User login
New diabetes drugs solidify their cardiovascular and renal benefits
CHICAGO – When the first results from a large trial that showed profound and unexpected benefits for preventing heart failure hospitalizations associated with use of the antihyperglycemic sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin came out – a little over 3 years ago – the general reaction from clinicians was some variant of “Could this be real?”
Since then, as results from some five other large, international trials have come out showing both similar benefits from two other drugs in the same SGLT2 inhibitor class, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, as well as results showing clear cardiovascular disease benefits from three drugs in a second class of antihyperglycemics, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the general consensus among cardiologists became: “The cardiovascular and renal benefits are real. How can we now best use these drugs to help patients?”
This change increasingly forces cardiologists, as well as the primary care physicians who often manage patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, to become more comfortable prescribing these two classes of antihyperglycemic drugs. During a talk at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, Eugene Braunwald, MD, arguably the top thought leader in cardiology, coined a new name for the medical subspecialty that he foresees navigating this overlap between diabetes care and cardiovascular disease prevention: diabetocardiology (although a more euphonic alternative might be cardiodiabetology, while the more comprehensive name could be cardionephrodiabetology).
“I was certainly surprised” by the first report in 2015 from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28), said Dr. Braunwald, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. A lot of his colleagues were surprised and said, “It’s just one trial.”
“Now we have three trials,” with the addition of the CANVAS trial for canagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 10. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812389) for dapagliflozin reported at the AHA meeting in November.
“We are in the midst of two pandemics: heart failure and type 2 diabetes. As cardiologists, we have to learn how to deal with this,” said Dr. Braunwald, and the evidence now clearly shows that these drugs can help with that.
As another speaker at the meeting, Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure specialist, observed in a separate talk at the meeting, “Heart failure is one of the most common, if not the most common complication, of patients with diabetes.” This tight link between heart failure and diabetes helps make cardiovascular mortality “the number one cause of death” in patients with diabetes, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson.
“Thanks to the cardiovascular outcome trials, we now have a much broader and deeper appreciation of heart failure and renal disease as integral components of the cardiovascular-renal spectrum in people with diabetes,” said Subodh Verma, MD, a professor at the University of Toronto and cardiac surgeon at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Braunwald spelled out in his talk some of the interrelationships of diabetes, heart failure, and renal dysfunction that together produce a downward-spiraling vicious circle for patients, a pathophysiological process that clinicians can now short-circuit by treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor.
Cardiovascular outcome trials show the way
In the context of antihyperglycemic drugs, the “cardiovascular outcome trials” refers to a series of large trials mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to assess the cardiovascular disease effects of new agents coming onto the U.S. market to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). By the time Dr. Verma spoke at the AHA meeting, he could cite reported results from 12 of these trials: 5 different drugs in the GLP-1 RA class, 4 drugs in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, and 3 drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class. Dr. Verma summed what the findings have shown.
The four tested DDP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin) consistently showed neutrality for the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular disease events (MACE), constituted by cardiovascular disease death, MI, or stroke.
The five tested GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide) showed a mixed pattern of MACE results that seemed to be linked with the subclass the drug fell into. The two exedin-4–based drugs, exenatide and lixisenatide, each showed a statistically neutral effect for MACE, as well as collectively in a combined analysis. In contrast, three human GLP-1–based drugs, albiglutide, liraglutide, and semaglutide, each showed a consistent, statistically-significant MACE reduction in their respective outcome trials, and collectively they showed a highly significant 18% reduction in MACE, compared with placebo, Dr. Verma said. Further, recent analysis by Dr. Verma that used data from liraglutide treatment in the LEADER trial showed the MACE benefit occurred only among enrolled patients treated with liraglutide who had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients enrolled in the trial with only multiple risk factors (in addition to having T2DM) but without established ASCVD showed no significant benefit from liraglutide treatment for the MACE endpoint, compared with control patients.
Recently a press-release announcement of results from a sixth GLP-1 RA, dulaglutide, in the REWIND trial of MACE outcomes suggested that a drug in this class could have broader effect. The majority, 69%, of the 9,901 patients with T2DM enrolled in REWIND had risk factors but not established ASCVD at enrollment. A Nov. 5, 2018, statement from the company developing this drug, Lilly, reported that the study overall produced a statistically significant reduction in MACE, although it provided no additional details. As the released noted, this made REWIND the first trial to show a MACE benefit from a drug in the GLP-1 RA class in patients without established ASCVD.
The MACE outcome results from the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials showed a similar pattern as liraglutide: In patients with established ASCVD, the drugs individually each produced a MACE reduction, although dapagliflozin just missed having a statistically significant reduction. Collectively, the three drugs showed a statistically significant, 14% relative risk reduction for MACE, compared with control patients. But among patients with multiple risk factors only, but without established ASCVD, included in two of the three trials (CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58), the results showed both individually and collectively a neutral MACE effect.
But unlike the other antihyperglycemic drugs tested in the cardiovascular outcome trials, the SGLT2 inhibitors have shown two additional, highly important secondary outcomes: a consistent reduction in hospitalization for heart failure and a consistent reduction in renal-disease progression.
A meta-analysis of the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials published coincident with the release of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 results showed that, for the outcome of either cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, the SGLT2 inhibitors collectively showed a significant 29% relative decrease in this incidence among patients with a history of heart failure, and a significant 21% relative decrease among patients without history of heart failure (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32590-X). Among the subset of patients with established ASCVD, treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor across all three trials showed a significant 16% relative risk reduction, and in the subset with multiple risk factors but no established ASCVD, the two SGLT2 inhibitors collectively produced a 16% relative cut in cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization with a P value of .06. Finally, the Lancet meta-analysis showed that, for a combined endpoint that reflected renal worsening, the SGLT2 inhibitors showed a significant relative reduction of about 45% in both the subgroup of patients with established ASCVD and in the subgroup of those with just risk factors.
“This is a big step forward for patients with multiple risk factors and diabetes but without ASCVD, that both renal disease and hospitalization for heart failure are sensitive” to the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Verma noted. “We see renal protection and reduction of heart failure hospitalization across both primary and secondary prevention patients, with no need to distinguish them based on ASCVD.” In contrast, he noted, the MACE benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitors seems limited to patients with ASCVD. The day before making this point in a talk during the meeting, Dr. Verma had published the same message in a commentary (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32824-1).
Although the “nomenclature of primary versus secondary prevention is appropriate for atherosclerotic outcomes, it is likely to be inappropriate for a person with type 2 diabetes who is at risk of hospitalization for heart failure and renal disease,” Dr. Verma wrote with his associates in the commentary.
What it means for clinicians
The upshot of all of these cardiovascular outcome trial results that came out over the past 3 years has been a new appreciation of how antihyperglycemic drugs can have cardiovascular and renal benefits that transcend their effects on glycemia. The evidence has put the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on track to challenge, and potentially displace, metformin as the top drug to prescribe for patients with T2DM.
Clinicians should realize that they should prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors and selected GLP-1 RAs “as early as metformin in patients with established ASCVD,” said Dr. Verma. “For patients with recalcitrant atherosclerotic disease and a history of MI and ischemia, I’d primarily treat with a GLP-1 RA. In a patient with left ventricular dysfunction or evidence of heart failure, I’d use an SGLT2 inhibitor. But it’s not a fight between these two. You could treat a patients with type 2 diabetes with both classes,” although the practicality of this approach is limited by the high cost of these drugs.
The SGLT2 inhibitors “should now be considered as first-line therapy after metformin in most people with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of whether or not they have established atherosclerotic vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” he and his associates wrote in their recent commentary.
“What I struggle with the most is how we prioritize and individualize secondary-prevention therapies based on risk for ischemia and heart failure. Some therapies [the SGLT2 inhibitors] are predominantly for heart failure prevention, and some [the GLP-1 RAs] are primarily for ischemia. How do we choose when a patient cannot afford to take both? Does a combination of a SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA offer the greatest CVD benefit? We need to test this in a trial. And will metformin be displaced as first-line treatment?” Dr. Verma asked.
“The day will probably come when, for maximal protection, you treat with both classes. But right now we’re forced to choose because of the cost,” said John McMurray, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow, in a talk during the meeting.
As to specifically which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe, “they all look pretty much the same” in the newly published meta-analysis, Dr. McMurray said, although he noted that safety differences among agents in the class remain possible.
“For patients similar to those studied in the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials, clinicians should use one of these drugs to reduce the risk for incident heart failure, irrespective of their effect on MACE,” said Dr. Butler. Reducing the risk for incident heart failure and of progressive renal dysfunction are two new goals for antihyperglycemic therapy that now overlay the long-standing goals of controlling glycemia and reducing cardiovascular disease risk and the more recent goals of cutting cardiovascular disease mortality and cutting the risk for a MACE event.
A current limitation for practice is that the none of the three drug companies that market the tested SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has sought regulatory approval for an indication of reducing the risk for heart failure hospitalization. Despite that, “these drugs should be used for renal protection and reducing heart failure hospitalizations,” Dr. Butler said. “We need to start thinking about this and not get lost thinking about only their MACE effect because, when you focus on MACE, there is a competition between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RA. If we think of GLP-1 RAs as drugs to prevent MACE, and SGLT2 inhibitors as drugs that primarily prevent heart failure and renal dysfunction, then there is no competition. Perhaps combined treatment is where we need to go,” he said in an interview.
But the enthusiasm that experts like Dr. Butler, Dr. McMurray, and Dr. Verma have for wider use of both classes of drugs in appropriate patients is not necessarily matched right now among many community physicians. Cardiologist David J. Becker, MD, is an example of the clinicians who appreciate the growing evidence that supports wider use of these antihyperglycemic drugs but remain uneasy about applying this evidence in their practice.
Dr. Becker, associate director of the Preventive and Integrative Heart Health Program of the Temple Heart and Vascular Institute in Philadelphia, writes a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer on medical care. In a December 2018 piece, he said “like most cardiologists, I ‘don’t do diabetes’ – because it’s not my expertise. The new drugs, however, mean I need to learn more” about treating these patients. “The problem: There are so many of these medications that they present a bewildering choice for patients and doctors.”
Dr. Becker cited several barriers he sees for himself and his nonendocrinologist colleagues to prescribe these drugs – and for patients to take them:
- High cost, with prices that run close to $20/day for each medication.
- A thicket of names and choices that “lead to confusion and paralysis,” which has been exacerbated by “advertising wars” among competing drug companies.
- Cardiologists and primary care physicians usually defer to endocrinologists to prescribe these drugs, but most patients with T2DM aren’t seen by endocrinologists. The result: “Few doctors prescribe them.”
The cardiovascular disease benefits of these drugs have not been adequately promoted. Until that changes, “cardiologists like me will not realize their importance,” Dr. Becker concluded.
While christening the new diabetocardiology subspecialty, Dr. Braunwald placed the onus for managing this emerging facet of diabetes largely outside the scope of endocrinology.
“We can’t call in a consultant every time we have a patient with diabetes; it would bankrupt the system,” he said. Training of cardiologists now needs to include several months of treating patients with diabetes, Dr. Braunwald advised, just like 30 or so years ago when cardiologists like himself had to become more familiar with blood clotting to better manage thrombotic disease.
Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Cardurion, Myokardia, and Sanofi; an advisor to Endcardia; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiishi Sankyo, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant or advisor to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Verma has received honoraria and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, and Valeant. Dr. McMurray has received research funding from 12 companies. Dr. Becker had no disclosures.
CHICAGO – When the first results from a large trial that showed profound and unexpected benefits for preventing heart failure hospitalizations associated with use of the antihyperglycemic sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin came out – a little over 3 years ago – the general reaction from clinicians was some variant of “Could this be real?”
Since then, as results from some five other large, international trials have come out showing both similar benefits from two other drugs in the same SGLT2 inhibitor class, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, as well as results showing clear cardiovascular disease benefits from three drugs in a second class of antihyperglycemics, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the general consensus among cardiologists became: “The cardiovascular and renal benefits are real. How can we now best use these drugs to help patients?”
This change increasingly forces cardiologists, as well as the primary care physicians who often manage patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, to become more comfortable prescribing these two classes of antihyperglycemic drugs. During a talk at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, Eugene Braunwald, MD, arguably the top thought leader in cardiology, coined a new name for the medical subspecialty that he foresees navigating this overlap between diabetes care and cardiovascular disease prevention: diabetocardiology (although a more euphonic alternative might be cardiodiabetology, while the more comprehensive name could be cardionephrodiabetology).
“I was certainly surprised” by the first report in 2015 from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28), said Dr. Braunwald, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. A lot of his colleagues were surprised and said, “It’s just one trial.”
“Now we have three trials,” with the addition of the CANVAS trial for canagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 10. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812389) for dapagliflozin reported at the AHA meeting in November.
“We are in the midst of two pandemics: heart failure and type 2 diabetes. As cardiologists, we have to learn how to deal with this,” said Dr. Braunwald, and the evidence now clearly shows that these drugs can help with that.
As another speaker at the meeting, Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure specialist, observed in a separate talk at the meeting, “Heart failure is one of the most common, if not the most common complication, of patients with diabetes.” This tight link between heart failure and diabetes helps make cardiovascular mortality “the number one cause of death” in patients with diabetes, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson.
“Thanks to the cardiovascular outcome trials, we now have a much broader and deeper appreciation of heart failure and renal disease as integral components of the cardiovascular-renal spectrum in people with diabetes,” said Subodh Verma, MD, a professor at the University of Toronto and cardiac surgeon at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Braunwald spelled out in his talk some of the interrelationships of diabetes, heart failure, and renal dysfunction that together produce a downward-spiraling vicious circle for patients, a pathophysiological process that clinicians can now short-circuit by treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor.
Cardiovascular outcome trials show the way
In the context of antihyperglycemic drugs, the “cardiovascular outcome trials” refers to a series of large trials mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to assess the cardiovascular disease effects of new agents coming onto the U.S. market to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). By the time Dr. Verma spoke at the AHA meeting, he could cite reported results from 12 of these trials: 5 different drugs in the GLP-1 RA class, 4 drugs in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, and 3 drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class. Dr. Verma summed what the findings have shown.
The four tested DDP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin) consistently showed neutrality for the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular disease events (MACE), constituted by cardiovascular disease death, MI, or stroke.
The five tested GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide) showed a mixed pattern of MACE results that seemed to be linked with the subclass the drug fell into. The two exedin-4–based drugs, exenatide and lixisenatide, each showed a statistically neutral effect for MACE, as well as collectively in a combined analysis. In contrast, three human GLP-1–based drugs, albiglutide, liraglutide, and semaglutide, each showed a consistent, statistically-significant MACE reduction in their respective outcome trials, and collectively they showed a highly significant 18% reduction in MACE, compared with placebo, Dr. Verma said. Further, recent analysis by Dr. Verma that used data from liraglutide treatment in the LEADER trial showed the MACE benefit occurred only among enrolled patients treated with liraglutide who had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients enrolled in the trial with only multiple risk factors (in addition to having T2DM) but without established ASCVD showed no significant benefit from liraglutide treatment for the MACE endpoint, compared with control patients.
Recently a press-release announcement of results from a sixth GLP-1 RA, dulaglutide, in the REWIND trial of MACE outcomes suggested that a drug in this class could have broader effect. The majority, 69%, of the 9,901 patients with T2DM enrolled in REWIND had risk factors but not established ASCVD at enrollment. A Nov. 5, 2018, statement from the company developing this drug, Lilly, reported that the study overall produced a statistically significant reduction in MACE, although it provided no additional details. As the released noted, this made REWIND the first trial to show a MACE benefit from a drug in the GLP-1 RA class in patients without established ASCVD.
The MACE outcome results from the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials showed a similar pattern as liraglutide: In patients with established ASCVD, the drugs individually each produced a MACE reduction, although dapagliflozin just missed having a statistically significant reduction. Collectively, the three drugs showed a statistically significant, 14% relative risk reduction for MACE, compared with control patients. But among patients with multiple risk factors only, but without established ASCVD, included in two of the three trials (CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58), the results showed both individually and collectively a neutral MACE effect.
But unlike the other antihyperglycemic drugs tested in the cardiovascular outcome trials, the SGLT2 inhibitors have shown two additional, highly important secondary outcomes: a consistent reduction in hospitalization for heart failure and a consistent reduction in renal-disease progression.
A meta-analysis of the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials published coincident with the release of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 results showed that, for the outcome of either cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, the SGLT2 inhibitors collectively showed a significant 29% relative decrease in this incidence among patients with a history of heart failure, and a significant 21% relative decrease among patients without history of heart failure (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32590-X). Among the subset of patients with established ASCVD, treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor across all three trials showed a significant 16% relative risk reduction, and in the subset with multiple risk factors but no established ASCVD, the two SGLT2 inhibitors collectively produced a 16% relative cut in cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization with a P value of .06. Finally, the Lancet meta-analysis showed that, for a combined endpoint that reflected renal worsening, the SGLT2 inhibitors showed a significant relative reduction of about 45% in both the subgroup of patients with established ASCVD and in the subgroup of those with just risk factors.
“This is a big step forward for patients with multiple risk factors and diabetes but without ASCVD, that both renal disease and hospitalization for heart failure are sensitive” to the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Verma noted. “We see renal protection and reduction of heart failure hospitalization across both primary and secondary prevention patients, with no need to distinguish them based on ASCVD.” In contrast, he noted, the MACE benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitors seems limited to patients with ASCVD. The day before making this point in a talk during the meeting, Dr. Verma had published the same message in a commentary (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32824-1).
Although the “nomenclature of primary versus secondary prevention is appropriate for atherosclerotic outcomes, it is likely to be inappropriate for a person with type 2 diabetes who is at risk of hospitalization for heart failure and renal disease,” Dr. Verma wrote with his associates in the commentary.
What it means for clinicians
The upshot of all of these cardiovascular outcome trial results that came out over the past 3 years has been a new appreciation of how antihyperglycemic drugs can have cardiovascular and renal benefits that transcend their effects on glycemia. The evidence has put the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on track to challenge, and potentially displace, metformin as the top drug to prescribe for patients with T2DM.
Clinicians should realize that they should prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors and selected GLP-1 RAs “as early as metformin in patients with established ASCVD,” said Dr. Verma. “For patients with recalcitrant atherosclerotic disease and a history of MI and ischemia, I’d primarily treat with a GLP-1 RA. In a patient with left ventricular dysfunction or evidence of heart failure, I’d use an SGLT2 inhibitor. But it’s not a fight between these two. You could treat a patients with type 2 diabetes with both classes,” although the practicality of this approach is limited by the high cost of these drugs.
The SGLT2 inhibitors “should now be considered as first-line therapy after metformin in most people with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of whether or not they have established atherosclerotic vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” he and his associates wrote in their recent commentary.
“What I struggle with the most is how we prioritize and individualize secondary-prevention therapies based on risk for ischemia and heart failure. Some therapies [the SGLT2 inhibitors] are predominantly for heart failure prevention, and some [the GLP-1 RAs] are primarily for ischemia. How do we choose when a patient cannot afford to take both? Does a combination of a SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA offer the greatest CVD benefit? We need to test this in a trial. And will metformin be displaced as first-line treatment?” Dr. Verma asked.
“The day will probably come when, for maximal protection, you treat with both classes. But right now we’re forced to choose because of the cost,” said John McMurray, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow, in a talk during the meeting.
As to specifically which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe, “they all look pretty much the same” in the newly published meta-analysis, Dr. McMurray said, although he noted that safety differences among agents in the class remain possible.
“For patients similar to those studied in the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials, clinicians should use one of these drugs to reduce the risk for incident heart failure, irrespective of their effect on MACE,” said Dr. Butler. Reducing the risk for incident heart failure and of progressive renal dysfunction are two new goals for antihyperglycemic therapy that now overlay the long-standing goals of controlling glycemia and reducing cardiovascular disease risk and the more recent goals of cutting cardiovascular disease mortality and cutting the risk for a MACE event.
A current limitation for practice is that the none of the three drug companies that market the tested SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has sought regulatory approval for an indication of reducing the risk for heart failure hospitalization. Despite that, “these drugs should be used for renal protection and reducing heart failure hospitalizations,” Dr. Butler said. “We need to start thinking about this and not get lost thinking about only their MACE effect because, when you focus on MACE, there is a competition between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RA. If we think of GLP-1 RAs as drugs to prevent MACE, and SGLT2 inhibitors as drugs that primarily prevent heart failure and renal dysfunction, then there is no competition. Perhaps combined treatment is where we need to go,” he said in an interview.
But the enthusiasm that experts like Dr. Butler, Dr. McMurray, and Dr. Verma have for wider use of both classes of drugs in appropriate patients is not necessarily matched right now among many community physicians. Cardiologist David J. Becker, MD, is an example of the clinicians who appreciate the growing evidence that supports wider use of these antihyperglycemic drugs but remain uneasy about applying this evidence in their practice.
Dr. Becker, associate director of the Preventive and Integrative Heart Health Program of the Temple Heart and Vascular Institute in Philadelphia, writes a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer on medical care. In a December 2018 piece, he said “like most cardiologists, I ‘don’t do diabetes’ – because it’s not my expertise. The new drugs, however, mean I need to learn more” about treating these patients. “The problem: There are so many of these medications that they present a bewildering choice for patients and doctors.”
Dr. Becker cited several barriers he sees for himself and his nonendocrinologist colleagues to prescribe these drugs – and for patients to take them:
- High cost, with prices that run close to $20/day for each medication.
- A thicket of names and choices that “lead to confusion and paralysis,” which has been exacerbated by “advertising wars” among competing drug companies.
- Cardiologists and primary care physicians usually defer to endocrinologists to prescribe these drugs, but most patients with T2DM aren’t seen by endocrinologists. The result: “Few doctors prescribe them.”
The cardiovascular disease benefits of these drugs have not been adequately promoted. Until that changes, “cardiologists like me will not realize their importance,” Dr. Becker concluded.
While christening the new diabetocardiology subspecialty, Dr. Braunwald placed the onus for managing this emerging facet of diabetes largely outside the scope of endocrinology.
“We can’t call in a consultant every time we have a patient with diabetes; it would bankrupt the system,” he said. Training of cardiologists now needs to include several months of treating patients with diabetes, Dr. Braunwald advised, just like 30 or so years ago when cardiologists like himself had to become more familiar with blood clotting to better manage thrombotic disease.
Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Cardurion, Myokardia, and Sanofi; an advisor to Endcardia; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiishi Sankyo, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant or advisor to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Verma has received honoraria and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, and Valeant. Dr. McMurray has received research funding from 12 companies. Dr. Becker had no disclosures.
CHICAGO – When the first results from a large trial that showed profound and unexpected benefits for preventing heart failure hospitalizations associated with use of the antihyperglycemic sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin came out – a little over 3 years ago – the general reaction from clinicians was some variant of “Could this be real?”
Since then, as results from some five other large, international trials have come out showing both similar benefits from two other drugs in the same SGLT2 inhibitor class, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, as well as results showing clear cardiovascular disease benefits from three drugs in a second class of antihyperglycemics, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the general consensus among cardiologists became: “The cardiovascular and renal benefits are real. How can we now best use these drugs to help patients?”
This change increasingly forces cardiologists, as well as the primary care physicians who often manage patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, to become more comfortable prescribing these two classes of antihyperglycemic drugs. During a talk at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, Eugene Braunwald, MD, arguably the top thought leader in cardiology, coined a new name for the medical subspecialty that he foresees navigating this overlap between diabetes care and cardiovascular disease prevention: diabetocardiology (although a more euphonic alternative might be cardiodiabetology, while the more comprehensive name could be cardionephrodiabetology).
“I was certainly surprised” by the first report in 2015 from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28), said Dr. Braunwald, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. A lot of his colleagues were surprised and said, “It’s just one trial.”
“Now we have three trials,” with the addition of the CANVAS trial for canagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 10. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812389) for dapagliflozin reported at the AHA meeting in November.
“We are in the midst of two pandemics: heart failure and type 2 diabetes. As cardiologists, we have to learn how to deal with this,” said Dr. Braunwald, and the evidence now clearly shows that these drugs can help with that.
As another speaker at the meeting, Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure specialist, observed in a separate talk at the meeting, “Heart failure is one of the most common, if not the most common complication, of patients with diabetes.” This tight link between heart failure and diabetes helps make cardiovascular mortality “the number one cause of death” in patients with diabetes, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson.
“Thanks to the cardiovascular outcome trials, we now have a much broader and deeper appreciation of heart failure and renal disease as integral components of the cardiovascular-renal spectrum in people with diabetes,” said Subodh Verma, MD, a professor at the University of Toronto and cardiac surgeon at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Braunwald spelled out in his talk some of the interrelationships of diabetes, heart failure, and renal dysfunction that together produce a downward-spiraling vicious circle for patients, a pathophysiological process that clinicians can now short-circuit by treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor.
Cardiovascular outcome trials show the way
In the context of antihyperglycemic drugs, the “cardiovascular outcome trials” refers to a series of large trials mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to assess the cardiovascular disease effects of new agents coming onto the U.S. market to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). By the time Dr. Verma spoke at the AHA meeting, he could cite reported results from 12 of these trials: 5 different drugs in the GLP-1 RA class, 4 drugs in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, and 3 drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class. Dr. Verma summed what the findings have shown.
The four tested DDP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin) consistently showed neutrality for the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular disease events (MACE), constituted by cardiovascular disease death, MI, or stroke.
The five tested GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide) showed a mixed pattern of MACE results that seemed to be linked with the subclass the drug fell into. The two exedin-4–based drugs, exenatide and lixisenatide, each showed a statistically neutral effect for MACE, as well as collectively in a combined analysis. In contrast, three human GLP-1–based drugs, albiglutide, liraglutide, and semaglutide, each showed a consistent, statistically-significant MACE reduction in their respective outcome trials, and collectively they showed a highly significant 18% reduction in MACE, compared with placebo, Dr. Verma said. Further, recent analysis by Dr. Verma that used data from liraglutide treatment in the LEADER trial showed the MACE benefit occurred only among enrolled patients treated with liraglutide who had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients enrolled in the trial with only multiple risk factors (in addition to having T2DM) but without established ASCVD showed no significant benefit from liraglutide treatment for the MACE endpoint, compared with control patients.
Recently a press-release announcement of results from a sixth GLP-1 RA, dulaglutide, in the REWIND trial of MACE outcomes suggested that a drug in this class could have broader effect. The majority, 69%, of the 9,901 patients with T2DM enrolled in REWIND had risk factors but not established ASCVD at enrollment. A Nov. 5, 2018, statement from the company developing this drug, Lilly, reported that the study overall produced a statistically significant reduction in MACE, although it provided no additional details. As the released noted, this made REWIND the first trial to show a MACE benefit from a drug in the GLP-1 RA class in patients without established ASCVD.
The MACE outcome results from the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials showed a similar pattern as liraglutide: In patients with established ASCVD, the drugs individually each produced a MACE reduction, although dapagliflozin just missed having a statistically significant reduction. Collectively, the three drugs showed a statistically significant, 14% relative risk reduction for MACE, compared with control patients. But among patients with multiple risk factors only, but without established ASCVD, included in two of the three trials (CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58), the results showed both individually and collectively a neutral MACE effect.
But unlike the other antihyperglycemic drugs tested in the cardiovascular outcome trials, the SGLT2 inhibitors have shown two additional, highly important secondary outcomes: a consistent reduction in hospitalization for heart failure and a consistent reduction in renal-disease progression.
A meta-analysis of the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials published coincident with the release of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 results showed that, for the outcome of either cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, the SGLT2 inhibitors collectively showed a significant 29% relative decrease in this incidence among patients with a history of heart failure, and a significant 21% relative decrease among patients without history of heart failure (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32590-X). Among the subset of patients with established ASCVD, treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor across all three trials showed a significant 16% relative risk reduction, and in the subset with multiple risk factors but no established ASCVD, the two SGLT2 inhibitors collectively produced a 16% relative cut in cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization with a P value of .06. Finally, the Lancet meta-analysis showed that, for a combined endpoint that reflected renal worsening, the SGLT2 inhibitors showed a significant relative reduction of about 45% in both the subgroup of patients with established ASCVD and in the subgroup of those with just risk factors.
“This is a big step forward for patients with multiple risk factors and diabetes but without ASCVD, that both renal disease and hospitalization for heart failure are sensitive” to the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Verma noted. “We see renal protection and reduction of heart failure hospitalization across both primary and secondary prevention patients, with no need to distinguish them based on ASCVD.” In contrast, he noted, the MACE benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitors seems limited to patients with ASCVD. The day before making this point in a talk during the meeting, Dr. Verma had published the same message in a commentary (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32824-1).
Although the “nomenclature of primary versus secondary prevention is appropriate for atherosclerotic outcomes, it is likely to be inappropriate for a person with type 2 diabetes who is at risk of hospitalization for heart failure and renal disease,” Dr. Verma wrote with his associates in the commentary.
What it means for clinicians
The upshot of all of these cardiovascular outcome trial results that came out over the past 3 years has been a new appreciation of how antihyperglycemic drugs can have cardiovascular and renal benefits that transcend their effects on glycemia. The evidence has put the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on track to challenge, and potentially displace, metformin as the top drug to prescribe for patients with T2DM.
Clinicians should realize that they should prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors and selected GLP-1 RAs “as early as metformin in patients with established ASCVD,” said Dr. Verma. “For patients with recalcitrant atherosclerotic disease and a history of MI and ischemia, I’d primarily treat with a GLP-1 RA. In a patient with left ventricular dysfunction or evidence of heart failure, I’d use an SGLT2 inhibitor. But it’s not a fight between these two. You could treat a patients with type 2 diabetes with both classes,” although the practicality of this approach is limited by the high cost of these drugs.
The SGLT2 inhibitors “should now be considered as first-line therapy after metformin in most people with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of whether or not they have established atherosclerotic vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” he and his associates wrote in their recent commentary.
“What I struggle with the most is how we prioritize and individualize secondary-prevention therapies based on risk for ischemia and heart failure. Some therapies [the SGLT2 inhibitors] are predominantly for heart failure prevention, and some [the GLP-1 RAs] are primarily for ischemia. How do we choose when a patient cannot afford to take both? Does a combination of a SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA offer the greatest CVD benefit? We need to test this in a trial. And will metformin be displaced as first-line treatment?” Dr. Verma asked.
“The day will probably come when, for maximal protection, you treat with both classes. But right now we’re forced to choose because of the cost,” said John McMurray, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow, in a talk during the meeting.
As to specifically which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe, “they all look pretty much the same” in the newly published meta-analysis, Dr. McMurray said, although he noted that safety differences among agents in the class remain possible.
“For patients similar to those studied in the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials, clinicians should use one of these drugs to reduce the risk for incident heart failure, irrespective of their effect on MACE,” said Dr. Butler. Reducing the risk for incident heart failure and of progressive renal dysfunction are two new goals for antihyperglycemic therapy that now overlay the long-standing goals of controlling glycemia and reducing cardiovascular disease risk and the more recent goals of cutting cardiovascular disease mortality and cutting the risk for a MACE event.
A current limitation for practice is that the none of the three drug companies that market the tested SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has sought regulatory approval for an indication of reducing the risk for heart failure hospitalization. Despite that, “these drugs should be used for renal protection and reducing heart failure hospitalizations,” Dr. Butler said. “We need to start thinking about this and not get lost thinking about only their MACE effect because, when you focus on MACE, there is a competition between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RA. If we think of GLP-1 RAs as drugs to prevent MACE, and SGLT2 inhibitors as drugs that primarily prevent heart failure and renal dysfunction, then there is no competition. Perhaps combined treatment is where we need to go,” he said in an interview.
But the enthusiasm that experts like Dr. Butler, Dr. McMurray, and Dr. Verma have for wider use of both classes of drugs in appropriate patients is not necessarily matched right now among many community physicians. Cardiologist David J. Becker, MD, is an example of the clinicians who appreciate the growing evidence that supports wider use of these antihyperglycemic drugs but remain uneasy about applying this evidence in their practice.
Dr. Becker, associate director of the Preventive and Integrative Heart Health Program of the Temple Heart and Vascular Institute in Philadelphia, writes a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer on medical care. In a December 2018 piece, he said “like most cardiologists, I ‘don’t do diabetes’ – because it’s not my expertise. The new drugs, however, mean I need to learn more” about treating these patients. “The problem: There are so many of these medications that they present a bewildering choice for patients and doctors.”
Dr. Becker cited several barriers he sees for himself and his nonendocrinologist colleagues to prescribe these drugs – and for patients to take them:
- High cost, with prices that run close to $20/day for each medication.
- A thicket of names and choices that “lead to confusion and paralysis,” which has been exacerbated by “advertising wars” among competing drug companies.
- Cardiologists and primary care physicians usually defer to endocrinologists to prescribe these drugs, but most patients with T2DM aren’t seen by endocrinologists. The result: “Few doctors prescribe them.”
The cardiovascular disease benefits of these drugs have not been adequately promoted. Until that changes, “cardiologists like me will not realize their importance,” Dr. Becker concluded.
While christening the new diabetocardiology subspecialty, Dr. Braunwald placed the onus for managing this emerging facet of diabetes largely outside the scope of endocrinology.
“We can’t call in a consultant every time we have a patient with diabetes; it would bankrupt the system,” he said. Training of cardiologists now needs to include several months of treating patients with diabetes, Dr. Braunwald advised, just like 30 or so years ago when cardiologists like himself had to become more familiar with blood clotting to better manage thrombotic disease.
Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Cardurion, Myokardia, and Sanofi; an advisor to Endcardia; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiishi Sankyo, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant or advisor to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Verma has received honoraria and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, and Valeant. Dr. McMurray has received research funding from 12 companies. Dr. Becker had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program may be doing more harm than good
A Medicare program aimed at lowering readmissions to hospitals could be having an adverse effect on mortality.
Results from a retrospective cohort study of hospitalizations for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2015 (covering the period before and after the Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program was announced in April 2010 and implemented in October 2012) found a significant increase in 30-day post discharge mortality among heart failure and pneumonia patients.
“Most concerning, however, is the possibility that the relationship between the HRRP and postdischarge mortality for heart failure and pneumonia is causal, indicating that the HRRP led to changes in quality of care that adversely affected patients,” Rishi Wadhera, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his colleagues wrote in a report published Dec. 25, 2018, in JAMA.
They looked at 8.3 million hospitalizations for heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, among whom 7.9 million were alive at the time of discharge. There were roughly 270,000 deaths within 30 days of discharge for heart failure; 128,000 for acute MI; and 246,000 for pneumonia.
To examine trends, the timing was divided into four periods: two prior to the announcement of the HRRP (April 2005–September 2007 and October 2007–March 2010); a third covering the time when the HRRP was announced (April 2010–September 2012); and the fourth when HRRP was implemented (October 2012–March 2015).
They found that among patients discharged with heart failure, 30-day mortality was rising even before the announcement of the HRRP, by 0.27% from the first period to the second period. That baseline trend continued when the HRRP was announced, by 0.49%, from second period to third. The difference in change between those periods was 0.22%. After implementation, 30-day mortality increased by 0.52%, with a difference in change from the third period of 0.25%. Both changes were statistically significant.
Among pneumonia patients, postdischarge mortality was stable before HRRP, but significantly increased after HRRP announcement, by 0.26%, with a difference in change from the second period to the third period of 0.22%. After implementation, the 30-day postdischarge mortality was 0.44%, with a significant difference in change of 0.40%.
Acute MI was a different story. Postdischarge mortality decreased significantly after the implementation of the HRRP, by 0.22%. The difference in change was –0.26%.
The authors suggested that “some hospitals may have focused more resources and efforts on reducing or avoiding readmissions than on prioritizing survival.” They add that the increases in heart failure morbidity could be related to patients with more severe heart conditions.
They noted that “although hospitals that reduce readmissions also appear to reduce mortality, this hospital-level concordance does not reflect the change in readmissions and mortality at the level of the patient population, which is arguably of greater importance to individual patients and to public health.”
Further research is needed to understand whether the increase in 30-day postdischarge mortality is a result of the HRRP, the authors concluded.
SOURCE: Wadhera R et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19232.
Evidence in this study shows that while the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program my be succeeding in reducing hospital admissions, little evidence is available to show that it is having a positive effect on patient outcomes.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to reexamine the program and find alternative methods that are both effective at reducing hospital readmissions while at the same time protect patients from unintentional harm, including death.
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD , University of California Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an editorial published in JAMA, Dec. 25, 2018. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19325 .
Evidence in this study shows that while the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program my be succeeding in reducing hospital admissions, little evidence is available to show that it is having a positive effect on patient outcomes.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to reexamine the program and find alternative methods that are both effective at reducing hospital readmissions while at the same time protect patients from unintentional harm, including death.
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD , University of California Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an editorial published in JAMA, Dec. 25, 2018. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19325 .
Evidence in this study shows that while the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program my be succeeding in reducing hospital admissions, little evidence is available to show that it is having a positive effect on patient outcomes.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to reexamine the program and find alternative methods that are both effective at reducing hospital readmissions while at the same time protect patients from unintentional harm, including death.
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD , University of California Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an editorial published in JAMA, Dec. 25, 2018. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19325 .
A Medicare program aimed at lowering readmissions to hospitals could be having an adverse effect on mortality.
Results from a retrospective cohort study of hospitalizations for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2015 (covering the period before and after the Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program was announced in April 2010 and implemented in October 2012) found a significant increase in 30-day post discharge mortality among heart failure and pneumonia patients.
“Most concerning, however, is the possibility that the relationship between the HRRP and postdischarge mortality for heart failure and pneumonia is causal, indicating that the HRRP led to changes in quality of care that adversely affected patients,” Rishi Wadhera, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his colleagues wrote in a report published Dec. 25, 2018, in JAMA.
They looked at 8.3 million hospitalizations for heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, among whom 7.9 million were alive at the time of discharge. There were roughly 270,000 deaths within 30 days of discharge for heart failure; 128,000 for acute MI; and 246,000 for pneumonia.
To examine trends, the timing was divided into four periods: two prior to the announcement of the HRRP (April 2005–September 2007 and October 2007–March 2010); a third covering the time when the HRRP was announced (April 2010–September 2012); and the fourth when HRRP was implemented (October 2012–March 2015).
They found that among patients discharged with heart failure, 30-day mortality was rising even before the announcement of the HRRP, by 0.27% from the first period to the second period. That baseline trend continued when the HRRP was announced, by 0.49%, from second period to third. The difference in change between those periods was 0.22%. After implementation, 30-day mortality increased by 0.52%, with a difference in change from the third period of 0.25%. Both changes were statistically significant.
Among pneumonia patients, postdischarge mortality was stable before HRRP, but significantly increased after HRRP announcement, by 0.26%, with a difference in change from the second period to the third period of 0.22%. After implementation, the 30-day postdischarge mortality was 0.44%, with a significant difference in change of 0.40%.
Acute MI was a different story. Postdischarge mortality decreased significantly after the implementation of the HRRP, by 0.22%. The difference in change was –0.26%.
The authors suggested that “some hospitals may have focused more resources and efforts on reducing or avoiding readmissions than on prioritizing survival.” They add that the increases in heart failure morbidity could be related to patients with more severe heart conditions.
They noted that “although hospitals that reduce readmissions also appear to reduce mortality, this hospital-level concordance does not reflect the change in readmissions and mortality at the level of the patient population, which is arguably of greater importance to individual patients and to public health.”
Further research is needed to understand whether the increase in 30-day postdischarge mortality is a result of the HRRP, the authors concluded.
SOURCE: Wadhera R et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19232.
A Medicare program aimed at lowering readmissions to hospitals could be having an adverse effect on mortality.
Results from a retrospective cohort study of hospitalizations for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia among Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2015 (covering the period before and after the Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program was announced in April 2010 and implemented in October 2012) found a significant increase in 30-day post discharge mortality among heart failure and pneumonia patients.
“Most concerning, however, is the possibility that the relationship between the HRRP and postdischarge mortality for heart failure and pneumonia is causal, indicating that the HRRP led to changes in quality of care that adversely affected patients,” Rishi Wadhera, MD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and his colleagues wrote in a report published Dec. 25, 2018, in JAMA.
They looked at 8.3 million hospitalizations for heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, among whom 7.9 million were alive at the time of discharge. There were roughly 270,000 deaths within 30 days of discharge for heart failure; 128,000 for acute MI; and 246,000 for pneumonia.
To examine trends, the timing was divided into four periods: two prior to the announcement of the HRRP (April 2005–September 2007 and October 2007–March 2010); a third covering the time when the HRRP was announced (April 2010–September 2012); and the fourth when HRRP was implemented (October 2012–March 2015).
They found that among patients discharged with heart failure, 30-day mortality was rising even before the announcement of the HRRP, by 0.27% from the first period to the second period. That baseline trend continued when the HRRP was announced, by 0.49%, from second period to third. The difference in change between those periods was 0.22%. After implementation, 30-day mortality increased by 0.52%, with a difference in change from the third period of 0.25%. Both changes were statistically significant.
Among pneumonia patients, postdischarge mortality was stable before HRRP, but significantly increased after HRRP announcement, by 0.26%, with a difference in change from the second period to the third period of 0.22%. After implementation, the 30-day postdischarge mortality was 0.44%, with a significant difference in change of 0.40%.
Acute MI was a different story. Postdischarge mortality decreased significantly after the implementation of the HRRP, by 0.22%. The difference in change was –0.26%.
The authors suggested that “some hospitals may have focused more resources and efforts on reducing or avoiding readmissions than on prioritizing survival.” They add that the increases in heart failure morbidity could be related to patients with more severe heart conditions.
They noted that “although hospitals that reduce readmissions also appear to reduce mortality, this hospital-level concordance does not reflect the change in readmissions and mortality at the level of the patient population, which is arguably of greater importance to individual patients and to public health.”
Further research is needed to understand whether the increase in 30-day postdischarge mortality is a result of the HRRP, the authors concluded.
SOURCE: Wadhera R et al. JAMA. 2018 Dec 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19232.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Heart failure patients saw mortality increase 0.52% after HRRP launched.
Study details: A retrospective cohort study across 10 years, including time before and after the implementation of the HRRP.
Disclosures: The Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology funded the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Source: Wadhera R et al. JAMA 2018 Dec 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19232.
Reducing heart failure readmissions raises mortality
This week from MDedge Cardiology, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program may be doing more harm than good, ticagrelor holds no edge over aspirin in CABG patients, weight-loss apps lack evidence, and the Surgeon General sends out an alarm.
Subscribe to Cardiocast wherever you get your podcasts.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
This week from MDedge Cardiology, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program may be doing more harm than good, ticagrelor holds no edge over aspirin in CABG patients, weight-loss apps lack evidence, and the Surgeon General sends out an alarm.
Subscribe to Cardiocast wherever you get your podcasts.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
This week from MDedge Cardiology, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program may be doing more harm than good, ticagrelor holds no edge over aspirin in CABG patients, weight-loss apps lack evidence, and the Surgeon General sends out an alarm.
Subscribe to Cardiocast wherever you get your podcasts.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
TRED-HF: Despite recovery, dilated cardiomyopathy returns after halting HF drugs
CHICAGO – Phased withdrawal of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who seemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy resulted in relapses in 40% of patients within 6 months in the TRED-HF trial.
The clinical implications of this small pilot randomized trial are clear: “Withdrawal of therapy should not usually be attempted, at least until we can predict who’s going to relapse and who’s not,” Brian P. Halliday, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Improvement in function represents remission rather than permanent recovery for many patients,” added Dr. Halliday of Imperial College London.
The study was performed to address a question that arises with increasing frequency in clinical practice as a result of the impressive advances in heart failure therapy in recent years, he said. “Patients frequently come to us in clinic and ask us, ‘Do I need to continue to take these medications forever?’ They’re frequently young, and they want to know if they really need to be subject to 40 or 50 years of medication. Some are concerned about side effects, others are interested in pregnancy, and then there is the financial cost.”
Simultaneously published in The Lancet, TRED-HF was a single-center, open-label study of 51 patients who had prior dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25% at the time of diagnosis 4.9 years earlier and who subsequently recovered in response to therapy. That is, they became symptom-free with an LVEF greater than 50%, a normal left ventricular end diastolic volume index, and a reassuringly low median N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NP-pro-BNP) level of 72 ng/L.
For the study, 25 patients were randomized to phased withdrawal of their heart failure drugs over a 16-week period: First they reduced or stopped loop diuretics, then mineralocorticoid antagonists, then beta-blockers, and finally their ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The other 26 participants continued therapy during the first 6 months of the study, then 25 of the 26 crossed over to phased withdrawal. The outlier didn’t cross over because of atrial fibrillation.
The primary endpoint was relapse of DCM within 6 months of the start of the study. Relapse was defined as either a drop in LVEF of more than 10% to a level below 50%, at least a doubling of NT-pro-BNP to greater than 400 ng/L, clinical evidence of heart failure, or a greater than 10% increase in LV end diastolic volume as assessed by cardiac MRI.
The results
During the first half of the study, 11 of 25 patients (44%) relapsed during or after medication withdrawal. None of the controls relapsed. In the crossover phase, 9 of 25 patients (35%) relapsed in response to treatment withdrawal. Of the 20 patients who relapsed, 13 did so within 16 weeks of beginning medication withdrawal. Indeed, most patients relapsed within 8 weeks of their last medication. Ten of the twenty fulfilled multiple criteria for relapse.
Medication withdrawal was accompanied not only by a mean 9.5% reduction in LVEF, compared with baseline, but by a 15.4-bpm rise in heart rate, a 7.0–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, and 5.1-point deterioration in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, demonstrating that what happened off treatment was true DCM recurrence and not simply an imaging artifact.
Everyone who relapsed immediately restarted treatment. At their next follow-up visit, all were once again asymptomatic, and 17 of the 20 (85%) had an LVEF greater than 50%. Two of the other three had an LVEF of 45%-50%, and the other had an LVEF of 43%.
“So they did seem to recover when they went back on medication,” Dr. Halliday observed.
Underpowered exploratory analyses designed for hypothesis generation identified several potential baseline predictors of DCM relapse, including older age, being on three or more heart failure drugs, and use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist.
Experts react
Designated discussant Jane E. Wilcox, MD, commented, “Currently, in 2018, we have no true signature of recovery. These patients are indeed in cardiac remission and have an indefinite indication for continuing their evidence-based medical therapy without interruption.”
“The clinical implication here is, I think, we should TRED-lightly,” quipped Dr. Wilcox of Northwestern University in Chicago.
Her own research indicates that even patients who have recovered their LVEF and no longer seem to have a heart failure phenotype still have an abnormal myocardial substrate as evidenced by persistent dysfunctional cardiac mechanics on echocardiography. Nonetheless, she remains optimistic.
“I don’t think [TRED-HF] squelches the future of myocardial recovery. I think it actually invigorates the field for an assessment of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics looking for that true signature of cardiac recovery,” she said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference where Dr. Halliday presented the TRED-HF results, complimented the investigators for tackling what he termed “an incredibly important clinical question that comes up all the time.”
“I really want to commend the investigators for taking on what, on its face, might be an ethically challenging question by taking treatment away when we don’t know what the answer is likely to be. But they really checked all the boxes to make sure this was done in a very safe and monitored way, so that even though the outcome was what it turned out to be, the harm to patients was minimalized,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine and director of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Chicago.
“No patient wants to be on more medication than they need to be, but I think for the time being this class of patients is going to have to be maintained on medications until we understand a little more,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded.
Dr. Halliday reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.
CHICAGO – Phased withdrawal of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who seemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy resulted in relapses in 40% of patients within 6 months in the TRED-HF trial.
The clinical implications of this small pilot randomized trial are clear: “Withdrawal of therapy should not usually be attempted, at least until we can predict who’s going to relapse and who’s not,” Brian P. Halliday, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Improvement in function represents remission rather than permanent recovery for many patients,” added Dr. Halliday of Imperial College London.
The study was performed to address a question that arises with increasing frequency in clinical practice as a result of the impressive advances in heart failure therapy in recent years, he said. “Patients frequently come to us in clinic and ask us, ‘Do I need to continue to take these medications forever?’ They’re frequently young, and they want to know if they really need to be subject to 40 or 50 years of medication. Some are concerned about side effects, others are interested in pregnancy, and then there is the financial cost.”
Simultaneously published in The Lancet, TRED-HF was a single-center, open-label study of 51 patients who had prior dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25% at the time of diagnosis 4.9 years earlier and who subsequently recovered in response to therapy. That is, they became symptom-free with an LVEF greater than 50%, a normal left ventricular end diastolic volume index, and a reassuringly low median N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NP-pro-BNP) level of 72 ng/L.
For the study, 25 patients were randomized to phased withdrawal of their heart failure drugs over a 16-week period: First they reduced or stopped loop diuretics, then mineralocorticoid antagonists, then beta-blockers, and finally their ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The other 26 participants continued therapy during the first 6 months of the study, then 25 of the 26 crossed over to phased withdrawal. The outlier didn’t cross over because of atrial fibrillation.
The primary endpoint was relapse of DCM within 6 months of the start of the study. Relapse was defined as either a drop in LVEF of more than 10% to a level below 50%, at least a doubling of NT-pro-BNP to greater than 400 ng/L, clinical evidence of heart failure, or a greater than 10% increase in LV end diastolic volume as assessed by cardiac MRI.
The results
During the first half of the study, 11 of 25 patients (44%) relapsed during or after medication withdrawal. None of the controls relapsed. In the crossover phase, 9 of 25 patients (35%) relapsed in response to treatment withdrawal. Of the 20 patients who relapsed, 13 did so within 16 weeks of beginning medication withdrawal. Indeed, most patients relapsed within 8 weeks of their last medication. Ten of the twenty fulfilled multiple criteria for relapse.
Medication withdrawal was accompanied not only by a mean 9.5% reduction in LVEF, compared with baseline, but by a 15.4-bpm rise in heart rate, a 7.0–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, and 5.1-point deterioration in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, demonstrating that what happened off treatment was true DCM recurrence and not simply an imaging artifact.
Everyone who relapsed immediately restarted treatment. At their next follow-up visit, all were once again asymptomatic, and 17 of the 20 (85%) had an LVEF greater than 50%. Two of the other three had an LVEF of 45%-50%, and the other had an LVEF of 43%.
“So they did seem to recover when they went back on medication,” Dr. Halliday observed.
Underpowered exploratory analyses designed for hypothesis generation identified several potential baseline predictors of DCM relapse, including older age, being on three or more heart failure drugs, and use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist.
Experts react
Designated discussant Jane E. Wilcox, MD, commented, “Currently, in 2018, we have no true signature of recovery. These patients are indeed in cardiac remission and have an indefinite indication for continuing their evidence-based medical therapy without interruption.”
“The clinical implication here is, I think, we should TRED-lightly,” quipped Dr. Wilcox of Northwestern University in Chicago.
Her own research indicates that even patients who have recovered their LVEF and no longer seem to have a heart failure phenotype still have an abnormal myocardial substrate as evidenced by persistent dysfunctional cardiac mechanics on echocardiography. Nonetheless, she remains optimistic.
“I don’t think [TRED-HF] squelches the future of myocardial recovery. I think it actually invigorates the field for an assessment of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics looking for that true signature of cardiac recovery,” she said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference where Dr. Halliday presented the TRED-HF results, complimented the investigators for tackling what he termed “an incredibly important clinical question that comes up all the time.”
“I really want to commend the investigators for taking on what, on its face, might be an ethically challenging question by taking treatment away when we don’t know what the answer is likely to be. But they really checked all the boxes to make sure this was done in a very safe and monitored way, so that even though the outcome was what it turned out to be, the harm to patients was minimalized,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine and director of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Chicago.
“No patient wants to be on more medication than they need to be, but I think for the time being this class of patients is going to have to be maintained on medications until we understand a little more,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded.
Dr. Halliday reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.
CHICAGO – Phased withdrawal of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who seemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy resulted in relapses in 40% of patients within 6 months in the TRED-HF trial.
The clinical implications of this small pilot randomized trial are clear: “Withdrawal of therapy should not usually be attempted, at least until we can predict who’s going to relapse and who’s not,” Brian P. Halliday, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Improvement in function represents remission rather than permanent recovery for many patients,” added Dr. Halliday of Imperial College London.
The study was performed to address a question that arises with increasing frequency in clinical practice as a result of the impressive advances in heart failure therapy in recent years, he said. “Patients frequently come to us in clinic and ask us, ‘Do I need to continue to take these medications forever?’ They’re frequently young, and they want to know if they really need to be subject to 40 or 50 years of medication. Some are concerned about side effects, others are interested in pregnancy, and then there is the financial cost.”
Simultaneously published in The Lancet, TRED-HF was a single-center, open-label study of 51 patients who had prior dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25% at the time of diagnosis 4.9 years earlier and who subsequently recovered in response to therapy. That is, they became symptom-free with an LVEF greater than 50%, a normal left ventricular end diastolic volume index, and a reassuringly low median N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NP-pro-BNP) level of 72 ng/L.
For the study, 25 patients were randomized to phased withdrawal of their heart failure drugs over a 16-week period: First they reduced or stopped loop diuretics, then mineralocorticoid antagonists, then beta-blockers, and finally their ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The other 26 participants continued therapy during the first 6 months of the study, then 25 of the 26 crossed over to phased withdrawal. The outlier didn’t cross over because of atrial fibrillation.
The primary endpoint was relapse of DCM within 6 months of the start of the study. Relapse was defined as either a drop in LVEF of more than 10% to a level below 50%, at least a doubling of NT-pro-BNP to greater than 400 ng/L, clinical evidence of heart failure, or a greater than 10% increase in LV end diastolic volume as assessed by cardiac MRI.
The results
During the first half of the study, 11 of 25 patients (44%) relapsed during or after medication withdrawal. None of the controls relapsed. In the crossover phase, 9 of 25 patients (35%) relapsed in response to treatment withdrawal. Of the 20 patients who relapsed, 13 did so within 16 weeks of beginning medication withdrawal. Indeed, most patients relapsed within 8 weeks of their last medication. Ten of the twenty fulfilled multiple criteria for relapse.
Medication withdrawal was accompanied not only by a mean 9.5% reduction in LVEF, compared with baseline, but by a 15.4-bpm rise in heart rate, a 7.0–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, and 5.1-point deterioration in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, demonstrating that what happened off treatment was true DCM recurrence and not simply an imaging artifact.
Everyone who relapsed immediately restarted treatment. At their next follow-up visit, all were once again asymptomatic, and 17 of the 20 (85%) had an LVEF greater than 50%. Two of the other three had an LVEF of 45%-50%, and the other had an LVEF of 43%.
“So they did seem to recover when they went back on medication,” Dr. Halliday observed.
Underpowered exploratory analyses designed for hypothesis generation identified several potential baseline predictors of DCM relapse, including older age, being on three or more heart failure drugs, and use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist.
Experts react
Designated discussant Jane E. Wilcox, MD, commented, “Currently, in 2018, we have no true signature of recovery. These patients are indeed in cardiac remission and have an indefinite indication for continuing their evidence-based medical therapy without interruption.”
“The clinical implication here is, I think, we should TRED-lightly,” quipped Dr. Wilcox of Northwestern University in Chicago.
Her own research indicates that even patients who have recovered their LVEF and no longer seem to have a heart failure phenotype still have an abnormal myocardial substrate as evidenced by persistent dysfunctional cardiac mechanics on echocardiography. Nonetheless, she remains optimistic.
“I don’t think [TRED-HF] squelches the future of myocardial recovery. I think it actually invigorates the field for an assessment of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics looking for that true signature of cardiac recovery,” she said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference where Dr. Halliday presented the TRED-HF results, complimented the investigators for tackling what he termed “an incredibly important clinical question that comes up all the time.”
“I really want to commend the investigators for taking on what, on its face, might be an ethically challenging question by taking treatment away when we don’t know what the answer is likely to be. But they really checked all the boxes to make sure this was done in a very safe and monitored way, so that even though the outcome was what it turned out to be, the harm to patients was minimalized,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine and director of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Chicago.
“No patient wants to be on more medication than they need to be, but I think for the time being this class of patients is going to have to be maintained on medications until we understand a little more,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded.
Dr. Halliday reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: The heart failure relapse rate is high after medication withdrawal.
Major finding: Of patients who were seemingly recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy, 40% experienced early relapse following structured medication withdrawal.
Study details: This randomized crossover trial included 51 patients whose medications were withdrawn after their apparent recovery from dilated cardiomyopathy.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts.
Source: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.
Heart disease remains the leading cause of death in U.S.
The 10 leading causes of death in the United States remained unchanged over the past year, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Though life expectancy at birth decreased to 78.6 years in 2017, down from 78.7 years in 2016, that change was driven primarily by suicide and drug overdose.
However, heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, at 165 deaths per 100,000 individuals in 2017. This represents a slight, statistically nonsignificant, decrease from the 165.5 deaths per 100,000 caused by heart disease in the previous year.
Other diseases related to cardiometabolic health saw increases. Stroke and diabetes each caused a small but significant increase in deaths in 2017, which saw a 1-year increase to 37.6 from 37.3 stroke deaths per 100,000 people. Diabetes deaths increased to 21.5 from 21 per 100,000 the previous year. Stroke was the fifth and diabetes the seventh most common cause of death, according to the data brief published by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
Alzheimer’s disease deaths also increased significantly, from 30.3 per 100,000 in 2016 to 31 per 100,000 in 2017. Although Alzheimer’s exact etiology remains under study, cardiovascular disease factors and Alzheimer’s disease share many risk factors and are often comorbid .
“With a slight decrease in deaths from heart disease in 2017 and a slight increase in deaths from stroke, this lack of any major movement in these areas has been a trend we’ve seen the last couple of years,” said Ivor Benjamin, MD, president of the American Heart Association, in a press release. “It is discouraging after experiencing decades when heart disease and stroke death rates both dropped more dramatically.”
Infant deaths from congenital malformations decreased from 2016 to 2017, from 122.1 to 118.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. “While the report doesn’t specify death rates for specific types of congenital malformations, this is heartening news as it could reflect fewer deaths from congenital heart defects,” said the AHA in its release.
According to the CDC, the 10 leading causes of death together account for about three quarters of United States deaths. Cancer caused nearly as many deaths as heart disease – 152.5 per 100,000. This represented a significant decrease from the 155.8 cancer deaths per 100,000 seen in 2016. The remaining top 10 causes of death, in decreasing order, were unintentional injuries, chronic lower respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease, and suicide.
The 10 leading causes of death in the United States remained unchanged over the past year, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Though life expectancy at birth decreased to 78.6 years in 2017, down from 78.7 years in 2016, that change was driven primarily by suicide and drug overdose.
However, heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, at 165 deaths per 100,000 individuals in 2017. This represents a slight, statistically nonsignificant, decrease from the 165.5 deaths per 100,000 caused by heart disease in the previous year.
Other diseases related to cardiometabolic health saw increases. Stroke and diabetes each caused a small but significant increase in deaths in 2017, which saw a 1-year increase to 37.6 from 37.3 stroke deaths per 100,000 people. Diabetes deaths increased to 21.5 from 21 per 100,000 the previous year. Stroke was the fifth and diabetes the seventh most common cause of death, according to the data brief published by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
Alzheimer’s disease deaths also increased significantly, from 30.3 per 100,000 in 2016 to 31 per 100,000 in 2017. Although Alzheimer’s exact etiology remains under study, cardiovascular disease factors and Alzheimer’s disease share many risk factors and are often comorbid .
“With a slight decrease in deaths from heart disease in 2017 and a slight increase in deaths from stroke, this lack of any major movement in these areas has been a trend we’ve seen the last couple of years,” said Ivor Benjamin, MD, president of the American Heart Association, in a press release. “It is discouraging after experiencing decades when heart disease and stroke death rates both dropped more dramatically.”
Infant deaths from congenital malformations decreased from 2016 to 2017, from 122.1 to 118.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. “While the report doesn’t specify death rates for specific types of congenital malformations, this is heartening news as it could reflect fewer deaths from congenital heart defects,” said the AHA in its release.
According to the CDC, the 10 leading causes of death together account for about three quarters of United States deaths. Cancer caused nearly as many deaths as heart disease – 152.5 per 100,000. This represented a significant decrease from the 155.8 cancer deaths per 100,000 seen in 2016. The remaining top 10 causes of death, in decreasing order, were unintentional injuries, chronic lower respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease, and suicide.
The 10 leading causes of death in the United States remained unchanged over the past year, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Though life expectancy at birth decreased to 78.6 years in 2017, down from 78.7 years in 2016, that change was driven primarily by suicide and drug overdose.
However, heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, at 165 deaths per 100,000 individuals in 2017. This represents a slight, statistically nonsignificant, decrease from the 165.5 deaths per 100,000 caused by heart disease in the previous year.
Other diseases related to cardiometabolic health saw increases. Stroke and diabetes each caused a small but significant increase in deaths in 2017, which saw a 1-year increase to 37.6 from 37.3 stroke deaths per 100,000 people. Diabetes deaths increased to 21.5 from 21 per 100,000 the previous year. Stroke was the fifth and diabetes the seventh most common cause of death, according to the data brief published by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
Alzheimer’s disease deaths also increased significantly, from 30.3 per 100,000 in 2016 to 31 per 100,000 in 2017. Although Alzheimer’s exact etiology remains under study, cardiovascular disease factors and Alzheimer’s disease share many risk factors and are often comorbid .
“With a slight decrease in deaths from heart disease in 2017 and a slight increase in deaths from stroke, this lack of any major movement in these areas has been a trend we’ve seen the last couple of years,” said Ivor Benjamin, MD, president of the American Heart Association, in a press release. “It is discouraging after experiencing decades when heart disease and stroke death rates both dropped more dramatically.”
Infant deaths from congenital malformations decreased from 2016 to 2017, from 122.1 to 118.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. “While the report doesn’t specify death rates for specific types of congenital malformations, this is heartening news as it could reflect fewer deaths from congenital heart defects,” said the AHA in its release.
According to the CDC, the 10 leading causes of death together account for about three quarters of United States deaths. Cancer caused nearly as many deaths as heart disease – 152.5 per 100,000. This represented a significant decrease from the 155.8 cancer deaths per 100,000 seen in 2016. The remaining top 10 causes of death, in decreasing order, were unintentional injuries, chronic lower respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia, kidney disease, and suicide.
FROM A CDC DATA BRIEF
Mylan issues voluntary recall of certain valsartan-containing products
Mylan has announced that it is voluntarily recalling 15 lots of products containing valsartan because of the detection of trace amounts of N-nitrosodiethylamine within the active ingredient, according to a company announcement posted on the website of the Food and Drug Administration.
The affected products include six lots of amlodipine/valsartan tablets (5-mg/160-mg, 10-mg/160-mg, and 10-mg/320-mg strengths), seven lots of valsartan tablets (40-mg, 80-mg, 160-mg, and 320-mg strengths), and two lots of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide tablets (320-mg/25-mg strength). All products were distributed between March 2017 and November 2018.
“Patients should contact their pharmacist or physician who can advise them about an alternative treatment prior to returning their medication. Patients who are on valsartan should continue taking their medication, as the risk of harm to the patient’s health may be higher if the treatment is stopped immediately without any alternative treatment,” the company statement said.
N-nitrosodiethylamine is a naturally occurring substance that has been identified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The lot and NDC (National Drug Code) numbers of the affected products can be found in the full press release on the FDA website.
Mylan is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Wholesalers, retailers, and consumers in possession of recalled product should contact Stericycle at 1-888-406-9305 for the return of the recalled product. Normal business hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, according to the statement.
Mylan has announced that it is voluntarily recalling 15 lots of products containing valsartan because of the detection of trace amounts of N-nitrosodiethylamine within the active ingredient, according to a company announcement posted on the website of the Food and Drug Administration.
The affected products include six lots of amlodipine/valsartan tablets (5-mg/160-mg, 10-mg/160-mg, and 10-mg/320-mg strengths), seven lots of valsartan tablets (40-mg, 80-mg, 160-mg, and 320-mg strengths), and two lots of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide tablets (320-mg/25-mg strength). All products were distributed between March 2017 and November 2018.
“Patients should contact their pharmacist or physician who can advise them about an alternative treatment prior to returning their medication. Patients who are on valsartan should continue taking their medication, as the risk of harm to the patient’s health may be higher if the treatment is stopped immediately without any alternative treatment,” the company statement said.
N-nitrosodiethylamine is a naturally occurring substance that has been identified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The lot and NDC (National Drug Code) numbers of the affected products can be found in the full press release on the FDA website.
Mylan is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Wholesalers, retailers, and consumers in possession of recalled product should contact Stericycle at 1-888-406-9305 for the return of the recalled product. Normal business hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, according to the statement.
Mylan has announced that it is voluntarily recalling 15 lots of products containing valsartan because of the detection of trace amounts of N-nitrosodiethylamine within the active ingredient, according to a company announcement posted on the website of the Food and Drug Administration.
The affected products include six lots of amlodipine/valsartan tablets (5-mg/160-mg, 10-mg/160-mg, and 10-mg/320-mg strengths), seven lots of valsartan tablets (40-mg, 80-mg, 160-mg, and 320-mg strengths), and two lots of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide tablets (320-mg/25-mg strength). All products were distributed between March 2017 and November 2018.
“Patients should contact their pharmacist or physician who can advise them about an alternative treatment prior to returning their medication. Patients who are on valsartan should continue taking their medication, as the risk of harm to the patient’s health may be higher if the treatment is stopped immediately without any alternative treatment,” the company statement said.
N-nitrosodiethylamine is a naturally occurring substance that has been identified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
The lot and NDC (National Drug Code) numbers of the affected products can be found in the full press release on the FDA website.
Mylan is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Wholesalers, retailers, and consumers in possession of recalled product should contact Stericycle at 1-888-406-9305 for the return of the recalled product. Normal business hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST, according to the statement.
PIONEER-HF called “practice changing” for acute decompensated heart failure
CHICAGO – Initiation of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition using sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure, instead of relying upon enalapril, resulted in a substantially greater reduction in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide concentration and a markedly lower rate of rehospitalization with no safety downside in the PIONEER-HF trial, Eric J. Velazquez, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“We believe these results have clinical implications that support the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure and reduced ejection fraction irrespective of prior ACE inhibitor or ARB [angiotensin II receptor blocker] use or prior diagnosis of heart failure,” said Dr. Velazquez, a professor of medicine and chief of the section of cardiovascular medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and physician in chief of the Heart and Vascular Center for the Yale-New Haven Health System.
Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has a class I indication for treatment of symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines. This strong recommendation is based largely upon the impressive results of the PARADIGM-HF trial, which in ambulatory outpatients demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for heart failure than enalapril (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).
However, since patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) were excluded from PARADIGM-HF, the safety and effectiveness of starting such patients on the drug while hospitalized for acute decompensation was unknown.
PIONEER-HF was carried out to shed light on that issue and thereby address a major unmet need for better treatments for ADHF. Even though this condition accounts for more than 1 million hospitalizations annually in the United States, short-term rehospitalization and mortality rates in affected patients remain unacceptably high at 21% and 12%, respectively. And the standard-of-care treatment – decongestion with intravenous diuretics and hemodynamic support with inotropes and vasodilators – hasn’t changed in nearly half a century, Dr. Velazquez noted.
The trial included 881 patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HFrEF at 129 U.S. centers. The study population was diverse: 36% of participants were black and one-third of subjects had no diagnosis of heart failure prior to their hospitalization. After achieving hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril.
Key outcomes
The primary endpoint was change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide concentration from baseline to week 8. There was a 25% reduction in the enalapril group and a 45% reduction with sacubitril/valsartan. This translated to a highly significant 29% greater relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan.
More eye opening was the between-group difference in the prespecified composite clinical endpoint comprising death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left ventricular assist device, or listing for heart transplant during the 8-week study.
The rate was 16.8% in the enalapril group and 9.3% with sacubitril/valsartan. This worked out to a 46% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat of 13.
The composite result was driven by a 44% reduction in risk of heart failure rehospitalization in the sacubitril/valsartan group: 8.0% versus 13.8%. The sacubitril/valsartan group also had a numerically lower mortality rate: 2.3% versus 3.4%, although the number of fatalities was small and this 34% relative risk reduction didn’t achieve statistical significance.
Rates of the key safety outcomes – symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, and angioedema – didn’t differ between the two study arms. Of interest, however, all six cases of angioedema in the enalapril group occurred in black patients, while the only case in the sacubitril/valsartan group was in a white patient.
PIONEER-HF treatment strategy
Hemodynamic stabilization as a prelude to randomization to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril required maintaining a systolic blood pressure of at least 100 mm Hg in the previous 6 hours, with no symptomatic hypotension, intensification of intravenous diuretics, or use of intravenous vasodilators during that time period, and no intravenous inotropes in the previous 24 hours.
Enalapril was titrated to a target dose of 10 mg twice daily. Sacubitril/valsartan was titrated to a target dose of 97/103 mg twice daily. Titration was carried out using an algorithm based upon systolic BP. If the SBP was at least 100 and less than 120 mm Hg at baseline, sacubitril/valsartan was initiated at 24/26 mg twice daily, enalapril at 2.5 mg b.i.d. If the SBP at randomization was 120 mm Hg or higher, the initial dosing was sacubitril/valsartan at 49/51 mm Hg b.i.d. or enalapril at 5 mg b.i.d. Up-titration occurred after 1 week, then biweekly through week 8.
PIONEER in perspective
Discussant Larry A. Allen, MD, a heart failure specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, predicted that this will be a practice-changing study.
“There has been a need for a study like PIONEER in heart failure,” he observed. While multiple randomized trials have advanced the treatment of ambulatory HFrEF patients, demonstrating benefit for initiation and intensification of treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, the treatment of patients with ADHF has remained relatively static, marked by failed trials of once-promising novel agents including tolvaptan, nesiritide, and serelaxin.
“All the data is in ambulatory patients, but the action for the care of heart failure patients actually occurs largely in the hospital. Seventy percent of care provided in the U.S. to patients with heart failure occurs in the hospital setting. These patients are a captive audience at that time, and the transitions from inpatient to outpatient care are fragile,” Dr. Allen said.
He noted that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in routine practice as reflected in national registries has been “extremely low” – less than 15% among eligible patients – despite the drug having been approved more than 3 years ago. One major reason for the low uptake, in his view, is clinical inertia. That should melt away in what he termed “the post-PIONEER world.”
“I think one of the great things about this study is it keeps it simple. We now have a simpler algorithm for inpatient and subsequent outpatient management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. It’s easier for us to start with the treatment we want patients to be on, and it’s better for patients, too. Most importantly, this study reinforces the importance and safety of aggressive guideline-directed medical therapy starting from the beginning in most patients,” Dr. Allen said.
The study findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812851).
PIONEER-HF was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Velazquez reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to that company and others. Dr. Allen reported having no financial conflicts.
CHICAGO – Initiation of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition using sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure, instead of relying upon enalapril, resulted in a substantially greater reduction in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide concentration and a markedly lower rate of rehospitalization with no safety downside in the PIONEER-HF trial, Eric J. Velazquez, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“We believe these results have clinical implications that support the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure and reduced ejection fraction irrespective of prior ACE inhibitor or ARB [angiotensin II receptor blocker] use or prior diagnosis of heart failure,” said Dr. Velazquez, a professor of medicine and chief of the section of cardiovascular medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and physician in chief of the Heart and Vascular Center for the Yale-New Haven Health System.
Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has a class I indication for treatment of symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines. This strong recommendation is based largely upon the impressive results of the PARADIGM-HF trial, which in ambulatory outpatients demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for heart failure than enalapril (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).
However, since patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) were excluded from PARADIGM-HF, the safety and effectiveness of starting such patients on the drug while hospitalized for acute decompensation was unknown.
PIONEER-HF was carried out to shed light on that issue and thereby address a major unmet need for better treatments for ADHF. Even though this condition accounts for more than 1 million hospitalizations annually in the United States, short-term rehospitalization and mortality rates in affected patients remain unacceptably high at 21% and 12%, respectively. And the standard-of-care treatment – decongestion with intravenous diuretics and hemodynamic support with inotropes and vasodilators – hasn’t changed in nearly half a century, Dr. Velazquez noted.
The trial included 881 patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HFrEF at 129 U.S. centers. The study population was diverse: 36% of participants were black and one-third of subjects had no diagnosis of heart failure prior to their hospitalization. After achieving hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril.
Key outcomes
The primary endpoint was change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide concentration from baseline to week 8. There was a 25% reduction in the enalapril group and a 45% reduction with sacubitril/valsartan. This translated to a highly significant 29% greater relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan.
More eye opening was the between-group difference in the prespecified composite clinical endpoint comprising death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left ventricular assist device, or listing for heart transplant during the 8-week study.
The rate was 16.8% in the enalapril group and 9.3% with sacubitril/valsartan. This worked out to a 46% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat of 13.
The composite result was driven by a 44% reduction in risk of heart failure rehospitalization in the sacubitril/valsartan group: 8.0% versus 13.8%. The sacubitril/valsartan group also had a numerically lower mortality rate: 2.3% versus 3.4%, although the number of fatalities was small and this 34% relative risk reduction didn’t achieve statistical significance.
Rates of the key safety outcomes – symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, and angioedema – didn’t differ between the two study arms. Of interest, however, all six cases of angioedema in the enalapril group occurred in black patients, while the only case in the sacubitril/valsartan group was in a white patient.
PIONEER-HF treatment strategy
Hemodynamic stabilization as a prelude to randomization to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril required maintaining a systolic blood pressure of at least 100 mm Hg in the previous 6 hours, with no symptomatic hypotension, intensification of intravenous diuretics, or use of intravenous vasodilators during that time period, and no intravenous inotropes in the previous 24 hours.
Enalapril was titrated to a target dose of 10 mg twice daily. Sacubitril/valsartan was titrated to a target dose of 97/103 mg twice daily. Titration was carried out using an algorithm based upon systolic BP. If the SBP was at least 100 and less than 120 mm Hg at baseline, sacubitril/valsartan was initiated at 24/26 mg twice daily, enalapril at 2.5 mg b.i.d. If the SBP at randomization was 120 mm Hg or higher, the initial dosing was sacubitril/valsartan at 49/51 mm Hg b.i.d. or enalapril at 5 mg b.i.d. Up-titration occurred after 1 week, then biweekly through week 8.
PIONEER in perspective
Discussant Larry A. Allen, MD, a heart failure specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, predicted that this will be a practice-changing study.
“There has been a need for a study like PIONEER in heart failure,” he observed. While multiple randomized trials have advanced the treatment of ambulatory HFrEF patients, demonstrating benefit for initiation and intensification of treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, the treatment of patients with ADHF has remained relatively static, marked by failed trials of once-promising novel agents including tolvaptan, nesiritide, and serelaxin.
“All the data is in ambulatory patients, but the action for the care of heart failure patients actually occurs largely in the hospital. Seventy percent of care provided in the U.S. to patients with heart failure occurs in the hospital setting. These patients are a captive audience at that time, and the transitions from inpatient to outpatient care are fragile,” Dr. Allen said.
He noted that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in routine practice as reflected in national registries has been “extremely low” – less than 15% among eligible patients – despite the drug having been approved more than 3 years ago. One major reason for the low uptake, in his view, is clinical inertia. That should melt away in what he termed “the post-PIONEER world.”
“I think one of the great things about this study is it keeps it simple. We now have a simpler algorithm for inpatient and subsequent outpatient management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. It’s easier for us to start with the treatment we want patients to be on, and it’s better for patients, too. Most importantly, this study reinforces the importance and safety of aggressive guideline-directed medical therapy starting from the beginning in most patients,” Dr. Allen said.
The study findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812851).
PIONEER-HF was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Velazquez reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to that company and others. Dr. Allen reported having no financial conflicts.
CHICAGO – Initiation of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition using sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure, instead of relying upon enalapril, resulted in a substantially greater reduction in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide concentration and a markedly lower rate of rehospitalization with no safety downside in the PIONEER-HF trial, Eric J. Velazquez, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“We believe these results have clinical implications that support the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in stabilized patients with acute decompensated heart failure and reduced ejection fraction irrespective of prior ACE inhibitor or ARB [angiotensin II receptor blocker] use or prior diagnosis of heart failure,” said Dr. Velazquez, a professor of medicine and chief of the section of cardiovascular medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and physician in chief of the Heart and Vascular Center for the Yale-New Haven Health System.
Sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has a class I indication for treatment of symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines. This strong recommendation is based largely upon the impressive results of the PARADIGM-HF trial, which in ambulatory outpatients demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for heart failure than enalapril (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004).
However, since patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) were excluded from PARADIGM-HF, the safety and effectiveness of starting such patients on the drug while hospitalized for acute decompensation was unknown.
PIONEER-HF was carried out to shed light on that issue and thereby address a major unmet need for better treatments for ADHF. Even though this condition accounts for more than 1 million hospitalizations annually in the United States, short-term rehospitalization and mortality rates in affected patients remain unacceptably high at 21% and 12%, respectively. And the standard-of-care treatment – decongestion with intravenous diuretics and hemodynamic support with inotropes and vasodilators – hasn’t changed in nearly half a century, Dr. Velazquez noted.
The trial included 881 patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HFrEF at 129 U.S. centers. The study population was diverse: 36% of participants were black and one-third of subjects had no diagnosis of heart failure prior to their hospitalization. After achieving hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril.
Key outcomes
The primary endpoint was change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide concentration from baseline to week 8. There was a 25% reduction in the enalapril group and a 45% reduction with sacubitril/valsartan. This translated to a highly significant 29% greater relative risk reduction with sacubitril/valsartan.
More eye opening was the between-group difference in the prespecified composite clinical endpoint comprising death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left ventricular assist device, or listing for heart transplant during the 8-week study.
The rate was 16.8% in the enalapril group and 9.3% with sacubitril/valsartan. This worked out to a 46% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat of 13.
The composite result was driven by a 44% reduction in risk of heart failure rehospitalization in the sacubitril/valsartan group: 8.0% versus 13.8%. The sacubitril/valsartan group also had a numerically lower mortality rate: 2.3% versus 3.4%, although the number of fatalities was small and this 34% relative risk reduction didn’t achieve statistical significance.
Rates of the key safety outcomes – symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, and angioedema – didn’t differ between the two study arms. Of interest, however, all six cases of angioedema in the enalapril group occurred in black patients, while the only case in the sacubitril/valsartan group was in a white patient.
PIONEER-HF treatment strategy
Hemodynamic stabilization as a prelude to randomization to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril required maintaining a systolic blood pressure of at least 100 mm Hg in the previous 6 hours, with no symptomatic hypotension, intensification of intravenous diuretics, or use of intravenous vasodilators during that time period, and no intravenous inotropes in the previous 24 hours.
Enalapril was titrated to a target dose of 10 mg twice daily. Sacubitril/valsartan was titrated to a target dose of 97/103 mg twice daily. Titration was carried out using an algorithm based upon systolic BP. If the SBP was at least 100 and less than 120 mm Hg at baseline, sacubitril/valsartan was initiated at 24/26 mg twice daily, enalapril at 2.5 mg b.i.d. If the SBP at randomization was 120 mm Hg or higher, the initial dosing was sacubitril/valsartan at 49/51 mm Hg b.i.d. or enalapril at 5 mg b.i.d. Up-titration occurred after 1 week, then biweekly through week 8.
PIONEER in perspective
Discussant Larry A. Allen, MD, a heart failure specialist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, predicted that this will be a practice-changing study.
“There has been a need for a study like PIONEER in heart failure,” he observed. While multiple randomized trials have advanced the treatment of ambulatory HFrEF patients, demonstrating benefit for initiation and intensification of treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, the treatment of patients with ADHF has remained relatively static, marked by failed trials of once-promising novel agents including tolvaptan, nesiritide, and serelaxin.
“All the data is in ambulatory patients, but the action for the care of heart failure patients actually occurs largely in the hospital. Seventy percent of care provided in the U.S. to patients with heart failure occurs in the hospital setting. These patients are a captive audience at that time, and the transitions from inpatient to outpatient care are fragile,” Dr. Allen said.
He noted that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in routine practice as reflected in national registries has been “extremely low” – less than 15% among eligible patients – despite the drug having been approved more than 3 years ago. One major reason for the low uptake, in his view, is clinical inertia. That should melt away in what he termed “the post-PIONEER world.”
“I think one of the great things about this study is it keeps it simple. We now have a simpler algorithm for inpatient and subsequent outpatient management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. It’s easier for us to start with the treatment we want patients to be on, and it’s better for patients, too. Most importantly, this study reinforces the importance and safety of aggressive guideline-directed medical therapy starting from the beginning in most patients,” Dr. Allen said.
The study findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine (2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812851).
PIONEER-HF was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Velazquez reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to that company and others. Dr. Allen reported having no financial conflicts.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The rate of rehospitalization for heart failure during the next 2 months after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure was 44% lower than with enalapril.
Study details: A randomized, multicenter trial involving 881 patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure.
Disclosures: The PIONEER-HF trial was sponsored by Novartis. The presenter reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to that company and others.
PIONEER-HF secures place for sacubitril/valsartan in this heart failure doc’s practice
CHICAGO – Dr. Larry A. Allen will now have an easier time of treating hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure because of the results of the PIONEER-HF trial.
That study examined whether in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is safe and effective in ADHF, a treatment that hasn’t been studied well or taken up in clinical practice.
, showed comparable safety, and reduced composite endpoint of death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left-ventricular implant device, and need for a transplant by 46%.
Dr. Allen, of the University of Colorado, Denver, was the designated discussant for the PIONEER-HF presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. In an interview, he explained how these results will change his practice as a heart failure specialist. “It simplifies things: I don’t have to start on an old therapy in the hospital, get the patients back in clinic, and switch the over to this newer therapy. I can just start from the beginning with the therapy that I think will be most effective.”
To find out why, watch the complete interview.
CHICAGO – Dr. Larry A. Allen will now have an easier time of treating hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure because of the results of the PIONEER-HF trial.
That study examined whether in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is safe and effective in ADHF, a treatment that hasn’t been studied well or taken up in clinical practice.
, showed comparable safety, and reduced composite endpoint of death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left-ventricular implant device, and need for a transplant by 46%.
Dr. Allen, of the University of Colorado, Denver, was the designated discussant for the PIONEER-HF presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. In an interview, he explained how these results will change his practice as a heart failure specialist. “It simplifies things: I don’t have to start on an old therapy in the hospital, get the patients back in clinic, and switch the over to this newer therapy. I can just start from the beginning with the therapy that I think will be most effective.”
To find out why, watch the complete interview.
CHICAGO – Dr. Larry A. Allen will now have an easier time of treating hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure because of the results of the PIONEER-HF trial.
That study examined whether in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is safe and effective in ADHF, a treatment that hasn’t been studied well or taken up in clinical practice.
, showed comparable safety, and reduced composite endpoint of death, rehospitalization for heart failure, implantation of a left-ventricular implant device, and need for a transplant by 46%.
Dr. Allen, of the University of Colorado, Denver, was the designated discussant for the PIONEER-HF presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. In an interview, he explained how these results will change his practice as a heart failure specialist. “It simplifies things: I don’t have to start on an old therapy in the hospital, get the patients back in clinic, and switch the over to this newer therapy. I can just start from the beginning with the therapy that I think will be most effective.”
To find out why, watch the complete interview.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2018
Exercise improves outcomes for patients with heart failure and OSA
Exercise may be as effective as CPAP in improving obstructive sleep apnea and quality of life in patients with heart failure, according to a study published in the October issue of Chest [https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)30790-6/fulltext].
Researchers undertook a randomized, four-arm trial in 65 patients with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea, which compared the effects of CPAP alone, exercise alone – consisting of three supervised sessions per week for three months, or CPAP plus exercise. A control group received education sessions on the importance of exercise.
The greatest reduction in mean apnea-hypopnea index was seen in the CPAP group, who experienced a mean decrease of 24 events per hour. The exercise plus CPAP group and the exercise only groups showed a mean decrease of 10 events per hour. In contrast, the control group showed no significant decrease in the number of events per hour of sleep.
The authors commented that the change in apnea-hypopnea index was due to reduction in obstructive apneas and hypopneas, and noted the “difficulty of accurately distinguishing obstructive from central hypopneas”.
All the active interventions were associated with significant decreases in arousal index and improvements in sleep-related saturation compared to the control intervention.
Exercise – both alone and with CPAP – was associated with an increase in maximum heart rate and peak VO2, and decrease in VE/VCO2 slope compared to the CPAP-alone and control groups.
“We found that peak oxygen consumption and muscle performance improved significantly only in the exercise groups, but not with CPAP alone, even though CPAP was most effective in attenuating OSA severity,” wrote Dr. Denise M. Servantes, from the Departamento de Psicobiologia at the Universidade Federal de São Paul in Brazil, and co-authors. “Because peak VO2 is an independent predictor of survival and crucial to the optimal timing of cardiac transplantation, these findings have important clinical implications, even in patients who are adherent to CPAP.”
A significant number of participants in the active intervention groups changed New York Heart Association functional class; the number of patients in the exercise group in class I went from 0%-88% by three months, in the CPAP group it increased from 0% to 47%, and in the CPAP plus exercise group, it increased from 0% to 73%.
The study also found evidence of a trend towards improved sexual function in the participants who undertook both exercise plus CPAP.
All patients in the intervention groups showed improvements in subjective daytime sleepiness and quality of life, although improvements in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were significant only in the two groups that did exercise.
“The data suggest that exercise could be a therapeutic option for patients with HF and OSA who refuse CPAP or are intolerant to it,” the authors wrote. “In this regard, a considerable number of patients with HF and OSA do not experience subjective excessive daytime sleepiness and consequently observe no immediate benefit from using CPAP, which could contribute to poor long-term adherence.”
Individuals in the exercise group showed a slight but significant weight reduction, and those who undertook the exercise program also showed significant improvements in muscle strength and endurance compared to the control group.
The authors commented that another study examining the impact of weight loss program in people with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea found weight loss only or combined interventions achieved benefits for C-reactive protein levels, insulin resistance, and serum triglyceride levels. But these benefits weren’t seen with CPAP alone.
“The results of that study, and the present one emphasize the importance of adjunctive therapy of OSA with weight loss and exercise when applicable.”
However they acknowledged that the short duration of the study, and small sample size were limitations, and that this was only a preliminary investigation.
No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Servantes D et al. Chest, 2018; 154:808-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.05.011. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)30790-6/fulltext
Exercise may be as effective as CPAP in improving obstructive sleep apnea and quality of life in patients with heart failure, according to a study published in the October issue of Chest [https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)30790-6/fulltext].
Researchers undertook a randomized, four-arm trial in 65 patients with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea, which compared the effects of CPAP alone, exercise alone – consisting of three supervised sessions per week for three months, or CPAP plus exercise. A control group received education sessions on the importance of exercise.
The greatest reduction in mean apnea-hypopnea index was seen in the CPAP group, who experienced a mean decrease of 24 events per hour. The exercise plus CPAP group and the exercise only groups showed a mean decrease of 10 events per hour. In contrast, the control group showed no significant decrease in the number of events per hour of sleep.
The authors commented that the change in apnea-hypopnea index was due to reduction in obstructive apneas and hypopneas, and noted the “difficulty of accurately distinguishing obstructive from central hypopneas”.
All the active interventions were associated with significant decreases in arousal index and improvements in sleep-related saturation compared to the control intervention.
Exercise – both alone and with CPAP – was associated with an increase in maximum heart rate and peak VO2, and decrease in VE/VCO2 slope compared to the CPAP-alone and control groups.
“We found that peak oxygen consumption and muscle performance improved significantly only in the exercise groups, but not with CPAP alone, even though CPAP was most effective in attenuating OSA severity,” wrote Dr. Denise M. Servantes, from the Departamento de Psicobiologia at the Universidade Federal de São Paul in Brazil, and co-authors. “Because peak VO2 is an independent predictor of survival and crucial to the optimal timing of cardiac transplantation, these findings have important clinical implications, even in patients who are adherent to CPAP.”
A significant number of participants in the active intervention groups changed New York Heart Association functional class; the number of patients in the exercise group in class I went from 0%-88% by three months, in the CPAP group it increased from 0% to 47%, and in the CPAP plus exercise group, it increased from 0% to 73%.
The study also found evidence of a trend towards improved sexual function in the participants who undertook both exercise plus CPAP.
All patients in the intervention groups showed improvements in subjective daytime sleepiness and quality of life, although improvements in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were significant only in the two groups that did exercise.
“The data suggest that exercise could be a therapeutic option for patients with HF and OSA who refuse CPAP or are intolerant to it,” the authors wrote. “In this regard, a considerable number of patients with HF and OSA do not experience subjective excessive daytime sleepiness and consequently observe no immediate benefit from using CPAP, which could contribute to poor long-term adherence.”
Individuals in the exercise group showed a slight but significant weight reduction, and those who undertook the exercise program also showed significant improvements in muscle strength and endurance compared to the control group.
The authors commented that another study examining the impact of weight loss program in people with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea found weight loss only or combined interventions achieved benefits for C-reactive protein levels, insulin resistance, and serum triglyceride levels. But these benefits weren’t seen with CPAP alone.
“The results of that study, and the present one emphasize the importance of adjunctive therapy of OSA with weight loss and exercise when applicable.”
However they acknowledged that the short duration of the study, and small sample size were limitations, and that this was only a preliminary investigation.
No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Servantes D et al. Chest, 2018; 154:808-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.05.011. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)30790-6/fulltext
Exercise may be as effective as CPAP in improving obstructive sleep apnea and quality of life in patients with heart failure, according to a study published in the October issue of Chest [https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)30790-6/fulltext].
Researchers undertook a randomized, four-arm trial in 65 patients with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea, which compared the effects of CPAP alone, exercise alone – consisting of three supervised sessions per week for three months, or CPAP plus exercise. A control group received education sessions on the importance of exercise.
The greatest reduction in mean apnea-hypopnea index was seen in the CPAP group, who experienced a mean decrease of 24 events per hour. The exercise plus CPAP group and the exercise only groups showed a mean decrease of 10 events per hour. In contrast, the control group showed no significant decrease in the number of events per hour of sleep.
The authors commented that the change in apnea-hypopnea index was due to reduction in obstructive apneas and hypopneas, and noted the “difficulty of accurately distinguishing obstructive from central hypopneas”.
All the active interventions were associated with significant decreases in arousal index and improvements in sleep-related saturation compared to the control intervention.
Exercise – both alone and with CPAP – was associated with an increase in maximum heart rate and peak VO2, and decrease in VE/VCO2 slope compared to the CPAP-alone and control groups.
“We found that peak oxygen consumption and muscle performance improved significantly only in the exercise groups, but not with CPAP alone, even though CPAP was most effective in attenuating OSA severity,” wrote Dr. Denise M. Servantes, from the Departamento de Psicobiologia at the Universidade Federal de São Paul in Brazil, and co-authors. “Because peak VO2 is an independent predictor of survival and crucial to the optimal timing of cardiac transplantation, these findings have important clinical implications, even in patients who are adherent to CPAP.”
A significant number of participants in the active intervention groups changed New York Heart Association functional class; the number of patients in the exercise group in class I went from 0%-88% by three months, in the CPAP group it increased from 0% to 47%, and in the CPAP plus exercise group, it increased from 0% to 73%.
The study also found evidence of a trend towards improved sexual function in the participants who undertook both exercise plus CPAP.
All patients in the intervention groups showed improvements in subjective daytime sleepiness and quality of life, although improvements in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire and Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were significant only in the two groups that did exercise.
“The data suggest that exercise could be a therapeutic option for patients with HF and OSA who refuse CPAP or are intolerant to it,” the authors wrote. “In this regard, a considerable number of patients with HF and OSA do not experience subjective excessive daytime sleepiness and consequently observe no immediate benefit from using CPAP, which could contribute to poor long-term adherence.”
Individuals in the exercise group showed a slight but significant weight reduction, and those who undertook the exercise program also showed significant improvements in muscle strength and endurance compared to the control group.
The authors commented that another study examining the impact of weight loss program in people with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea found weight loss only or combined interventions achieved benefits for C-reactive protein levels, insulin resistance, and serum triglyceride levels. But these benefits weren’t seen with CPAP alone.
“The results of that study, and the present one emphasize the importance of adjunctive therapy of OSA with weight loss and exercise when applicable.”
However they acknowledged that the short duration of the study, and small sample size were limitations, and that this was only a preliminary investigation.
No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Servantes D et al. Chest, 2018; 154:808-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.05.011. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(18)30790-6/fulltext
FROM CHEST
Key clinical point: Exercise alone or with CPAP achieves additional improvements to quality of life in patients with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea.
Major finding: Individuals with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea showed significant improvements to quality of life with exercise.
Study details: Randomized controlled trial in 65 patients with heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Associacao Fundo de Incentivo a Pesquisa, Sao Paulo Research Foundation. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Servantes D et al.Chest 2018;154:808-817.doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.05.011
Palliative care update highlights role of nonspecialists
The new edition of providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.
The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.
The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.
The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.
One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.
Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.
This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.
The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.
“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.
Implications for treatment of oncology patients
These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.
An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.
That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.
“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”
Palliative care in surgical care
These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.
Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”
Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”
While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.
“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.
“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.
The new edition of providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.
The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.
The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.
The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.
One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.
Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.
This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.
The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.
“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.
Implications for treatment of oncology patients
These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.
An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.
That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.
“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”
Palliative care in surgical care
These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.
Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”
Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”
While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.
“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.
“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.
The new edition of providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.
The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.
The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.
The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.
One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.
Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.
This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.
The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.
“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.
Implications for treatment of oncology patients
These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.
An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.
“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.
That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.
“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”
Palliative care in surgical care
These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.
Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”
Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”
While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.
“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.
“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.