treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the MPC-treated and control patients,” Dr. Perin said that MPC administration was not associated with any clinically meaningful immune responses.

MPCs were first injected into a human 15 years ago, according to Dr. Perin. While a phase 2 trial published several years ago did show an association of MPC administration with a reduction in HF-associated events as well as a reduction in adverse ventricular remodeling, the ischemic benefits observed in this trial, particularly in those with elevated hsCRP, provide a new direction for future trials.

“This turns the page in heart failure research. We now have a new mechanism to consider,” Dr. Perin said.
 

Not so fast, expert says

This might be a reasonable conclusion, but the AHA-invited discussant, Larry Allen, MD, believes there is essentially no clinical message from this trial. He reiterated multiple times that this trial was neutral with no trend for benefit on the primary outcome.

“There was benefit on the secondary outcomes of nonfatal MI or stroke, but these are not the outcomes we follow in heart failure patients,” he said, noting that benefit from regenerative therapy on ischemic events has not been a major focus of the trials that preceded DREAM-HF.

Despite these intriguing results, “patients should understand that stem cells remain experimental,” he said. For the patient, it is “more important to double down on the importance of guideline directed medical therapy,” which is still being administered at levels that are suboptimal, according to Dr. Allen, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Keep up the investment” in the promise of stem cell therapy, he said, but he cautioned that some of the secondary benefits observed in DREAM-HF, such as the greater response in patients with elevated hsCRP, appear to be new observations that will require a great deal more study to validate.

Dr. Perin has a financial relationship with Mesoblast, which provided funding for the DREAM-HF trial. Dr. Allen reported no relevant conflicts of interest.