Nephrology

A new study has found that late-onset neutropenia is a notably common and occasionally serious occurrence in rituximab-treated patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The literature on late-onset neutropenia – or LON – has, to date, been limited in size and scope,” first author Reza Zonozi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “At the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Mass General, we’ve seen a number of cases of LON. Even though most are incidental and can be self-limiting, some can be severe and associated with sepsis. As such, we’ve come to appreciate it as one of the more concerning side effects of rituximab.

“Our hope was to offer a practical analysis of LON, how often it happens, and what it looks like,” he added, “as well as to share our approach to its management.” Their findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To investigate the incidence, clinical features and outcomes of LON, the researchers launched a study of 738 adult patients with autoimmune diseases who were being treated with rituximab-induced continuous B-cell depletion. For the purposes of this study, LON was defined as an unexplained absolute neutrophil count of less than 1,000 cells/mcL during the period of B-cell depletion. Regarding disease type, 529 of the patients had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), 73 had membranous nephropathy (MN), 59 had minimal change disease or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (MCD/FSGS), 24 had lupus nephritis, and 53 had another autoimmune disease. Their average age was 58, and 53% were female.

All patients received a median of eight doses of rituximab – most commonly administered as one 1,000-mg IV dose every 4-6 months – and were in a state of B-cell depletion for a median of 2.5 years. Two months of low-dose daily oral cyclophosphamide was also used concurrently in 70% (n = 515) of patients. Glucocorticoids were used in 95% (n = 698) of patients.

During follow-up, 107 episodes of LON occurred in 71 patients. At 1, 2, and 5 years of continuous B-cell depletion, the incidence of LON was 6.6% (95% confidence interval, 5.0%-8.7%), 7.9% (95% CI, 6.1%-10.2%), and 13.5% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.4%), respectively. The first year following treatment initiation saw a much higher incidence rate of 7.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 5.4-9.6), compared with the rate thereafter of 1.5 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). LON occurred at a median of 4.1 months (interquartile range, 1.6-23.1) after the first rituximab infusion. The most common treatment for a LON episode was filgrastim.

Of the 107 episodes, 63 (59%) were asymptomatic. No infections were identified in asymptomatic episodes, while infections were identified in all symptomatic episodes. The most common symptom was a fever, and all 30 patients with LON and fever were hospitalized for management of febrile neutropenia. Four of the episodes included gingival soreness, and eight were complicated by sepsis. All the sepsis cases were resolved with standard therapy. One patient died with multiple relapsing LON.

Of the 71 patients with LON, 9 were not rechallenged with rituximab. A total of four of those patients had second LON episodes. Of the 62 patients who were rechallenged, 13 had second LON episodes over a median follow-up period of 2.4 years. The cumulative incidence of recurrent LON at 1, 2, and 5 years after rechallenge was 11.5% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.6%), 23.4% (95% CI, 13.8%-38.2%), and 30.4% (95% CI, 16.9%-50.9%), respectively.

Percentagewise, LON occurred significantly more often in patients with lupus nephritis (25%) than in patients with AAV (10.4%), MN (8.2%), or other diseases (7.6%) (P = .03). LON did not occur in any of the patients with MCD/FSGS. After multivariable analysis, lupus nephritis was associated with higher odds of developing LON (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.10-8.01). A multivariable model also found that patients treated with cyclophosphamide and rituximab had higher odds of developing LON, compared with patients who did not receive cyclophosphamide (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06-3.71).

 

Still more to learn about what leads to LON

“In large part, these findings quantify what our experience has been with LON in clinical practice,” Dr. Zonozi said. “It is indeed common, it’s often incidental, and most cases are reversible and respond well to treatment. But it can be associated with severe infections, including sepsis, and warrants close monitoring.”

In an interview, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, observed that this incidence rate was notably higher than what he’d seen previously. Dr. Md Yusof presented at EULAR Congress 2015 on rituximab and LON, finding that 23 patients (2.5%) from a cohort of 912 developed rituximab-associated neutropenia.

“Most of our cases were in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he added, “so it may just be a difference in cohorts.”

Regardless, he applauded additional research in this area, noting that “the etiology of rituximab-associated LON is still unclear. The reasons behind this occurrence need investigating, particularly in regard to severe neutropenia cases. If we can find the predictors of those, it will be extremely helpful for the future of treatment.”

Dr. Zonozi agreed that “more investigation is needed to accurately define the mechanism of LON, which remains unknown. This will likely lead to more targeted strategies to both prevent and treat it.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being a single-center study that relied on retrospective data collection. They also acknowledged that, because the center is a nephrology-based practice, there was a low number of certain diseases like RA, opening up the possibility that “rates of LON are different” in those patients.

Two authors’ work on the study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zonozi R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41501.

A new study has found that late-onset neutropenia is a notably common and occasionally serious occurrence in rituximab-treated patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The literature on late-onset neutropenia – or LON – has, to date, been limited in size and scope,” first author Reza Zonozi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “At the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Mass General, we’ve seen a number of cases of LON. Even though most are incidental and can be self-limiting, some can be severe and associated with sepsis. As such, we’ve come to appreciate it as one of the more concerning side effects of rituximab.

“Our hope was to offer a practical analysis of LON, how often it happens, and what it looks like,” he added, “as well as to share our approach to its management.” Their findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To investigate the incidence, clinical features and outcomes of LON, the researchers launched a study of 738 adult patients with autoimmune diseases who were being treated with rituximab-induced continuous B-cell depletion. For the purposes of this study, LON was defined as an unexplained absolute neutrophil count of less than 1,000 cells/mcL during the period of B-cell depletion. Regarding disease type, 529 of the patients had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), 73 had membranous nephropathy (MN), 59 had minimal change disease or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (MCD/FSGS), 24 had lupus nephritis, and 53 had another autoimmune disease. Their average age was 58, and 53% were female.

All patients received a median of eight doses of rituximab – most commonly administered as one 1,000-mg IV dose every 4-6 months – and were in a state of B-cell depletion for a median of 2.5 years. Two months of low-dose daily oral cyclophosphamide was also used concurrently in 70% (n = 515) of patients. Glucocorticoids were used in 95% (n = 698) of patients.

During follow-up, 107 episodes of LON occurred in 71 patients. At 1, 2, and 5 years of continuous B-cell depletion, the incidence of LON was 6.6% (95% confidence interval, 5.0%-8.7%), 7.9% (95% CI, 6.1%-10.2%), and 13.5% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.4%), respectively. The first year following treatment initiation saw a much higher incidence rate of 7.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 5.4-9.6), compared with the rate thereafter of 1.5 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). LON occurred at a median of 4.1 months (interquartile range, 1.6-23.1) after the first rituximab infusion. The most common treatment for a LON episode was filgrastim.

Of the 107 episodes, 63 (59%) were asymptomatic. No infections were identified in asymptomatic episodes, while infections were identified in all symptomatic episodes. The most common symptom was a fever, and all 30 patients with LON and fever were hospitalized for management of febrile neutropenia. Four of the episodes included gingival soreness, and eight were complicated by sepsis. All the sepsis cases were resolved with standard therapy. One patient died with multiple relapsing LON.

Of the 71 patients with LON, 9 were not rechallenged with rituximab. A total of four of those patients had second LON episodes. Of the 62 patients who were rechallenged, 13 had second LON episodes over a median follow-up period of 2.4 years. The cumulative incidence of recurrent LON at 1, 2, and 5 years after rechallenge was 11.5% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.6%), 23.4% (95% CI, 13.8%-38.2%), and 30.4% (95% CI, 16.9%-50.9%), respectively.

Percentagewise, LON occurred significantly more often in patients with lupus nephritis (25%) than in patients with AAV (10.4%), MN (8.2%), or other diseases (7.6%) (P = .03). LON did not occur in any of the patients with MCD/FSGS. After multivariable analysis, lupus nephritis was associated with higher odds of developing LON (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.10-8.01). A multivariable model also found that patients treated with cyclophosphamide and rituximab had higher odds of developing LON, compared with patients who did not receive cyclophosphamide (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06-3.71).

 

Still more to learn about what leads to LON

“In large part, these findings quantify what our experience has been with LON in clinical practice,” Dr. Zonozi said. “It is indeed common, it’s often incidental, and most cases are reversible and respond well to treatment. But it can be associated with severe infections, including sepsis, and warrants close monitoring.”

In an interview, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, observed that this incidence rate was notably higher than what he’d seen previously. Dr. Md Yusof presented at EULAR Congress 2015 on rituximab and LON, finding that 23 patients (2.5%) from a cohort of 912 developed rituximab-associated neutropenia.

“Most of our cases were in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he added, “so it may just be a difference in cohorts.”

Regardless, he applauded additional research in this area, noting that “the etiology of rituximab-associated LON is still unclear. The reasons behind this occurrence need investigating, particularly in regard to severe neutropenia cases. If we can find the predictors of those, it will be extremely helpful for the future of treatment.”

Dr. Zonozi agreed that “more investigation is needed to accurately define the mechanism of LON, which remains unknown. This will likely lead to more targeted strategies to both prevent and treat it.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being a single-center study that relied on retrospective data collection. They also acknowledged that, because the center is a nephrology-based practice, there was a low number of certain diseases like RA, opening up the possibility that “rates of LON are different” in those patients.

Two authors’ work on the study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zonozi R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41501.

A new study has found that late-onset neutropenia is a notably common and occasionally serious occurrence in rituximab-treated patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The literature on late-onset neutropenia – or LON – has, to date, been limited in size and scope,” first author Reza Zonozi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. “At the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Mass General, we’ve seen a number of cases of LON. Even though most are incidental and can be self-limiting, some can be severe and associated with sepsis. As such, we’ve come to appreciate it as one of the more concerning side effects of rituximab.

“Our hope was to offer a practical analysis of LON, how often it happens, and what it looks like,” he added, “as well as to share our approach to its management.” Their findings were published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

To investigate the incidence, clinical features and outcomes of LON, the researchers launched a study of 738 adult patients with autoimmune diseases who were being treated with rituximab-induced continuous B-cell depletion. For the purposes of this study, LON was defined as an unexplained absolute neutrophil count of less than 1,000 cells/mcL during the period of B-cell depletion. Regarding disease type, 529 of the patients had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis (AAV), 73 had membranous nephropathy (MN), 59 had minimal change disease or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (MCD/FSGS), 24 had lupus nephritis, and 53 had another autoimmune disease. Their average age was 58, and 53% were female.

All patients received a median of eight doses of rituximab – most commonly administered as one 1,000-mg IV dose every 4-6 months – and were in a state of B-cell depletion for a median of 2.5 years. Two months of low-dose daily oral cyclophosphamide was also used concurrently in 70% (n = 515) of patients. Glucocorticoids were used in 95% (n = 698) of patients.

During follow-up, 107 episodes of LON occurred in 71 patients. At 1, 2, and 5 years of continuous B-cell depletion, the incidence of LON was 6.6% (95% confidence interval, 5.0%-8.7%), 7.9% (95% CI, 6.1%-10.2%), and 13.5% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.4%), respectively. The first year following treatment initiation saw a much higher incidence rate of 7.2 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 5.4-9.6), compared with the rate thereafter of 1.5 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.0-2.3). LON occurred at a median of 4.1 months (interquartile range, 1.6-23.1) after the first rituximab infusion. The most common treatment for a LON episode was filgrastim.

Of the 107 episodes, 63 (59%) were asymptomatic. No infections were identified in asymptomatic episodes, while infections were identified in all symptomatic episodes. The most common symptom was a fever, and all 30 patients with LON and fever were hospitalized for management of febrile neutropenia. Four of the episodes included gingival soreness, and eight were complicated by sepsis. All the sepsis cases were resolved with standard therapy. One patient died with multiple relapsing LON.

Of the 71 patients with LON, 9 were not rechallenged with rituximab. A total of four of those patients had second LON episodes. Of the 62 patients who were rechallenged, 13 had second LON episodes over a median follow-up period of 2.4 years. The cumulative incidence of recurrent LON at 1, 2, and 5 years after rechallenge was 11.5% (95% CI, 5.6%-22.6%), 23.4% (95% CI, 13.8%-38.2%), and 30.4% (95% CI, 16.9%-50.9%), respectively.

Percentagewise, LON occurred significantly more often in patients with lupus nephritis (25%) than in patients with AAV (10.4%), MN (8.2%), or other diseases (7.6%) (P = .03). LON did not occur in any of the patients with MCD/FSGS. After multivariable analysis, lupus nephritis was associated with higher odds of developing LON (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.10-8.01). A multivariable model also found that patients treated with cyclophosphamide and rituximab had higher odds of developing LON, compared with patients who did not receive cyclophosphamide (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.06-3.71).

 

Still more to learn about what leads to LON

“In large part, these findings quantify what our experience has been with LON in clinical practice,” Dr. Zonozi said. “It is indeed common, it’s often incidental, and most cases are reversible and respond well to treatment. But it can be associated with severe infections, including sepsis, and warrants close monitoring.”

In an interview, Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, observed that this incidence rate was notably higher than what he’d seen previously. Dr. Md Yusof presented at EULAR Congress 2015 on rituximab and LON, finding that 23 patients (2.5%) from a cohort of 912 developed rituximab-associated neutropenia.

“Most of our cases were in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he added, “so it may just be a difference in cohorts.”

Regardless, he applauded additional research in this area, noting that “the etiology of rituximab-associated LON is still unclear. The reasons behind this occurrence need investigating, particularly in regard to severe neutropenia cases. If we can find the predictors of those, it will be extremely helpful for the future of treatment.”

Dr. Zonozi agreed that “more investigation is needed to accurately define the mechanism of LON, which remains unknown. This will likely lead to more targeted strategies to both prevent and treat it.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including being a single-center study that relied on retrospective data collection. They also acknowledged that, because the center is a nephrology-based practice, there was a low number of certain diseases like RA, opening up the possibility that “rates of LON are different” in those patients.

Two authors’ work on the study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Zonozi R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41501.

More evidence indicates that the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated not only with dramatically higher than usual mortality rates but also that a significant proportion of patients with AKI do not recover kidney function by the time they are discharged.

“This ... is the first study in the United States to report the persistence of kidney dysfunction (lack of recovery) in survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI [and] this is in marked contrast to other forms of AKI where over 80% of patients recover their renal function by 10 days,” Lili Chan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues observed.

The research is a retrospective, observational cohort study published online Sept. 3 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

“We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants,” said senior author Girish Nadkarni, MD, a nephrologist, in a statement from Mount Sinai.

Nephrologists will need to prepare for a significant uptick in patients with chronic kidney disease as a result of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, the researchers warned.

“These findings may help centers with resource planning and preparing for the increased load resulting from survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI who do not experience recovery of kidney function,” they added.
 

Analysis of patients from February to end of May 2020

“AKI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is not well described,” they noted in their article.

And so they analyzed data from five major hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System between Feb. 27 and May 30 of this year, during which 3,993 patients were hospitalized within the system for COVID-19. The MSHS has a patient population of racially and ethnically diverse citizens from New York.

AKI was defined using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. AKI occurred in 46% of the overall cohort of patients, 19% of whom required dialysis.

However, among those patients who required admission to the ICU, over three-quarters (76%) developed AKI and almost one-third of ICU patients required dialysis, the investigators said.

“The median time from hospital admission until AKI diagnoses was 1 day and the median time from AKI diagnosis to dialysis was 3 days,” they explain.

The proportion of patients with stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI among those admitted to hospital were 39%, 19%, and 42%, respectively. In patients requiring admission to ICU, 28% had stage 1 AKI, 17% had stage 2, and 56% had stage 3.

And among those who required dialysis for AKI, the median peak serum creatinine was 8.2 mg/dL, compared with 2.2 mg/dL for those who did not require dialysis.
 

Predictors of AKI: male sex, potassium levels, and preexisting CKD

Almost two thirds of patients (65%) had recovered from their kidney injury by the time they left hospital but 35% had acute kidney disease. Of this latter group, on follow-up, 36% had recovered from it, the investigators noted.

Conversely, of those patients who had recovered from AKI by hospital discharge, 14% went on to develop acute kidney disease at the time of follow-up.

And 30% of patients who had required dialysis at some point during their hospital care required dialysis again within 72 hours of being discharged, the investigators noted.

Predictors of severe AKI included male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46), potassium levels on admission (aOR, 1.7), and preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD) (aOR, 2.8).

Most compellingly, “in-hospital mortality in patients who experienced AKI was 50% [versus] 8% in patients without AKI (P < .001),” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues reported.

Among those who required ICU care, 42% of patients with AKI died, compared with 7% of those in ICU who did not develop AKI, while in patients cared for outside of ICU, 62% with AKI died compared with only 13% of those who did not develop AKI.

And after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values, the aOR for death was 11.4 times higher for ICU patients with AKI, compared with ICU patients without AKI, the authors emphasize.

In all patients who developed AKI, the aOR for mortality was 9.2, compared with patients who did not develop AKI, they added.

Perhaps predictably, the risk of death rose with increasing stage of AKI, and patients with stage 3 AKI who required dialysis were at highest risk of death, the authors observe.
 

Sheer number of AKI cases, need for dialysis unprecedented

“The sheer number of AKI cases and the overwhelming need for dialysis that we are seeing in the context of COVID-19 is unprecedented,” Dr. Nadkarni said.

“These findings bring clinical evidence to the hypothesis of lingering organ dysfunction among patients recovering from COVID-19 and serve as a reminder to hospitals around the country to be very strategic in the allocation of resources to care for patients who experience AKI,” he cautioned.

“We are grappling with a great deal of uncertainty as to how the virus will impact the kidneys in the long haul,” Dr. Nadkarni added. “We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease, and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants.”

Dr. Nadkarni reported serving as a consultant and advisory board member for RenalytixAI and owns equity in the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More evidence indicates that the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated not only with dramatically higher than usual mortality rates but also that a significant proportion of patients with AKI do not recover kidney function by the time they are discharged.

“This ... is the first study in the United States to report the persistence of kidney dysfunction (lack of recovery) in survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI [and] this is in marked contrast to other forms of AKI where over 80% of patients recover their renal function by 10 days,” Lili Chan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues observed.

The research is a retrospective, observational cohort study published online Sept. 3 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

“We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants,” said senior author Girish Nadkarni, MD, a nephrologist, in a statement from Mount Sinai.

Nephrologists will need to prepare for a significant uptick in patients with chronic kidney disease as a result of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, the researchers warned.

“These findings may help centers with resource planning and preparing for the increased load resulting from survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI who do not experience recovery of kidney function,” they added.
 

Analysis of patients from February to end of May 2020

“AKI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is not well described,” they noted in their article.

And so they analyzed data from five major hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System between Feb. 27 and May 30 of this year, during which 3,993 patients were hospitalized within the system for COVID-19. The MSHS has a patient population of racially and ethnically diverse citizens from New York.

AKI was defined using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. AKI occurred in 46% of the overall cohort of patients, 19% of whom required dialysis.

However, among those patients who required admission to the ICU, over three-quarters (76%) developed AKI and almost one-third of ICU patients required dialysis, the investigators said.

“The median time from hospital admission until AKI diagnoses was 1 day and the median time from AKI diagnosis to dialysis was 3 days,” they explain.

The proportion of patients with stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI among those admitted to hospital were 39%, 19%, and 42%, respectively. In patients requiring admission to ICU, 28% had stage 1 AKI, 17% had stage 2, and 56% had stage 3.

And among those who required dialysis for AKI, the median peak serum creatinine was 8.2 mg/dL, compared with 2.2 mg/dL for those who did not require dialysis.
 

Predictors of AKI: male sex, potassium levels, and preexisting CKD

Almost two thirds of patients (65%) had recovered from their kidney injury by the time they left hospital but 35% had acute kidney disease. Of this latter group, on follow-up, 36% had recovered from it, the investigators noted.

Conversely, of those patients who had recovered from AKI by hospital discharge, 14% went on to develop acute kidney disease at the time of follow-up.

And 30% of patients who had required dialysis at some point during their hospital care required dialysis again within 72 hours of being discharged, the investigators noted.

Predictors of severe AKI included male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46), potassium levels on admission (aOR, 1.7), and preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD) (aOR, 2.8).

Most compellingly, “in-hospital mortality in patients who experienced AKI was 50% [versus] 8% in patients without AKI (P < .001),” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues reported.

Among those who required ICU care, 42% of patients with AKI died, compared with 7% of those in ICU who did not develop AKI, while in patients cared for outside of ICU, 62% with AKI died compared with only 13% of those who did not develop AKI.

And after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values, the aOR for death was 11.4 times higher for ICU patients with AKI, compared with ICU patients without AKI, the authors emphasize.

In all patients who developed AKI, the aOR for mortality was 9.2, compared with patients who did not develop AKI, they added.

Perhaps predictably, the risk of death rose with increasing stage of AKI, and patients with stage 3 AKI who required dialysis were at highest risk of death, the authors observe.
 

Sheer number of AKI cases, need for dialysis unprecedented

“The sheer number of AKI cases and the overwhelming need for dialysis that we are seeing in the context of COVID-19 is unprecedented,” Dr. Nadkarni said.

“These findings bring clinical evidence to the hypothesis of lingering organ dysfunction among patients recovering from COVID-19 and serve as a reminder to hospitals around the country to be very strategic in the allocation of resources to care for patients who experience AKI,” he cautioned.

“We are grappling with a great deal of uncertainty as to how the virus will impact the kidneys in the long haul,” Dr. Nadkarni added. “We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease, and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants.”

Dr. Nadkarni reported serving as a consultant and advisory board member for RenalytixAI and owns equity in the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More evidence indicates that the development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is associated not only with dramatically higher than usual mortality rates but also that a significant proportion of patients with AKI do not recover kidney function by the time they are discharged.

“This ... is the first study in the United States to report the persistence of kidney dysfunction (lack of recovery) in survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI [and] this is in marked contrast to other forms of AKI where over 80% of patients recover their renal function by 10 days,” Lili Chan, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues observed.

The research is a retrospective, observational cohort study published online Sept. 3 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

“We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants,” said senior author Girish Nadkarni, MD, a nephrologist, in a statement from Mount Sinai.

Nephrologists will need to prepare for a significant uptick in patients with chronic kidney disease as a result of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19, the researchers warned.

“These findings may help centers with resource planning and preparing for the increased load resulting from survivors of COVID-19–associated AKI who do not experience recovery of kidney function,” they added.
 

Analysis of patients from February to end of May 2020

“AKI among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is not well described,” they noted in their article.

And so they analyzed data from five major hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System between Feb. 27 and May 30 of this year, during which 3,993 patients were hospitalized within the system for COVID-19. The MSHS has a patient population of racially and ethnically diverse citizens from New York.

AKI was defined using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. AKI occurred in 46% of the overall cohort of patients, 19% of whom required dialysis.

However, among those patients who required admission to the ICU, over three-quarters (76%) developed AKI and almost one-third of ICU patients required dialysis, the investigators said.

“The median time from hospital admission until AKI diagnoses was 1 day and the median time from AKI diagnosis to dialysis was 3 days,” they explain.

The proportion of patients with stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI among those admitted to hospital were 39%, 19%, and 42%, respectively. In patients requiring admission to ICU, 28% had stage 1 AKI, 17% had stage 2, and 56% had stage 3.

And among those who required dialysis for AKI, the median peak serum creatinine was 8.2 mg/dL, compared with 2.2 mg/dL for those who did not require dialysis.
 

Predictors of AKI: male sex, potassium levels, and preexisting CKD

Almost two thirds of patients (65%) had recovered from their kidney injury by the time they left hospital but 35% had acute kidney disease. Of this latter group, on follow-up, 36% had recovered from it, the investigators noted.

Conversely, of those patients who had recovered from AKI by hospital discharge, 14% went on to develop acute kidney disease at the time of follow-up.

And 30% of patients who had required dialysis at some point during their hospital care required dialysis again within 72 hours of being discharged, the investigators noted.

Predictors of severe AKI included male sex (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46), potassium levels on admission (aOR, 1.7), and preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD) (aOR, 2.8).

Most compellingly, “in-hospital mortality in patients who experienced AKI was 50% [versus] 8% in patients without AKI (P < .001),” Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues reported.

Among those who required ICU care, 42% of patients with AKI died, compared with 7% of those in ICU who did not develop AKI, while in patients cared for outside of ICU, 62% with AKI died compared with only 13% of those who did not develop AKI.

And after adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values, the aOR for death was 11.4 times higher for ICU patients with AKI, compared with ICU patients without AKI, the authors emphasize.

In all patients who developed AKI, the aOR for mortality was 9.2, compared with patients who did not develop AKI, they added.

Perhaps predictably, the risk of death rose with increasing stage of AKI, and patients with stage 3 AKI who required dialysis were at highest risk of death, the authors observe.
 

Sheer number of AKI cases, need for dialysis unprecedented

“The sheer number of AKI cases and the overwhelming need for dialysis that we are seeing in the context of COVID-19 is unprecedented,” Dr. Nadkarni said.

“These findings bring clinical evidence to the hypothesis of lingering organ dysfunction among patients recovering from COVID-19 and serve as a reminder to hospitals around the country to be very strategic in the allocation of resources to care for patients who experience AKI,” he cautioned.

“We are grappling with a great deal of uncertainty as to how the virus will impact the kidneys in the long haul,” Dr. Nadkarni added. “We may be facing an epidemic of post–COVID-19 kidney disease, and that, in turn, could mean much greater numbers of patients who require kidney dialysis and even transplants.”

Dr. Nadkarni reported serving as a consultant and advisory board member for RenalytixAI and owns equity in the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Add patients with chronic kidney disease with or without diabetes to the growing list of people who get proven benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Courtesy European Society of Cardiology

In the DAPA-CKD trial, treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) cut the incidence of substantially worsened chronic kidney disease by an average of 39% compared with placebo when added to standard treatment, with a number needed to treat of 19 to prevent one primary outcome event after a median of 2.4 years.

The level of benefit was similar in both the one-third of enrolled patients without diabetes and in the two-thirds with diabetes, showing a statistically significant 50% cut in the primary endpoint among patients without diabetes, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We found that dapagliflozin delayed the initiation of dialysis, and reduced the number of deaths,” regardless of diabetes status, Dr. Heerspink, of University Medical Centre Groningen, the Netherlands, said during a press conference. “DAPA-CKD trial has shown dapagliflozin’s potential as a long-awaited new treatment for patients with chronic kidney disease.”

This finding ushers in a “completely new era in chronic kidney disease management,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist and cardiorenal syndrome specialist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. “It’s good news” for these patients.

The results showed that dapagliflozin is the first “game changing” drug for chronic kidney disease in 2 decades, following the introduction of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, she said in an interview. And given the consistency of the findings with the results from several other studies that documented meaningful renal protection by several different SGLT2 inhibitors, the results from this single trial also convincingly establish dapagliflozin as a standard-of-care agent to use on the types of patients the study enrolled, she said in an interview.
 

Representing many real-world patients

The DAPA-CKD trial enrolled 4,304 patients with albuminuria based on having a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 200 mg/g, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² (with 90% of patients having an eGFR of less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), and 97% were on treatment with a renin-angiotensin system–blocking drug. The primary endpoint was the combined rate of a drop in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline, progression to end stage renal disease, or renal or cardiovascular death; the between-group difference in this composite was driven primarily by both preserved eGFR and by prevention of end stage renal disease.

This represents both an appropriate target population, and meaningful endpoints, Dr. Rangaswami said. The study was “very representative of who we see in real-world practice,” a group that likely includes “hundreds of thousands” of U.S. patients with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease, she estimated.

Another notable finding was that 14% of the enrolled patients had eGFR values at baseline of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m², pegging them as having stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and the median baseline eGFR was 43 mL/min per 1.73 m², but dapagliflozin treatment was as safe and effective in these patients as it was in enrolled patients with a higher level of retained renal activity. This experience should give clinicians greater confidence about using dapagliflozin and other drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 inhibitor class in patients with substantially depressed renal function, Dr. Rangaswami said.

“We now need to be more proactive about treating patients with more advanced kidney disease who can still benefit” from dapagliflozin treatment. “The sooner you intervene the better,” to slow further progression, but the new findings show “benefit even when treating patients with lower eGFRs. There is still hope to prevent or delay dialysis.”

A heart-kidney connection

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant, relative 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, a benefit seen consistently in several prior studies of SGLT2 inhibitors, but possibly unexpected here because enrolled patients underwent no selection for a history of heart failure or any other cardiovascular disease. But the finding shouldn’t surprise, because “chronic kidney disease is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease across the board, and especially for heart failure,” noted Dr. Rangaswami.

“Heart and kidney disease is one big spectrum,” and the collected experience of several trials that have now proven the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or with chronic kidney disease, regardless of their glycemic control, shows how broadly this drug class can benefit patients across the breadth of this spectrum, she said.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Heerspink has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and from several other companies. Dr. Rangaswami had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Add patients with chronic kidney disease with or without diabetes to the growing list of people who get proven benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Courtesy European Society of Cardiology

In the DAPA-CKD trial, treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) cut the incidence of substantially worsened chronic kidney disease by an average of 39% compared with placebo when added to standard treatment, with a number needed to treat of 19 to prevent one primary outcome event after a median of 2.4 years.

The level of benefit was similar in both the one-third of enrolled patients without diabetes and in the two-thirds with diabetes, showing a statistically significant 50% cut in the primary endpoint among patients without diabetes, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We found that dapagliflozin delayed the initiation of dialysis, and reduced the number of deaths,” regardless of diabetes status, Dr. Heerspink, of University Medical Centre Groningen, the Netherlands, said during a press conference. “DAPA-CKD trial has shown dapagliflozin’s potential as a long-awaited new treatment for patients with chronic kidney disease.”

This finding ushers in a “completely new era in chronic kidney disease management,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist and cardiorenal syndrome specialist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. “It’s good news” for these patients.

The results showed that dapagliflozin is the first “game changing” drug for chronic kidney disease in 2 decades, following the introduction of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, she said in an interview. And given the consistency of the findings with the results from several other studies that documented meaningful renal protection by several different SGLT2 inhibitors, the results from this single trial also convincingly establish dapagliflozin as a standard-of-care agent to use on the types of patients the study enrolled, she said in an interview.
 

Representing many real-world patients

The DAPA-CKD trial enrolled 4,304 patients with albuminuria based on having a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 200 mg/g, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² (with 90% of patients having an eGFR of less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), and 97% were on treatment with a renin-angiotensin system–blocking drug. The primary endpoint was the combined rate of a drop in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline, progression to end stage renal disease, or renal or cardiovascular death; the between-group difference in this composite was driven primarily by both preserved eGFR and by prevention of end stage renal disease.

This represents both an appropriate target population, and meaningful endpoints, Dr. Rangaswami said. The study was “very representative of who we see in real-world practice,” a group that likely includes “hundreds of thousands” of U.S. patients with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease, she estimated.

Another notable finding was that 14% of the enrolled patients had eGFR values at baseline of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m², pegging them as having stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and the median baseline eGFR was 43 mL/min per 1.73 m², but dapagliflozin treatment was as safe and effective in these patients as it was in enrolled patients with a higher level of retained renal activity. This experience should give clinicians greater confidence about using dapagliflozin and other drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 inhibitor class in patients with substantially depressed renal function, Dr. Rangaswami said.

“We now need to be more proactive about treating patients with more advanced kidney disease who can still benefit” from dapagliflozin treatment. “The sooner you intervene the better,” to slow further progression, but the new findings show “benefit even when treating patients with lower eGFRs. There is still hope to prevent or delay dialysis.”

A heart-kidney connection

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant, relative 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, a benefit seen consistently in several prior studies of SGLT2 inhibitors, but possibly unexpected here because enrolled patients underwent no selection for a history of heart failure or any other cardiovascular disease. But the finding shouldn’t surprise, because “chronic kidney disease is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease across the board, and especially for heart failure,” noted Dr. Rangaswami.

“Heart and kidney disease is one big spectrum,” and the collected experience of several trials that have now proven the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or with chronic kidney disease, regardless of their glycemic control, shows how broadly this drug class can benefit patients across the breadth of this spectrum, she said.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Heerspink has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and from several other companies. Dr. Rangaswami had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Add patients with chronic kidney disease with or without diabetes to the growing list of people who get proven benefit from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

Courtesy European Society of Cardiology

In the DAPA-CKD trial, treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) cut the incidence of substantially worsened chronic kidney disease by an average of 39% compared with placebo when added to standard treatment, with a number needed to treat of 19 to prevent one primary outcome event after a median of 2.4 years.

The level of benefit was similar in both the one-third of enrolled patients without diabetes and in the two-thirds with diabetes, showing a statistically significant 50% cut in the primary endpoint among patients without diabetes, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We found that dapagliflozin delayed the initiation of dialysis, and reduced the number of deaths,” regardless of diabetes status, Dr. Heerspink, of University Medical Centre Groningen, the Netherlands, said during a press conference. “DAPA-CKD trial has shown dapagliflozin’s potential as a long-awaited new treatment for patients with chronic kidney disease.”

This finding ushers in a “completely new era in chronic kidney disease management,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist and cardiorenal syndrome specialist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. “It’s good news” for these patients.

The results showed that dapagliflozin is the first “game changing” drug for chronic kidney disease in 2 decades, following the introduction of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, she said in an interview. And given the consistency of the findings with the results from several other studies that documented meaningful renal protection by several different SGLT2 inhibitors, the results from this single trial also convincingly establish dapagliflozin as a standard-of-care agent to use on the types of patients the study enrolled, she said in an interview.
 

Representing many real-world patients

The DAPA-CKD trial enrolled 4,304 patients with albuminuria based on having a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of at least 200 mg/g, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² (with 90% of patients having an eGFR of less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), and 97% were on treatment with a renin-angiotensin system–blocking drug. The primary endpoint was the combined rate of a drop in eGFR of at least 50% from baseline, progression to end stage renal disease, or renal or cardiovascular death; the between-group difference in this composite was driven primarily by both preserved eGFR and by prevention of end stage renal disease.

This represents both an appropriate target population, and meaningful endpoints, Dr. Rangaswami said. The study was “very representative of who we see in real-world practice,” a group that likely includes “hundreds of thousands” of U.S. patients with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease, she estimated.

Another notable finding was that 14% of the enrolled patients had eGFR values at baseline of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m², pegging them as having stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and the median baseline eGFR was 43 mL/min per 1.73 m², but dapagliflozin treatment was as safe and effective in these patients as it was in enrolled patients with a higher level of retained renal activity. This experience should give clinicians greater confidence about using dapagliflozin and other drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 inhibitor class in patients with substantially depressed renal function, Dr. Rangaswami said.

“We now need to be more proactive about treating patients with more advanced kidney disease who can still benefit” from dapagliflozin treatment. “The sooner you intervene the better,” to slow further progression, but the new findings show “benefit even when treating patients with lower eGFRs. There is still hope to prevent or delay dialysis.”

A heart-kidney connection

Dapagliflozin treatment also cut all-cause mortality by a statistically significant, relative 31%, and another secondary-endpoint analysis showed a statistically significant 29% relative reduction in the rate of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, a benefit seen consistently in several prior studies of SGLT2 inhibitors, but possibly unexpected here because enrolled patients underwent no selection for a history of heart failure or any other cardiovascular disease. But the finding shouldn’t surprise, because “chronic kidney disease is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease across the board, and especially for heart failure,” noted Dr. Rangaswami.

“Heart and kidney disease is one big spectrum,” and the collected experience of several trials that have now proven the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or with chronic kidney disease, regardless of their glycemic control, shows how broadly this drug class can benefit patients across the breadth of this spectrum, she said.

DAPA-CKD was funded by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Heerspink has been a consultant to and received research funding from AstraZeneca and from several other companies. Dr. Rangaswami had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The benefits from sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor drugs proven during the past year for cutting heart failure hospitalization rates substantially in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and slowing progression of chronic kidney disease, all regardless of diabetes status, have thrust this drug class into the top tier of agents for potentially treating millions of patients with cardiac or renal disease.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, first licensed for U.S. marketing in 2013 purely for glycemic control, have, during the 5 years since the first cardiovascular outcome trial results for the class came out, shown benefits in a range of patients reminiscent of what’s been established for ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).

The wide-reaching benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors have recently become even more relevant by showing clinically meaningful effects in patients without type 2 diabetes (T2D). And in an uncanny coincidence, the SGLT2 inhibitors appear to act in complementary harmony with the ACE inhibitors and ARBs for preserving heart and renal function. These properties have made the SGLT2 inhibitors especially attractive as a new weapon for controlling the ascendant disorder of cardiorenal syndrome.

“SGLT2 inhibitors have a relatively greater impact on cardiovascular outcomes, compared with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, but the effects [of the two classes] are synergistic and ideally patients receive both,” said Peter McCullough, MD, a specialist in treating cardiorenal syndrome and other cardiovascular and renal disorders at Baylor, Scott, and White Heart and Vascular Hospital in Dallas. The SGLT2 inhibitors are among the drugs best suited to both treating and preventing cardiorenal syndrome by targeting both ends of the disorder, said Dr. McCullough, who chaired an American Heart Association panel that last year issued a scientific statement on cardiorenal syndrome (Circulation. 2019 Apr 16;139[16]:e840-78).

Although data on the SGLT2 inhibitors “are evolving,” the drug class is “going in the direction” of being “reasonably compared” with the ACE inhibitors and ARBs, said Javed Butler, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. “There are certainly complementary benefits that we see for both cardiovascular and renal outcomes.”

“We’ll think more and more about the SGLT2 inhibitors like renin-angiotensin system [RAS] inhibitors,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, referring to the drug class that includes ACE inhibitors and ARBs. “We should start to approach SGLT2 inhibitors like RAS inhibitors, with pleiotropic effects that go beyond glucose,” said Dr. Cherney, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, during the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2020.
 

Working together in the nephron

One of the clearest complementary interactions between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the RAS inhibitors is their ability to reduce intraglomerular pressure, a key mechanism that slows nephron loss and progression of chronic kidney disease. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce sodium absorption in the proximal tubule that causes, through tubuloglomerular feedback, afferent arteriole constriction that lowers intraglomerular pressure, while the RAS inhibitors inhibit efferent arteriole constriction mediated by angiotensin II, also cutting intraglomerular pressure. Together, “they almost work in tandem,” explained Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, vice chair of the Kidney Council of the AHA, and first author of the 2019 cardiorenal syndrome AHA statement.

“Many had worried that if we target both the afferent and efferent arterioles simultaneously, it might increase the risk for acute kidney injury. What has been reassuring in both the recent data from the DAPA-HF trial and in recent meta-analysis was no evidence of increased risk for acute kidney injury with use of the SGLT2 inhibitor,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview. For example, a recent report on more than 39,000 Canadian patients with T2D who were at least 66 years old and newly begun on either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a different oral diabetes drug (a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor), found a statistically significant 21% lower rate of acute kidney injury during the first 90 days on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor in a propensity score–matched analysis (CMAJ. 2020 Apr 6;192: e351-60).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Much of the concern about possible acute kidney injury stemmed from a property that the SGLT2 inhibitors share with RAS inhibitors: They cause an initial, reversible decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), followed by longer-term nephron preservation, a pattern attributable to reduced intraglomerular pressure. The question early on was: “ ‘Does this harm the kidney?’ But what we’ve seen is that patients do better over time, even with this initial hit. Whenever you offload the glomerulus you cut barotrauma and protect renal function,” explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center.

Dr. Inzucchi cautioned, however, that a small number of patients starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor may have their GFR drop too sharply, especially if their GFR was low to start with. “You need to be careful, especially at the lower end of the GFR range. I recheck renal function after 1 month” after a patient starts an SGLT2. Patients whose level falls too low may need to discontinue. He added that it’s hard to set a uniform threshold for alarm, and instead assess patients on a case-by-case basis, but “you need some threshold in mind, where you will stop” treatment.
 

A smarter diuretic

One of the most intriguing renal effects of SGLT2 inhibitors is their diuretic action. During a talk at the virtual ADA scientific sessions, cardiologist Jeffrey Testani, MD, called them “smart” diuretics, because their effect on diuresis is relatively modest but comes without the neurohormonal price paid when patients take conventional loop diuretics.

”Loop diuretics are particularly bad,” causing neurohormonal activation that includes norepinephrine, renin, and vasopressin, said Dr. Testani, director of heart failure research at Yale. They also fail to produce a meaningful drop in blood volume despite causing substantial natriuresis.

In contrast, SGLT2 inhibitors cause “moderate” natriuresis while producing a significant cut in blood volume. “The body seems content with this lower plasma volume without activating catecholamines or renin, and that’s how the SGLT2 inhibitors differ from other diuretics,” said Dr. Inzucchi.

The class also maintains serum levels of potassium and magnesium, produces significant improvements in serum uric acid levels, and avoids the electrolyte abnormalities, volume depletion, and acute kidney injury that can occur with conventional distal diuretics, Dr. Testani said.

In short, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are safe and easy-to-use diuretics,” which allows them to fill a “huge unmet need for patients with heart failure.” As evidence accumulates for the benefits of the drug class in patients with heart failure and renal disease, “uptake will be extensive,” Dr. Testani predicted, driven in part by how easy it is to add the class to existing cardiorenal drug regimens.

Other standard therapies for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) risk electrolyte abnormalities, renal dysfunction, significantly lower blood pressure, often make patients feel worse, and involve a slow and laborious titration process, Dr. Testani noted. The SGLT2 inhibitor agents avoid these issues, a property that has played out in quality of life assessments of patients with HFrEF who received a drug from this class.
 

Outcomes met in trial after trial

In the DAPA-HF trial, with 4,443 patients with HFrEF and divided roughly equally between those with or without T2D, treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga) linked with significant improvements in health status and quality of life measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (Circulation. 2020 Jan 14;141[2]:90-9). “Not all treatments for HFrEF improve symptoms,” but in this study the SGTL2 inhibitor dapagliflozin did, boosting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score by about the same magnitude as treatment with a cardiac resynchronization device in patients with HFrEF, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of Cardiometabolic Research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., speaking at the virtual ADA scientific sessions.

Two more recent renal observations have further solidified the growing role of these drugs for kidney protection. Results from the CREDENCE trial that looked at canagliflozin (Invokana) treatment in 4,401 patients with T2D and albuminuria and chronic kidney disease showed canagliflozin treatment cut the primary, composite renal endpoint by a statistically significant 30%, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). The study stopped earlier than planned because of how effective canagliflozin appeared.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

“Never before has a renal protection clinical trial stopped for overwhelming efficacy,” noted nephrologist Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. “It’s very exciting to have a treatment that works on both the heart and kidney, given their interrelationship,” she said during the ADA sessions. Dr. Tuttle called the cardiorenal effects from the SGLT2 inhibitors “amazing.”

Just as the DAPA-HF trial’s primary outcome showed the ability of at least one drug from the class, dapagliflozin, to improve outcomes in HFrEF patients without T2D, topline results recently reported from the DAPA-CDK trial showed for the first time renal protection by an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with chronic kidney disease but no T2D, in a study with about 4,300 patients.

Although detailed results from DAPA-CKD are not yet available, so far the outcomes seem consistent with the CREDENCE findings, and the cumulative renal findings for the class show the SGLT2 inhibitors have “potential for a profound impact on the patients we see in every nephrology clinic, and with dual cardiorenal disease,” said Dr. Rangaswami. The class is now established as “standard of care for patients with chronic kidney disease. The CREDENCE results made that clear.”

The DAPA-CKD findings in patients with chronic kidney disease regardless of their diabetes status “are very important. We really have not had any advances in this space for some time, and chronic kidney disease patients have very poor outcomes, both cardiovascular and renal,” commented Dr. Butler. The advantage from using this drug class in these patients “is huge.”

The DAPA-CKD findings are a “major advance,” agreed Dr. McCullough.
 

SGLT2 inhibitor use needs to grow

Experts lament that although the evidence favoring the class has been very bullish, prescribing uptake has been slow, perhaps partly explained by the retail U.S. cost for most of these agents, generally about $17/day.

Cost is, unfortunately, an issue right now for these drugs, said Dr. Butler. Generic formulations are imminent, “but we cannot accept waiting. Providing this therapy when insurance coverage is available,” is essential.

The FDA has already granted tentative approval to some generic formulations, although resolution of patent issues can delay generics actually reaching the market. “Generic dapagliflozin will have a major impact; the marketplace for these drugs will shift very quickly,” predicted Dr. McCullough.

But price may not be the sole barrier, cautioned Dr. Rangaswami. “I don’t think it’s just a cost issue. Several factors explain the slow uptake,” of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “The biggest barrier is that this is a new drug class, and understanding how to use the class is not yet where it needs to be in the physician community.” One of the biggest problems is that the SGLT2 inhibitors are still primarily regarded as drugs to treat hyperglycemia.

Physicians who treat patients with heart or renal disease “need to wrap their head around the idea that a drug with antihyperglycemic effects is now in their practice territory, and something they need to prescribe,” she noted. Currently “there is a reluctance to prescribe these drugs given the perception that they are antihyperglycemic agents, and usually get deferred to primary care physicians or endocrinologists. This results in huge missed opportunities by cardiologists and nephrologists in initiating these agents that have major cardiorenal risk reduction effects.”

The key role that cardiologists need to play in prescribing the SGLT2 inhibitors was brought home in a recent study of two representative U.S. health systems that showed patients with T2D were far more likely to see a cardiologist than an endocrinologist (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are definitely a game-changing drug class,” summed up Dr. Rangaswami. “We’re going to see a lot of use in patients with heart and kidney disease.”

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. McCullough and Dr. Rangaswami had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Testani has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, cardionomic, FIRE1 Magenta Med, Novartis, Reprieve, Sanofi, and W.L. Gore. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to or led trials for Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glytec, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The benefits from sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor drugs proven during the past year for cutting heart failure hospitalization rates substantially in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and slowing progression of chronic kidney disease, all regardless of diabetes status, have thrust this drug class into the top tier of agents for potentially treating millions of patients with cardiac or renal disease.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, first licensed for U.S. marketing in 2013 purely for glycemic control, have, during the 5 years since the first cardiovascular outcome trial results for the class came out, shown benefits in a range of patients reminiscent of what’s been established for ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).

The wide-reaching benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors have recently become even more relevant by showing clinically meaningful effects in patients without type 2 diabetes (T2D). And in an uncanny coincidence, the SGLT2 inhibitors appear to act in complementary harmony with the ACE inhibitors and ARBs for preserving heart and renal function. These properties have made the SGLT2 inhibitors especially attractive as a new weapon for controlling the ascendant disorder of cardiorenal syndrome.

“SGLT2 inhibitors have a relatively greater impact on cardiovascular outcomes, compared with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, but the effects [of the two classes] are synergistic and ideally patients receive both,” said Peter McCullough, MD, a specialist in treating cardiorenal syndrome and other cardiovascular and renal disorders at Baylor, Scott, and White Heart and Vascular Hospital in Dallas. The SGLT2 inhibitors are among the drugs best suited to both treating and preventing cardiorenal syndrome by targeting both ends of the disorder, said Dr. McCullough, who chaired an American Heart Association panel that last year issued a scientific statement on cardiorenal syndrome (Circulation. 2019 Apr 16;139[16]:e840-78).

Although data on the SGLT2 inhibitors “are evolving,” the drug class is “going in the direction” of being “reasonably compared” with the ACE inhibitors and ARBs, said Javed Butler, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. “There are certainly complementary benefits that we see for both cardiovascular and renal outcomes.”

“We’ll think more and more about the SGLT2 inhibitors like renin-angiotensin system [RAS] inhibitors,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, referring to the drug class that includes ACE inhibitors and ARBs. “We should start to approach SGLT2 inhibitors like RAS inhibitors, with pleiotropic effects that go beyond glucose,” said Dr. Cherney, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, during the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2020.
 

Working together in the nephron

One of the clearest complementary interactions between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the RAS inhibitors is their ability to reduce intraglomerular pressure, a key mechanism that slows nephron loss and progression of chronic kidney disease. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce sodium absorption in the proximal tubule that causes, through tubuloglomerular feedback, afferent arteriole constriction that lowers intraglomerular pressure, while the RAS inhibitors inhibit efferent arteriole constriction mediated by angiotensin II, also cutting intraglomerular pressure. Together, “they almost work in tandem,” explained Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, vice chair of the Kidney Council of the AHA, and first author of the 2019 cardiorenal syndrome AHA statement.

“Many had worried that if we target both the afferent and efferent arterioles simultaneously, it might increase the risk for acute kidney injury. What has been reassuring in both the recent data from the DAPA-HF trial and in recent meta-analysis was no evidence of increased risk for acute kidney injury with use of the SGLT2 inhibitor,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview. For example, a recent report on more than 39,000 Canadian patients with T2D who were at least 66 years old and newly begun on either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a different oral diabetes drug (a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor), found a statistically significant 21% lower rate of acute kidney injury during the first 90 days on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor in a propensity score–matched analysis (CMAJ. 2020 Apr 6;192: e351-60).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Much of the concern about possible acute kidney injury stemmed from a property that the SGLT2 inhibitors share with RAS inhibitors: They cause an initial, reversible decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), followed by longer-term nephron preservation, a pattern attributable to reduced intraglomerular pressure. The question early on was: “ ‘Does this harm the kidney?’ But what we’ve seen is that patients do better over time, even with this initial hit. Whenever you offload the glomerulus you cut barotrauma and protect renal function,” explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center.

Dr. Inzucchi cautioned, however, that a small number of patients starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor may have their GFR drop too sharply, especially if their GFR was low to start with. “You need to be careful, especially at the lower end of the GFR range. I recheck renal function after 1 month” after a patient starts an SGLT2. Patients whose level falls too low may need to discontinue. He added that it’s hard to set a uniform threshold for alarm, and instead assess patients on a case-by-case basis, but “you need some threshold in mind, where you will stop” treatment.
 

A smarter diuretic

One of the most intriguing renal effects of SGLT2 inhibitors is their diuretic action. During a talk at the virtual ADA scientific sessions, cardiologist Jeffrey Testani, MD, called them “smart” diuretics, because their effect on diuresis is relatively modest but comes without the neurohormonal price paid when patients take conventional loop diuretics.

”Loop diuretics are particularly bad,” causing neurohormonal activation that includes norepinephrine, renin, and vasopressin, said Dr. Testani, director of heart failure research at Yale. They also fail to produce a meaningful drop in blood volume despite causing substantial natriuresis.

In contrast, SGLT2 inhibitors cause “moderate” natriuresis while producing a significant cut in blood volume. “The body seems content with this lower plasma volume without activating catecholamines or renin, and that’s how the SGLT2 inhibitors differ from other diuretics,” said Dr. Inzucchi.

The class also maintains serum levels of potassium and magnesium, produces significant improvements in serum uric acid levels, and avoids the electrolyte abnormalities, volume depletion, and acute kidney injury that can occur with conventional distal diuretics, Dr. Testani said.

In short, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are safe and easy-to-use diuretics,” which allows them to fill a “huge unmet need for patients with heart failure.” As evidence accumulates for the benefits of the drug class in patients with heart failure and renal disease, “uptake will be extensive,” Dr. Testani predicted, driven in part by how easy it is to add the class to existing cardiorenal drug regimens.

Other standard therapies for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) risk electrolyte abnormalities, renal dysfunction, significantly lower blood pressure, often make patients feel worse, and involve a slow and laborious titration process, Dr. Testani noted. The SGLT2 inhibitor agents avoid these issues, a property that has played out in quality of life assessments of patients with HFrEF who received a drug from this class.
 

Outcomes met in trial after trial

In the DAPA-HF trial, with 4,443 patients with HFrEF and divided roughly equally between those with or without T2D, treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga) linked with significant improvements in health status and quality of life measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (Circulation. 2020 Jan 14;141[2]:90-9). “Not all treatments for HFrEF improve symptoms,” but in this study the SGTL2 inhibitor dapagliflozin did, boosting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score by about the same magnitude as treatment with a cardiac resynchronization device in patients with HFrEF, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of Cardiometabolic Research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., speaking at the virtual ADA scientific sessions.

Two more recent renal observations have further solidified the growing role of these drugs for kidney protection. Results from the CREDENCE trial that looked at canagliflozin (Invokana) treatment in 4,401 patients with T2D and albuminuria and chronic kidney disease showed canagliflozin treatment cut the primary, composite renal endpoint by a statistically significant 30%, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). The study stopped earlier than planned because of how effective canagliflozin appeared.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

“Never before has a renal protection clinical trial stopped for overwhelming efficacy,” noted nephrologist Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. “It’s very exciting to have a treatment that works on both the heart and kidney, given their interrelationship,” she said during the ADA sessions. Dr. Tuttle called the cardiorenal effects from the SGLT2 inhibitors “amazing.”

Just as the DAPA-HF trial’s primary outcome showed the ability of at least one drug from the class, dapagliflozin, to improve outcomes in HFrEF patients without T2D, topline results recently reported from the DAPA-CDK trial showed for the first time renal protection by an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with chronic kidney disease but no T2D, in a study with about 4,300 patients.

Although detailed results from DAPA-CKD are not yet available, so far the outcomes seem consistent with the CREDENCE findings, and the cumulative renal findings for the class show the SGLT2 inhibitors have “potential for a profound impact on the patients we see in every nephrology clinic, and with dual cardiorenal disease,” said Dr. Rangaswami. The class is now established as “standard of care for patients with chronic kidney disease. The CREDENCE results made that clear.”

The DAPA-CKD findings in patients with chronic kidney disease regardless of their diabetes status “are very important. We really have not had any advances in this space for some time, and chronic kidney disease patients have very poor outcomes, both cardiovascular and renal,” commented Dr. Butler. The advantage from using this drug class in these patients “is huge.”

The DAPA-CKD findings are a “major advance,” agreed Dr. McCullough.
 

SGLT2 inhibitor use needs to grow

Experts lament that although the evidence favoring the class has been very bullish, prescribing uptake has been slow, perhaps partly explained by the retail U.S. cost for most of these agents, generally about $17/day.

Cost is, unfortunately, an issue right now for these drugs, said Dr. Butler. Generic formulations are imminent, “but we cannot accept waiting. Providing this therapy when insurance coverage is available,” is essential.

The FDA has already granted tentative approval to some generic formulations, although resolution of patent issues can delay generics actually reaching the market. “Generic dapagliflozin will have a major impact; the marketplace for these drugs will shift very quickly,” predicted Dr. McCullough.

But price may not be the sole barrier, cautioned Dr. Rangaswami. “I don’t think it’s just a cost issue. Several factors explain the slow uptake,” of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “The biggest barrier is that this is a new drug class, and understanding how to use the class is not yet where it needs to be in the physician community.” One of the biggest problems is that the SGLT2 inhibitors are still primarily regarded as drugs to treat hyperglycemia.

Physicians who treat patients with heart or renal disease “need to wrap their head around the idea that a drug with antihyperglycemic effects is now in their practice territory, and something they need to prescribe,” she noted. Currently “there is a reluctance to prescribe these drugs given the perception that they are antihyperglycemic agents, and usually get deferred to primary care physicians or endocrinologists. This results in huge missed opportunities by cardiologists and nephrologists in initiating these agents that have major cardiorenal risk reduction effects.”

The key role that cardiologists need to play in prescribing the SGLT2 inhibitors was brought home in a recent study of two representative U.S. health systems that showed patients with T2D were far more likely to see a cardiologist than an endocrinologist (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are definitely a game-changing drug class,” summed up Dr. Rangaswami. “We’re going to see a lot of use in patients with heart and kidney disease.”

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. McCullough and Dr. Rangaswami had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Testani has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, cardionomic, FIRE1 Magenta Med, Novartis, Reprieve, Sanofi, and W.L. Gore. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to or led trials for Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glytec, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The benefits from sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor drugs proven during the past year for cutting heart failure hospitalization rates substantially in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and slowing progression of chronic kidney disease, all regardless of diabetes status, have thrust this drug class into the top tier of agents for potentially treating millions of patients with cardiac or renal disease.

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, first licensed for U.S. marketing in 2013 purely for glycemic control, have, during the 5 years since the first cardiovascular outcome trial results for the class came out, shown benefits in a range of patients reminiscent of what’s been established for ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).

The wide-reaching benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors have recently become even more relevant by showing clinically meaningful effects in patients without type 2 diabetes (T2D). And in an uncanny coincidence, the SGLT2 inhibitors appear to act in complementary harmony with the ACE inhibitors and ARBs for preserving heart and renal function. These properties have made the SGLT2 inhibitors especially attractive as a new weapon for controlling the ascendant disorder of cardiorenal syndrome.

“SGLT2 inhibitors have a relatively greater impact on cardiovascular outcomes, compared with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, but the effects [of the two classes] are synergistic and ideally patients receive both,” said Peter McCullough, MD, a specialist in treating cardiorenal syndrome and other cardiovascular and renal disorders at Baylor, Scott, and White Heart and Vascular Hospital in Dallas. The SGLT2 inhibitors are among the drugs best suited to both treating and preventing cardiorenal syndrome by targeting both ends of the disorder, said Dr. McCullough, who chaired an American Heart Association panel that last year issued a scientific statement on cardiorenal syndrome (Circulation. 2019 Apr 16;139[16]:e840-78).

Although data on the SGLT2 inhibitors “are evolving,” the drug class is “going in the direction” of being “reasonably compared” with the ACE inhibitors and ARBs, said Javed Butler, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. “There are certainly complementary benefits that we see for both cardiovascular and renal outcomes.”

“We’ll think more and more about the SGLT2 inhibitors like renin-angiotensin system [RAS] inhibitors,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, referring to the drug class that includes ACE inhibitors and ARBs. “We should start to approach SGLT2 inhibitors like RAS inhibitors, with pleiotropic effects that go beyond glucose,” said Dr. Cherney, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, during the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association in June 2020.
 

Working together in the nephron

One of the clearest complementary interactions between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the RAS inhibitors is their ability to reduce intraglomerular pressure, a key mechanism that slows nephron loss and progression of chronic kidney disease. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce sodium absorption in the proximal tubule that causes, through tubuloglomerular feedback, afferent arteriole constriction that lowers intraglomerular pressure, while the RAS inhibitors inhibit efferent arteriole constriction mediated by angiotensin II, also cutting intraglomerular pressure. Together, “they almost work in tandem,” explained Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist at Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia, vice chair of the Kidney Council of the AHA, and first author of the 2019 cardiorenal syndrome AHA statement.

“Many had worried that if we target both the afferent and efferent arterioles simultaneously, it might increase the risk for acute kidney injury. What has been reassuring in both the recent data from the DAPA-HF trial and in recent meta-analysis was no evidence of increased risk for acute kidney injury with use of the SGLT2 inhibitor,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview. For example, a recent report on more than 39,000 Canadian patients with T2D who were at least 66 years old and newly begun on either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a different oral diabetes drug (a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor), found a statistically significant 21% lower rate of acute kidney injury during the first 90 days on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor in a propensity score–matched analysis (CMAJ. 2020 Apr 6;192: e351-60).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Much of the concern about possible acute kidney injury stemmed from a property that the SGLT2 inhibitors share with RAS inhibitors: They cause an initial, reversible decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), followed by longer-term nephron preservation, a pattern attributable to reduced intraglomerular pressure. The question early on was: “ ‘Does this harm the kidney?’ But what we’ve seen is that patients do better over time, even with this initial hit. Whenever you offload the glomerulus you cut barotrauma and protect renal function,” explained Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center.

Dr. Inzucchi cautioned, however, that a small number of patients starting treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor may have their GFR drop too sharply, especially if their GFR was low to start with. “You need to be careful, especially at the lower end of the GFR range. I recheck renal function after 1 month” after a patient starts an SGLT2. Patients whose level falls too low may need to discontinue. He added that it’s hard to set a uniform threshold for alarm, and instead assess patients on a case-by-case basis, but “you need some threshold in mind, where you will stop” treatment.
 

A smarter diuretic

One of the most intriguing renal effects of SGLT2 inhibitors is their diuretic action. During a talk at the virtual ADA scientific sessions, cardiologist Jeffrey Testani, MD, called them “smart” diuretics, because their effect on diuresis is relatively modest but comes without the neurohormonal price paid when patients take conventional loop diuretics.

”Loop diuretics are particularly bad,” causing neurohormonal activation that includes norepinephrine, renin, and vasopressin, said Dr. Testani, director of heart failure research at Yale. They also fail to produce a meaningful drop in blood volume despite causing substantial natriuresis.

In contrast, SGLT2 inhibitors cause “moderate” natriuresis while producing a significant cut in blood volume. “The body seems content with this lower plasma volume without activating catecholamines or renin, and that’s how the SGLT2 inhibitors differ from other diuretics,” said Dr. Inzucchi.

The class also maintains serum levels of potassium and magnesium, produces significant improvements in serum uric acid levels, and avoids the electrolyte abnormalities, volume depletion, and acute kidney injury that can occur with conventional distal diuretics, Dr. Testani said.

In short, the SGLT2 inhibitors “are safe and easy-to-use diuretics,” which allows them to fill a “huge unmet need for patients with heart failure.” As evidence accumulates for the benefits of the drug class in patients with heart failure and renal disease, “uptake will be extensive,” Dr. Testani predicted, driven in part by how easy it is to add the class to existing cardiorenal drug regimens.

Other standard therapies for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) risk electrolyte abnormalities, renal dysfunction, significantly lower blood pressure, often make patients feel worse, and involve a slow and laborious titration process, Dr. Testani noted. The SGLT2 inhibitor agents avoid these issues, a property that has played out in quality of life assessments of patients with HFrEF who received a drug from this class.
 

Outcomes met in trial after trial

In the DAPA-HF trial, with 4,443 patients with HFrEF and divided roughly equally between those with or without T2D, treatment with dapagliflozin (Farxiga) linked with significant improvements in health status and quality of life measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (Circulation. 2020 Jan 14;141[2]:90-9). “Not all treatments for HFrEF improve symptoms,” but in this study the SGTL2 inhibitor dapagliflozin did, boosting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score by about the same magnitude as treatment with a cardiac resynchronization device in patients with HFrEF, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of Cardiometabolic Research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., speaking at the virtual ADA scientific sessions.

Two more recent renal observations have further solidified the growing role of these drugs for kidney protection. Results from the CREDENCE trial that looked at canagliflozin (Invokana) treatment in 4,401 patients with T2D and albuminuria and chronic kidney disease showed canagliflozin treatment cut the primary, composite renal endpoint by a statistically significant 30%, compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). The study stopped earlier than planned because of how effective canagliflozin appeared.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

“Never before has a renal protection clinical trial stopped for overwhelming efficacy,” noted nephrologist Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. “It’s very exciting to have a treatment that works on both the heart and kidney, given their interrelationship,” she said during the ADA sessions. Dr. Tuttle called the cardiorenal effects from the SGLT2 inhibitors “amazing.”

Just as the DAPA-HF trial’s primary outcome showed the ability of at least one drug from the class, dapagliflozin, to improve outcomes in HFrEF patients without T2D, topline results recently reported from the DAPA-CDK trial showed for the first time renal protection by an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with chronic kidney disease but no T2D, in a study with about 4,300 patients.

Although detailed results from DAPA-CKD are not yet available, so far the outcomes seem consistent with the CREDENCE findings, and the cumulative renal findings for the class show the SGLT2 inhibitors have “potential for a profound impact on the patients we see in every nephrology clinic, and with dual cardiorenal disease,” said Dr. Rangaswami. The class is now established as “standard of care for patients with chronic kidney disease. The CREDENCE results made that clear.”

The DAPA-CKD findings in patients with chronic kidney disease regardless of their diabetes status “are very important. We really have not had any advances in this space for some time, and chronic kidney disease patients have very poor outcomes, both cardiovascular and renal,” commented Dr. Butler. The advantage from using this drug class in these patients “is huge.”

The DAPA-CKD findings are a “major advance,” agreed Dr. McCullough.
 

SGLT2 inhibitor use needs to grow

Experts lament that although the evidence favoring the class has been very bullish, prescribing uptake has been slow, perhaps partly explained by the retail U.S. cost for most of these agents, generally about $17/day.

Cost is, unfortunately, an issue right now for these drugs, said Dr. Butler. Generic formulations are imminent, “but we cannot accept waiting. Providing this therapy when insurance coverage is available,” is essential.

The FDA has already granted tentative approval to some generic formulations, although resolution of patent issues can delay generics actually reaching the market. “Generic dapagliflozin will have a major impact; the marketplace for these drugs will shift very quickly,” predicted Dr. McCullough.

But price may not be the sole barrier, cautioned Dr. Rangaswami. “I don’t think it’s just a cost issue. Several factors explain the slow uptake,” of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “The biggest barrier is that this is a new drug class, and understanding how to use the class is not yet where it needs to be in the physician community.” One of the biggest problems is that the SGLT2 inhibitors are still primarily regarded as drugs to treat hyperglycemia.

Physicians who treat patients with heart or renal disease “need to wrap their head around the idea that a drug with antihyperglycemic effects is now in their practice territory, and something they need to prescribe,” she noted. Currently “there is a reluctance to prescribe these drugs given the perception that they are antihyperglycemic agents, and usually get deferred to primary care physicians or endocrinologists. This results in huge missed opportunities by cardiologists and nephrologists in initiating these agents that have major cardiorenal risk reduction effects.”

The key role that cardiologists need to play in prescribing the SGLT2 inhibitors was brought home in a recent study of two representative U.S. health systems that showed patients with T2D were far more likely to see a cardiologist than an endocrinologist (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

“The SGLT2 inhibitors are definitely a game-changing drug class,” summed up Dr. Rangaswami. “We’re going to see a lot of use in patients with heart and kidney disease.”

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Butler has had financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. McCullough and Dr. Rangaswami had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics. Dr. Testani has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, cardionomic, FIRE1 Magenta Med, Novartis, Reprieve, Sanofi, and W.L. Gore. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to or led trials for Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Glytec, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Goldfinch Bio, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and for heart failure, are associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), according to a new large database analysis.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

The findings, which include data on the use of three different SGLT2 inhibitors in Canada and the United Kingdom and suggest a class effect, were published online July 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine by Antonios Douros, MD, PhD, of McGill University and the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, and colleagues.

“Our results provide robust evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk for DKA. Of note, increased risks were observed in all molecule-specific analyses, with canagliflozin [Invokana, Janssen] showing the highest effect estimate,” they noted.

And because the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular and renal disease will probably increase their uptake in the coming years, “Physicians should be aware of DKA as a potential adverse effect,” Dr. Douros and colleagues wrote.
 

Analysis “generally confirms what has already been published”

Asked for comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said that the study “generally confirms what has already been published” on the topic. He noted that overall “the risk of SGLT2 inhibitor–induced ketoacidosis is quite low in type 2 diabetes, perhaps on the order of 1 episode per 1000 patient-years.”

However, Dr. Taylor cautioned: “Published evidence suggests that the risk of DKA is increased if patients are unable to eat,” such as when hospitalized patients are not permitted to eat.

“In that setting, it is probably prudent to discontinue an SGLT2 inhibitor. Also, it may be prudent not to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with a history of DKA,” he added.

Dr. Taylor also advised: “Although not necessarily supported by this publication, I think that caution should be exercised in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes patients. ... Some late-stage type 2 diabetes patients may have severe insulin deficiency, and their physiology may resemble that of a type 1 diabetes patient.”

Dr. Taylor has previously advised against using SGLT2 inhibitors altogether in patients with type 1 diabetes.
 

Increased DKA risk seen across all SGLT2 inhibitors

The study involved electronic health care databases from seven Canadian provinces and the United Kingdom, from which 208,757 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors were propensity-matched 1:1 to new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor users.

Of those taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, 42.3% took canagliflozin, 30.7% dapagliflozin (Farxiga/Forxiga, AstraZeneca), and 27.0% empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim).

Over a mean 0.9-year follow-up, 521 patients were hospitalized with DKA, for an overall incidence rate of 1.41 per 1,000 person-years.

The rate with SGLT2 inhibitors, 2.03 per 1,000 person-years, was nearly three times that seen with DPP-4 inhibitors, at 0.75 per 1,000 person-years, a significant difference (hazard ratio, 2.85).

By individual SGLT2 inhibitor, the hazard ratios compared with DPP-4 inhibitors were 1.86 for dapagliflozin, 2.52 for empagliflozin, and 3.58 for canagliflozin, all statistically significant. Stratification by age, sex, and incident versus prevalent user did not change the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and DKA.

Asked about the higher rate for canagliflozin, Dr. Taylor commented: “It is hard to know whether there are real and reproducible differences in the risks of DKA among the various SGLT2 inhibitors. The differences are not huge and the populations are not well matched.”

But, he noted, “If canagliflozin triggers more glucosuria, it is not surprising that it would also induce more ketosis and possibly ketoacidosis.”

He also noted that the threefold relative increase in DKA with canagliflozin versus comparators is consistent with Janssen’s data, published in 2015. 

“It is, of course, reassuring that both [randomized clinical trials] and epidemiology produce similar estimates of the risk of drug-induced adverse events. Interestingly, the incidence of DKA is approximately threefold higher in the Canadian [data] as compared to Janssen’s clinical trials.”

Dr. Taylor also pointed out that, in the Janssen studies, the risk of canagliflozin-induced DKA appeared to be higher among patients with anti-islet antibodies, which suggests that some may have actually had autoimmune (type 1) diabetes. “So the overall risk of SGLT2 inhibitor-induced DKA may depend at least in part on the mix of patients.”

In the current study, individuals who never used insulin had a greater relative increase in risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, than did those who did use insulin (hazard ratios, 3.96 vs. 2.24, both compared with DPP-4 inhibitors). However, just among those taking SGLT2 inhibitors, the absolute risk for DKA was higher for those with prior insulin use (3.52 vs. 1.43 per 1,000 person-years). 

The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by ICES. Dr. Douros has reported receiving a salary support award from Fonds de recherche du Quebec – sante. Dr. Taylor was previously employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb. He is currently a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and has reported receiving research support provided to the University of Maryland School of Medicine by Regeneron.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and for heart failure, are associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), according to a new large database analysis.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

The findings, which include data on the use of three different SGLT2 inhibitors in Canada and the United Kingdom and suggest a class effect, were published online July 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine by Antonios Douros, MD, PhD, of McGill University and the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, and colleagues.

“Our results provide robust evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk for DKA. Of note, increased risks were observed in all molecule-specific analyses, with canagliflozin [Invokana, Janssen] showing the highest effect estimate,” they noted.

And because the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular and renal disease will probably increase their uptake in the coming years, “Physicians should be aware of DKA as a potential adverse effect,” Dr. Douros and colleagues wrote.
 

Analysis “generally confirms what has already been published”

Asked for comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said that the study “generally confirms what has already been published” on the topic. He noted that overall “the risk of SGLT2 inhibitor–induced ketoacidosis is quite low in type 2 diabetes, perhaps on the order of 1 episode per 1000 patient-years.”

However, Dr. Taylor cautioned: “Published evidence suggests that the risk of DKA is increased if patients are unable to eat,” such as when hospitalized patients are not permitted to eat.

“In that setting, it is probably prudent to discontinue an SGLT2 inhibitor. Also, it may be prudent not to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with a history of DKA,” he added.

Dr. Taylor also advised: “Although not necessarily supported by this publication, I think that caution should be exercised in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes patients. ... Some late-stage type 2 diabetes patients may have severe insulin deficiency, and their physiology may resemble that of a type 1 diabetes patient.”

Dr. Taylor has previously advised against using SGLT2 inhibitors altogether in patients with type 1 diabetes.
 

Increased DKA risk seen across all SGLT2 inhibitors

The study involved electronic health care databases from seven Canadian provinces and the United Kingdom, from which 208,757 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors were propensity-matched 1:1 to new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor users.

Of those taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, 42.3% took canagliflozin, 30.7% dapagliflozin (Farxiga/Forxiga, AstraZeneca), and 27.0% empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim).

Over a mean 0.9-year follow-up, 521 patients were hospitalized with DKA, for an overall incidence rate of 1.41 per 1,000 person-years.

The rate with SGLT2 inhibitors, 2.03 per 1,000 person-years, was nearly three times that seen with DPP-4 inhibitors, at 0.75 per 1,000 person-years, a significant difference (hazard ratio, 2.85).

By individual SGLT2 inhibitor, the hazard ratios compared with DPP-4 inhibitors were 1.86 for dapagliflozin, 2.52 for empagliflozin, and 3.58 for canagliflozin, all statistically significant. Stratification by age, sex, and incident versus prevalent user did not change the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and DKA.

Asked about the higher rate for canagliflozin, Dr. Taylor commented: “It is hard to know whether there are real and reproducible differences in the risks of DKA among the various SGLT2 inhibitors. The differences are not huge and the populations are not well matched.”

But, he noted, “If canagliflozin triggers more glucosuria, it is not surprising that it would also induce more ketosis and possibly ketoacidosis.”

He also noted that the threefold relative increase in DKA with canagliflozin versus comparators is consistent with Janssen’s data, published in 2015. 

“It is, of course, reassuring that both [randomized clinical trials] and epidemiology produce similar estimates of the risk of drug-induced adverse events. Interestingly, the incidence of DKA is approximately threefold higher in the Canadian [data] as compared to Janssen’s clinical trials.”

Dr. Taylor also pointed out that, in the Janssen studies, the risk of canagliflozin-induced DKA appeared to be higher among patients with anti-islet antibodies, which suggests that some may have actually had autoimmune (type 1) diabetes. “So the overall risk of SGLT2 inhibitor-induced DKA may depend at least in part on the mix of patients.”

In the current study, individuals who never used insulin had a greater relative increase in risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, than did those who did use insulin (hazard ratios, 3.96 vs. 2.24, both compared with DPP-4 inhibitors). However, just among those taking SGLT2 inhibitors, the absolute risk for DKA was higher for those with prior insulin use (3.52 vs. 1.43 per 1,000 person-years). 

The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by ICES. Dr. Douros has reported receiving a salary support award from Fonds de recherche du Quebec – sante. Dr. Taylor was previously employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb. He is currently a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and has reported receiving research support provided to the University of Maryland School of Medicine by Regeneron.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and for heart failure, are associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), according to a new large database analysis.

Boarding1Now/Thinkstock

The findings, which include data on the use of three different SGLT2 inhibitors in Canada and the United Kingdom and suggest a class effect, were published online July 27 in Annals of Internal Medicine by Antonios Douros, MD, PhD, of McGill University and the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, and colleagues.

“Our results provide robust evidence that SGLT2 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk for DKA. Of note, increased risks were observed in all molecule-specific analyses, with canagliflozin [Invokana, Janssen] showing the highest effect estimate,” they noted.

And because the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention of cardiovascular and renal disease will probably increase their uptake in the coming years, “Physicians should be aware of DKA as a potential adverse effect,” Dr. Douros and colleagues wrote.
 

Analysis “generally confirms what has already been published”

Asked for comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said that the study “generally confirms what has already been published” on the topic. He noted that overall “the risk of SGLT2 inhibitor–induced ketoacidosis is quite low in type 2 diabetes, perhaps on the order of 1 episode per 1000 patient-years.”

However, Dr. Taylor cautioned: “Published evidence suggests that the risk of DKA is increased if patients are unable to eat,” such as when hospitalized patients are not permitted to eat.

“In that setting, it is probably prudent to discontinue an SGLT2 inhibitor. Also, it may be prudent not to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with a history of DKA,” he added.

Dr. Taylor also advised: “Although not necessarily supported by this publication, I think that caution should be exercised in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes patients. ... Some late-stage type 2 diabetes patients may have severe insulin deficiency, and their physiology may resemble that of a type 1 diabetes patient.”

Dr. Taylor has previously advised against using SGLT2 inhibitors altogether in patients with type 1 diabetes.
 

Increased DKA risk seen across all SGLT2 inhibitors

The study involved electronic health care databases from seven Canadian provinces and the United Kingdom, from which 208,757 new users of SGLT2 inhibitors were propensity-matched 1:1 to new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor users.

Of those taking an SGLT2 inhibitor, 42.3% took canagliflozin, 30.7% dapagliflozin (Farxiga/Forxiga, AstraZeneca), and 27.0% empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim).

Over a mean 0.9-year follow-up, 521 patients were hospitalized with DKA, for an overall incidence rate of 1.41 per 1,000 person-years.

The rate with SGLT2 inhibitors, 2.03 per 1,000 person-years, was nearly three times that seen with DPP-4 inhibitors, at 0.75 per 1,000 person-years, a significant difference (hazard ratio, 2.85).

By individual SGLT2 inhibitor, the hazard ratios compared with DPP-4 inhibitors were 1.86 for dapagliflozin, 2.52 for empagliflozin, and 3.58 for canagliflozin, all statistically significant. Stratification by age, sex, and incident versus prevalent user did not change the association between SGLT2 inhibitors and DKA.

Asked about the higher rate for canagliflozin, Dr. Taylor commented: “It is hard to know whether there are real and reproducible differences in the risks of DKA among the various SGLT2 inhibitors. The differences are not huge and the populations are not well matched.”

But, he noted, “If canagliflozin triggers more glucosuria, it is not surprising that it would also induce more ketosis and possibly ketoacidosis.”

He also noted that the threefold relative increase in DKA with canagliflozin versus comparators is consistent with Janssen’s data, published in 2015. 

“It is, of course, reassuring that both [randomized clinical trials] and epidemiology produce similar estimates of the risk of drug-induced adverse events. Interestingly, the incidence of DKA is approximately threefold higher in the Canadian [data] as compared to Janssen’s clinical trials.”

Dr. Taylor also pointed out that, in the Janssen studies, the risk of canagliflozin-induced DKA appeared to be higher among patients with anti-islet antibodies, which suggests that some may have actually had autoimmune (type 1) diabetes. “So the overall risk of SGLT2 inhibitor-induced DKA may depend at least in part on the mix of patients.”

In the current study, individuals who never used insulin had a greater relative increase in risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, than did those who did use insulin (hazard ratios, 3.96 vs. 2.24, both compared with DPP-4 inhibitors). However, just among those taking SGLT2 inhibitors, the absolute risk for DKA was higher for those with prior insulin use (3.52 vs. 1.43 per 1,000 person-years). 

The results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the primary analysis.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by ICES. Dr. Douros has reported receiving a salary support award from Fonds de recherche du Quebec – sante. Dr. Taylor was previously employed at Bristol-Myers Squibb. He is currently a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and has reported receiving research support provided to the University of Maryland School of Medicine by Regeneron.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly recommended, by an 8-7 vote, that the agency grant marketing approval to terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome type 1, a severe, rare, and often rapidly lethal disease. No drugs are currently licensed in the United States for this indication.

The advisory committee’s discussion and vote on July 15 showcased the struggle the 15 members faced parsing data that hinted at efficacy but also featured clear flaws and limitations, with meager evidence showing clinically meaningful patient improvements.

Several advisory committee members voiced their dilemma balancing the desperation of patients and clinicians to have an effective agent to treat a frequently fatal condition against spotty evidence of efficacy.

Their uncertainty over benefit was exacerbated by the substantial rate of serious adverse events, compared with placebo. These events included respiratory failure, which occurred an absolute 9% more often among patients treated with terlipressin than among those who received placebo in the drug’s recent pivotal trial, and sepsis and septic shock, with an absolute 7% excess rate with terlipressin in comparison with placebo.

“This is an important, unmet need, and I want this drug, but the data are not clear that the benefits outweigh the risks,” commented Steven F. Solga, MD, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is a committee member.

“When you have sick patients with few treatment options, you grope for something to use, but I worry that this won’t help patients,” he said when explaining his vote against approval.

“I look forward to using this medication if I could figure out which patients could benefit from it,” he said.
 

‘Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment’

Experts estimate that the annual incidence of hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in the United States is about 35,000 patients.

“I would have liked to vote yes, because terlipressin was associated with a short-term increase in renal function, but there was also clear evidence for the risk of sepsis and respiratory failure, and no evidence that it improved survival,” said panel member Patrick H. Nachman, MD.

Dr. Nachman, professor of medicine and director of the division of nephrology and hypertension at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, voted against approval.

Several who voted in favor of terlipressin also shared these misgivings.

“The trend for benefit was quite small, I’m very worried about respiratory failure, and I’m uncomfortable with the postrandomization analyses” used by the developer of terlipressin (Mallinckrodt) to buttress the efficacy claims, explained panel member Paul M. Ridker, MD.

“So why did I vote yes? The problem is the enormous unmet need. Patients are in desperate shape, and the standard treatments are used off label, with no data. Here, we have data, and the primary endpoint was met,” said Dr. Ridker, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The effects of terlipressin appear to give clinicians a way to “stabilize renal function and buy time,” making it more feasible to try to rush the patient to liver transplantation or at least to “stop their downward spiral» as patients with decompensated liver failure develop inadequate renal blood flow that produces an acute fall in kidney function,” explained David N. Assis, MD, a hepatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“The reality is, nothing else is available, aside from renal replacement therapy and pressors. There is a need for a treatment that buys time,” he said. He voted to recommend approval.

That sentiment was notably echoed in comments from the two nonclinical members of the advisory committee.

“This treatment addresses a major gap in care,” said Jacqueline D. Alikhaani, the panel’s consumer representative. “Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment,” said Daniel Bonner, the committee’s patient representative. Both voted in favor of FDA approval.

Terlipressin has been a long-standing linchpin for treating hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in Europe and other places outside the United States and Canada.

The most recent guidelines for managing patients with decompensated cirrhosis from the European Association for the Study of the Liver say that “[t]erlipressin plus albumin should be considered as the first-line therapeutic option for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury” (J Hepatol. 2018 Aug 1;69).

According to company representatives who presented the case for terlipressin during the meeting, bringing the drug onto the U.S. market has been a 17-year journey, featuring three sequential trials.

• A 112-patient  that the FDA accepted as the first of the two supportive trials needed for approval.
• A with 196 patients that tested terlipressin plus albumin against placebo plus albumin and showed a nominal benefit from terlipressin that failed to achieve statistical significance.
• The most recent trial, , which directly led to the advisory committee session. That trial enrolled 300 patients and met its primary endpoint. Data have not yet been published but have been at meetings.

One of the sources of controversy over the benefit from terlipressin centered on the primary endpoint used in CONFIRM, which required that the patient have two consecutive, low readings for serum creatinine, with levels no greater than 1.5 mg/dL while on treatment, and remain alive and free from need for renal replacement therapy for at least 10 days beyond this.

The FDA agreed to accept this as a primary endpoint but nonetheless considered it a surrogate.

According to FDA staffers who presented their take on the application, the agency accepted this primary endpoint “with the understanding that favorable trends in clinical outcomes, thought to be predicted by successful treatment of hepatic renal syndrome type 1, would be expected.”

The lack of many favorable trends in clinical outcomes helped foster the advisory committee’s divided response. The FDA’s staff uses its discretion when considering an advisory committee’s recommendations and making a final determination.

None of the advisory committee members disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly recommended, by an 8-7 vote, that the agency grant marketing approval to terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome type 1, a severe, rare, and often rapidly lethal disease. No drugs are currently licensed in the United States for this indication.

The advisory committee’s discussion and vote on July 15 showcased the struggle the 15 members faced parsing data that hinted at efficacy but also featured clear flaws and limitations, with meager evidence showing clinically meaningful patient improvements.

Several advisory committee members voiced their dilemma balancing the desperation of patients and clinicians to have an effective agent to treat a frequently fatal condition against spotty evidence of efficacy.

Their uncertainty over benefit was exacerbated by the substantial rate of serious adverse events, compared with placebo. These events included respiratory failure, which occurred an absolute 9% more often among patients treated with terlipressin than among those who received placebo in the drug’s recent pivotal trial, and sepsis and septic shock, with an absolute 7% excess rate with terlipressin in comparison with placebo.

“This is an important, unmet need, and I want this drug, but the data are not clear that the benefits outweigh the risks,” commented Steven F. Solga, MD, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is a committee member.

“When you have sick patients with few treatment options, you grope for something to use, but I worry that this won’t help patients,” he said when explaining his vote against approval.

“I look forward to using this medication if I could figure out which patients could benefit from it,” he said.
 

‘Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment’

Experts estimate that the annual incidence of hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in the United States is about 35,000 patients.

“I would have liked to vote yes, because terlipressin was associated with a short-term increase in renal function, but there was also clear evidence for the risk of sepsis and respiratory failure, and no evidence that it improved survival,” said panel member Patrick H. Nachman, MD.

Dr. Nachman, professor of medicine and director of the division of nephrology and hypertension at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, voted against approval.

Several who voted in favor of terlipressin also shared these misgivings.

“The trend for benefit was quite small, I’m very worried about respiratory failure, and I’m uncomfortable with the postrandomization analyses” used by the developer of terlipressin (Mallinckrodt) to buttress the efficacy claims, explained panel member Paul M. Ridker, MD.

“So why did I vote yes? The problem is the enormous unmet need. Patients are in desperate shape, and the standard treatments are used off label, with no data. Here, we have data, and the primary endpoint was met,” said Dr. Ridker, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The effects of terlipressin appear to give clinicians a way to “stabilize renal function and buy time,” making it more feasible to try to rush the patient to liver transplantation or at least to “stop their downward spiral» as patients with decompensated liver failure develop inadequate renal blood flow that produces an acute fall in kidney function,” explained David N. Assis, MD, a hepatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“The reality is, nothing else is available, aside from renal replacement therapy and pressors. There is a need for a treatment that buys time,” he said. He voted to recommend approval.

That sentiment was notably echoed in comments from the two nonclinical members of the advisory committee.

“This treatment addresses a major gap in care,” said Jacqueline D. Alikhaani, the panel’s consumer representative. “Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment,” said Daniel Bonner, the committee’s patient representative. Both voted in favor of FDA approval.

Terlipressin has been a long-standing linchpin for treating hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in Europe and other places outside the United States and Canada.

The most recent guidelines for managing patients with decompensated cirrhosis from the European Association for the Study of the Liver say that “[t]erlipressin plus albumin should be considered as the first-line therapeutic option for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury” (J Hepatol. 2018 Aug 1;69).

According to company representatives who presented the case for terlipressin during the meeting, bringing the drug onto the U.S. market has been a 17-year journey, featuring three sequential trials.

• A 112-patient  that the FDA accepted as the first of the two supportive trials needed for approval.
• A with 196 patients that tested terlipressin plus albumin against placebo plus albumin and showed a nominal benefit from terlipressin that failed to achieve statistical significance.
• The most recent trial, , which directly led to the advisory committee session. That trial enrolled 300 patients and met its primary endpoint. Data have not yet been published but have been at meetings.

One of the sources of controversy over the benefit from terlipressin centered on the primary endpoint used in CONFIRM, which required that the patient have two consecutive, low readings for serum creatinine, with levels no greater than 1.5 mg/dL while on treatment, and remain alive and free from need for renal replacement therapy for at least 10 days beyond this.

The FDA agreed to accept this as a primary endpoint but nonetheless considered it a surrogate.

According to FDA staffers who presented their take on the application, the agency accepted this primary endpoint “with the understanding that favorable trends in clinical outcomes, thought to be predicted by successful treatment of hepatic renal syndrome type 1, would be expected.”

The lack of many favorable trends in clinical outcomes helped foster the advisory committee’s divided response. The FDA’s staff uses its discretion when considering an advisory committee’s recommendations and making a final determination.

None of the advisory committee members disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly recommended, by an 8-7 vote, that the agency grant marketing approval to terlipressin for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome type 1, a severe, rare, and often rapidly lethal disease. No drugs are currently licensed in the United States for this indication.

The advisory committee’s discussion and vote on July 15 showcased the struggle the 15 members faced parsing data that hinted at efficacy but also featured clear flaws and limitations, with meager evidence showing clinically meaningful patient improvements.

Several advisory committee members voiced their dilemma balancing the desperation of patients and clinicians to have an effective agent to treat a frequently fatal condition against spotty evidence of efficacy.

Their uncertainty over benefit was exacerbated by the substantial rate of serious adverse events, compared with placebo. These events included respiratory failure, which occurred an absolute 9% more often among patients treated with terlipressin than among those who received placebo in the drug’s recent pivotal trial, and sepsis and septic shock, with an absolute 7% excess rate with terlipressin in comparison with placebo.

“This is an important, unmet need, and I want this drug, but the data are not clear that the benefits outweigh the risks,” commented Steven F. Solga, MD, a transplant hepatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is a committee member.

“When you have sick patients with few treatment options, you grope for something to use, but I worry that this won’t help patients,” he said when explaining his vote against approval.

“I look forward to using this medication if I could figure out which patients could benefit from it,” he said.
 

‘Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment’

Experts estimate that the annual incidence of hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in the United States is about 35,000 patients.

“I would have liked to vote yes, because terlipressin was associated with a short-term increase in renal function, but there was also clear evidence for the risk of sepsis and respiratory failure, and no evidence that it improved survival,” said panel member Patrick H. Nachman, MD.

Dr. Nachman, professor of medicine and director of the division of nephrology and hypertension at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, voted against approval.

Several who voted in favor of terlipressin also shared these misgivings.

“The trend for benefit was quite small, I’m very worried about respiratory failure, and I’m uncomfortable with the postrandomization analyses” used by the developer of terlipressin (Mallinckrodt) to buttress the efficacy claims, explained panel member Paul M. Ridker, MD.

“So why did I vote yes? The problem is the enormous unmet need. Patients are in desperate shape, and the standard treatments are used off label, with no data. Here, we have data, and the primary endpoint was met,” said Dr. Ridker, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The effects of terlipressin appear to give clinicians a way to “stabilize renal function and buy time,” making it more feasible to try to rush the patient to liver transplantation or at least to “stop their downward spiral» as patients with decompensated liver failure develop inadequate renal blood flow that produces an acute fall in kidney function,” explained David N. Assis, MD, a hepatologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“The reality is, nothing else is available, aside from renal replacement therapy and pressors. There is a need for a treatment that buys time,” he said. He voted to recommend approval.

That sentiment was notably echoed in comments from the two nonclinical members of the advisory committee.

“This treatment addresses a major gap in care,” said Jacqueline D. Alikhaani, the panel’s consumer representative. “Allow patients to decide if they want this treatment,” said Daniel Bonner, the committee’s patient representative. Both voted in favor of FDA approval.

Terlipressin has been a long-standing linchpin for treating hepatorenal syndrome type 1 in Europe and other places outside the United States and Canada.

The most recent guidelines for managing patients with decompensated cirrhosis from the European Association for the Study of the Liver say that “[t]erlipressin plus albumin should be considered as the first-line therapeutic option for the treatment of hepatorenal syndrome and acute kidney injury” (J Hepatol. 2018 Aug 1;69).

According to company representatives who presented the case for terlipressin during the meeting, bringing the drug onto the U.S. market has been a 17-year journey, featuring three sequential trials.

• A 112-patient  that the FDA accepted as the first of the two supportive trials needed for approval.
• A with 196 patients that tested terlipressin plus albumin against placebo plus albumin and showed a nominal benefit from terlipressin that failed to achieve statistical significance.
• The most recent trial, , which directly led to the advisory committee session. That trial enrolled 300 patients and met its primary endpoint. Data have not yet been published but have been at meetings.

One of the sources of controversy over the benefit from terlipressin centered on the primary endpoint used in CONFIRM, which required that the patient have two consecutive, low readings for serum creatinine, with levels no greater than 1.5 mg/dL while on treatment, and remain alive and free from need for renal replacement therapy for at least 10 days beyond this.

The FDA agreed to accept this as a primary endpoint but nonetheless considered it a surrogate.

According to FDA staffers who presented their take on the application, the agency accepted this primary endpoint “with the understanding that favorable trends in clinical outcomes, thought to be predicted by successful treatment of hepatic renal syndrome type 1, would be expected.”

The lack of many favorable trends in clinical outcomes helped foster the advisory committee’s divided response. The FDA’s staff uses its discretion when considering an advisory committee’s recommendations and making a final determination.

None of the advisory committee members disclosed any relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

It’s passé to think of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor drugs as agents that primarily treat hyperglycemia because their major clinical role has rapidly morphed into treating or preventing heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

This change suddenly thrust primary responsibility for prescribing these drug into the hands of cardiologists and nephrologists, though endocrinologists, diabetologists, and primary care physicians remain in the prescribing mix, experts agreed at the virtual annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Glucose lowering plays little or no role in the cardiorenal protection from drugs in the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class,” said David Z. Cherney, MD, a nephrologist and professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

The SGLT2 inhibitor drugs “belong to cardiologists and nephrologists,” declared endocrinologist Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist who is medical director of The Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif.

But therein lies a problem. “Cardiologists and nephrologists often say that they don’t want to start SGLT2 inhibitors because they do not want to interfere with the glucose reducing medications a patient takes,” Dr. Cherney added.

“Cardiologists are absolutely afraid to prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors,” claimed John J.V. McMurray MD, a professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. “Cardiologists need to talk with diabetologists about the importance of treating heart failure” in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and diabetologists “need to help cardiologists understand how to use these and other effective glucose-lowering drugs that reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” said Dr. McMurray during the ADA sessions.

“I don’t think any medical specialty owns this drug class,” said Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center. “No permission is needed” from an endocrinologist for another specialist to prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to patients with T2D or to appropriate patients without diabetes, he maintained.

The need for greater involvement by cardiologists in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with T2D was underscored in findings recently reported by Dr. Inzucchi and associates. They analyzed the physician encounters that patients with T2D had with cardiologists and endocrinologists during 2017 at two U.S. health systems: one centered around clinicians affiliated with Yale Medicine and Yale University, and a second with clinicians drawn from the staffs of the Saint Luke’s Health System, including Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

During 2017, the two systems has outpatient encounters with 109,747 patients with T2D, who averaged 67 years of age and were roughly evenly split between women and men: 43% had prevalent cardiovascular disease, including 30% with coronary artery disease and 15% with heart failure. These patients had more than 110,000 physician visits, and the number of these consultations with a cardiologist was double the number with an endocrinologist, Dr. Inzucchi and associates recently reported (Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Jun;9[2]:56-9).

Among the 30% of T2D patients with prevalent cardiovascular disease, the consultation rate with a cardiologist was four times greater than with an endocrinologist; among the 15% with heart failure, a visit with a cardiologist was nearly seven times more common that with an endocrinologist.

“Based on these data, cardiovascular specialists encouraging the use of these medications, or, if comfortable, actually prescribing these medications, would likely significantly hasten the adoption of evidence-based glucose-lowering therapies in those patients most apt to benefit from them,” concluded the study’s authors.

Dr. Cherney has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Esperion, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. McMurray’s employer, the University of Glasgow, received payments from AstraZeneca for his involvement in trials involving dapagliflozin. Dr. Inzucchi has been a consultant to or helped run trials for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and vTv Therapeutics.

mzoler@mdedge.com

A small number of U.S. health systems, as well as some individual physicians, have begun dropping the African American–specific modifier when recording estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of renal function.

The move aims to correct a race-based health access inequity that’s been in place for more than 2 decades, say advocates, while others voice concern that the change threatens over-diagnosis of both chronic and end-stage kidney disease in some patients.

In late June, the Boston-based Massachusetts General Brigham health system stopped noting the race-based modifier when its laboratories reported eGFR, and the leadership sent its staff a message discouraging them from applying the modifier. A similar change in eGFR reporting started on June 1 at the University of Washington health system, UW Medicine, Seattle.

These steps followed what is widely regarded as the first institutional change away from race-based adjustment of eGFR, which began in March 2017 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and they have come amid a growing movement by some individual U.S. physicians to drop the modifier from their practice.

“Momentum is clearly building,” said Nwamaka D. Eneanya, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and lead author of a commentary published a little more than a year ago that laid out the case for reconsidering how to calculate eGFR in African Americans.

“Many discussions are happening at other [US] academic medical centers,” Dr. Eneanya added, including the system where she works.
 

Why was the decision taken to modify eGFR in African Americans?

The concept is that the formula used to calculate eGFR systematically underestimates the value in African Americans. Hence, it requires a small but meaningful up-adjustment, which can be traced back to the introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation in 1999.

The idea was perpetuated in an improved calculation formula, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), that came out a decade later.

These are the most widely used U.S. approaches to eGFR calculation, with the newer CKD-EPI formula predominating.

The rationale for including a modifier for Blacks in the 2009 formula was for improved accuracy relative to the standard reference measure based on iothalamate clearance.

The data used to develop the CKD-EPI formula showed that Black individuals in the dataset had, on average, GFR levels that were 16% higher than people of other races with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine level, according to a recent commentary. The first author, Andrew S. Levey, MD, was also lead author of the reports that introduced both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations.

But the argument withers in the light of both its flimsy underpinning – race assessment – and the medical and social consequences of its application, say those who have sought change.
 

Reporting eGFR by race might do more harm than good

“Race is a social, not a biological, construct and the kidney-function race multiplier ignores the substantial genetic diversity within self-identified Black patients,” said Thomas D. Sequist, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief patient experience and equity officer for Mass General Brigham, who spearheaded the policy change for that system.

“Do we really believe that the population breaks down into just ‘Black’ and ‘not Black,’ as the CKD-EPI equation asks us to believe?” he said in an interview. “The equation was developed from a few thousand patients, and we now apply it to millions of people using a very imprecise measure – race.”

“Reporting eGFR by race perpetuates a notion that race is a biologic construct when it’s not,” agreed Rajnish Mehrotra, MD, a professor and chief of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and leader of the eGFR change within his medical system.

Equally compelling, said Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Sequist, and others, are the health inequities that have resulted from routinely raising the eGFR in African Americans.

This has led to “withholding treatment from people longer than needed. We arrived at the conclusion that reporting eGFR by race does more harm than good,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

Dr. Sequist added: “Researchers across Mass General Brigham have demonstrated that use of these race multipliers can lead to important delays in care for Black patients, such as timely evaluation for kidney transplantation.”

“Our main concern is that race correction is creating harm.”

Dr. Eneanya concurs: “It was never designed to oppress patients, but that’s where we are. No one ever thought about the repercussions of using race.”

And while the movement to eliminate the race modifier is clearly gaining steam, it’s also receiving pushback from those who see benefit from the modification and have concern that its abolition could lead to overestimates of kidney disease severity.

Some clinicians “have a hard time letting the race modifier go,” Dr. Eneanya noted.
 

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial”

In their 2020 commentary, Levey and coauthors wrote: “We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group.”

Their suggested remedies included full disclosure of use of race, accommodation of people who decline to self-identify themselves that way, shared decision-making, and “mindful” use of cystatin C, an alternative to serum creatinine for calculating eGFR.

The latter is regarded as more precise and accurate than serum creatinine across populations but is often not as readily available to many clinicians. Their article also supported looking for even better and more accessible ways to calculate eGFR.

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial,” said Mallika L. Mendu, MD, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied the effects of using the modifier on patient assessment.

Her recent review of Mass General Brigham patients found that close to a third of African Americans would have been reclassified with a more severe form of kidney disease if their eGFR had remained unmodified.

“That raised concerns that, by using race adjustment we’re potentially leading to less equitable outcomes for African American patients,” she said. “I’d rather over diagnose than not diagnose in a timely way.”

The research that led to development of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations “are gold-standard studies” that “saw a real difference,” Dr. Mendu acknowledged in an interview. “But the way those studies were run and the way they defined the patients was problematic.” Despite that, “many nephrologists” agree with the position taken by Dr. Levey and coauthors in their recent commentary, she said.

She added that she stopped using the modifier about a year ago in her own practice, well before the system where she works adopted the same approach.
 

Consensus takes time

In one sign of the controversy, a quartet of clinicians affiliated with San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) recently posted an online petition in which they noted that the race modifier had been eliminated in eGFR reports from the hospital’s laboratory in October 2019, but more recently had been slated for reinstitution. “We were deeply distressed to recently discover the intended plan to revert back to race-based eGFR reporting at SFGH,” they noted.

The same four clinicians also wrote an opinion piece calling for elimination of the modifier in November 2019 in the San Francisco Examiner.

Controversy will likely linger as the movement to withdraw the race modifier spreads without clear agreement on what to do instead.

Dr. Mehrotra said he’s received inquiries about his system’s experience from clinicians at several U.S. medical centers and systems, and he remains comfortable applying the unadjusted CKD-EPI formula to all adults, an approach he called “sufficient.”

Other physicians, like nephrologist Vanessa Grubbs, MD, call for a rapid shift to a cystatin C–based, fully race-neutral method for calculating eGFR, a position she detailed in a recent editorial.

And at the University of Pennsylvania, where the health system continues to issue eGFR reports with the race modifier, Dr. Eneanya says that she stopped using the modifier “some time” ago.

“People have a hard time letting it go because it is so important in clinical care. Getting everyone to come to a consensus takes time,” she said.

Dr. Eneanya, Dr. Sequist, and Dr. Mendu have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehrotra has been a consultant for Baxter Healthcare.

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

A small number of U.S. health systems, as well as some individual physicians, have begun dropping the African American–specific modifier when recording estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of renal function.

The move aims to correct a race-based health access inequity that’s been in place for more than 2 decades, say advocates, while others voice concern that the change threatens over-diagnosis of both chronic and end-stage kidney disease in some patients.

In late June, the Boston-based Massachusetts General Brigham health system stopped noting the race-based modifier when its laboratories reported eGFR, and the leadership sent its staff a message discouraging them from applying the modifier. A similar change in eGFR reporting started on June 1 at the University of Washington health system, UW Medicine, Seattle.

These steps followed what is widely regarded as the first institutional change away from race-based adjustment of eGFR, which began in March 2017 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and they have come amid a growing movement by some individual U.S. physicians to drop the modifier from their practice.

“Momentum is clearly building,” said Nwamaka D. Eneanya, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and lead author of a commentary published a little more than a year ago that laid out the case for reconsidering how to calculate eGFR in African Americans.

“Many discussions are happening at other [US] academic medical centers,” Dr. Eneanya added, including the system where she works.
 

Why was the decision taken to modify eGFR in African Americans?

The concept is that the formula used to calculate eGFR systematically underestimates the value in African Americans. Hence, it requires a small but meaningful up-adjustment, which can be traced back to the introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation in 1999.

The idea was perpetuated in an improved calculation formula, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), that came out a decade later.

These are the most widely used U.S. approaches to eGFR calculation, with the newer CKD-EPI formula predominating.

The rationale for including a modifier for Blacks in the 2009 formula was for improved accuracy relative to the standard reference measure based on iothalamate clearance.

The data used to develop the CKD-EPI formula showed that Black individuals in the dataset had, on average, GFR levels that were 16% higher than people of other races with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine level, according to a recent commentary. The first author, Andrew S. Levey, MD, was also lead author of the reports that introduced both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations.

But the argument withers in the light of both its flimsy underpinning – race assessment – and the medical and social consequences of its application, say those who have sought change.
 

Reporting eGFR by race might do more harm than good

“Race is a social, not a biological, construct and the kidney-function race multiplier ignores the substantial genetic diversity within self-identified Black patients,” said Thomas D. Sequist, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief patient experience and equity officer for Mass General Brigham, who spearheaded the policy change for that system.

“Do we really believe that the population breaks down into just ‘Black’ and ‘not Black,’ as the CKD-EPI equation asks us to believe?” he said in an interview. “The equation was developed from a few thousand patients, and we now apply it to millions of people using a very imprecise measure – race.”

“Reporting eGFR by race perpetuates a notion that race is a biologic construct when it’s not,” agreed Rajnish Mehrotra, MD, a professor and chief of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and leader of the eGFR change within his medical system.

Equally compelling, said Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Sequist, and others, are the health inequities that have resulted from routinely raising the eGFR in African Americans.

This has led to “withholding treatment from people longer than needed. We arrived at the conclusion that reporting eGFR by race does more harm than good,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

Dr. Sequist added: “Researchers across Mass General Brigham have demonstrated that use of these race multipliers can lead to important delays in care for Black patients, such as timely evaluation for kidney transplantation.”

“Our main concern is that race correction is creating harm.”

Dr. Eneanya concurs: “It was never designed to oppress patients, but that’s where we are. No one ever thought about the repercussions of using race.”

And while the movement to eliminate the race modifier is clearly gaining steam, it’s also receiving pushback from those who see benefit from the modification and have concern that its abolition could lead to overestimates of kidney disease severity.

Some clinicians “have a hard time letting the race modifier go,” Dr. Eneanya noted.
 

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial”

In their 2020 commentary, Levey and coauthors wrote: “We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group.”

Their suggested remedies included full disclosure of use of race, accommodation of people who decline to self-identify themselves that way, shared decision-making, and “mindful” use of cystatin C, an alternative to serum creatinine for calculating eGFR.

The latter is regarded as more precise and accurate than serum creatinine across populations but is often not as readily available to many clinicians. Their article also supported looking for even better and more accessible ways to calculate eGFR.

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial,” said Mallika L. Mendu, MD, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied the effects of using the modifier on patient assessment.

Her recent review of Mass General Brigham patients found that close to a third of African Americans would have been reclassified with a more severe form of kidney disease if their eGFR had remained unmodified.

“That raised concerns that, by using race adjustment we’re potentially leading to less equitable outcomes for African American patients,” she said. “I’d rather over diagnose than not diagnose in a timely way.”

The research that led to development of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations “are gold-standard studies” that “saw a real difference,” Dr. Mendu acknowledged in an interview. “But the way those studies were run and the way they defined the patients was problematic.” Despite that, “many nephrologists” agree with the position taken by Dr. Levey and coauthors in their recent commentary, she said.

She added that she stopped using the modifier about a year ago in her own practice, well before the system where she works adopted the same approach.
 

Consensus takes time

In one sign of the controversy, a quartet of clinicians affiliated with San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) recently posted an online petition in which they noted that the race modifier had been eliminated in eGFR reports from the hospital’s laboratory in October 2019, but more recently had been slated for reinstitution. “We were deeply distressed to recently discover the intended plan to revert back to race-based eGFR reporting at SFGH,” they noted.

The same four clinicians also wrote an opinion piece calling for elimination of the modifier in November 2019 in the San Francisco Examiner.

Controversy will likely linger as the movement to withdraw the race modifier spreads without clear agreement on what to do instead.

Dr. Mehrotra said he’s received inquiries about his system’s experience from clinicians at several U.S. medical centers and systems, and he remains comfortable applying the unadjusted CKD-EPI formula to all adults, an approach he called “sufficient.”

Other physicians, like nephrologist Vanessa Grubbs, MD, call for a rapid shift to a cystatin C–based, fully race-neutral method for calculating eGFR, a position she detailed in a recent editorial.

And at the University of Pennsylvania, where the health system continues to issue eGFR reports with the race modifier, Dr. Eneanya says that she stopped using the modifier “some time” ago.

“People have a hard time letting it go because it is so important in clinical care. Getting everyone to come to a consensus takes time,” she said.

Dr. Eneanya, Dr. Sequist, and Dr. Mendu have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehrotra has been a consultant for Baxter Healthcare.

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

A small number of U.S. health systems, as well as some individual physicians, have begun dropping the African American–specific modifier when recording estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of renal function.

The move aims to correct a race-based health access inequity that’s been in place for more than 2 decades, say advocates, while others voice concern that the change threatens over-diagnosis of both chronic and end-stage kidney disease in some patients.

In late June, the Boston-based Massachusetts General Brigham health system stopped noting the race-based modifier when its laboratories reported eGFR, and the leadership sent its staff a message discouraging them from applying the modifier. A similar change in eGFR reporting started on June 1 at the University of Washington health system, UW Medicine, Seattle.

These steps followed what is widely regarded as the first institutional change away from race-based adjustment of eGFR, which began in March 2017 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and they have come amid a growing movement by some individual U.S. physicians to drop the modifier from their practice.

“Momentum is clearly building,” said Nwamaka D. Eneanya, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and lead author of a commentary published a little more than a year ago that laid out the case for reconsidering how to calculate eGFR in African Americans.

“Many discussions are happening at other [US] academic medical centers,” Dr. Eneanya added, including the system where she works.
 

Why was the decision taken to modify eGFR in African Americans?

The concept is that the formula used to calculate eGFR systematically underestimates the value in African Americans. Hence, it requires a small but meaningful up-adjustment, which can be traced back to the introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation in 1999.

The idea was perpetuated in an improved calculation formula, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), that came out a decade later.

These are the most widely used U.S. approaches to eGFR calculation, with the newer CKD-EPI formula predominating.

The rationale for including a modifier for Blacks in the 2009 formula was for improved accuracy relative to the standard reference measure based on iothalamate clearance.

The data used to develop the CKD-EPI formula showed that Black individuals in the dataset had, on average, GFR levels that were 16% higher than people of other races with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine level, according to a recent commentary. The first author, Andrew S. Levey, MD, was also lead author of the reports that introduced both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations.

But the argument withers in the light of both its flimsy underpinning – race assessment – and the medical and social consequences of its application, say those who have sought change.
 

Reporting eGFR by race might do more harm than good

“Race is a social, not a biological, construct and the kidney-function race multiplier ignores the substantial genetic diversity within self-identified Black patients,” said Thomas D. Sequist, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief patient experience and equity officer for Mass General Brigham, who spearheaded the policy change for that system.

“Do we really believe that the population breaks down into just ‘Black’ and ‘not Black,’ as the CKD-EPI equation asks us to believe?” he said in an interview. “The equation was developed from a few thousand patients, and we now apply it to millions of people using a very imprecise measure – race.”

“Reporting eGFR by race perpetuates a notion that race is a biologic construct when it’s not,” agreed Rajnish Mehrotra, MD, a professor and chief of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and leader of the eGFR change within his medical system.

Equally compelling, said Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Sequist, and others, are the health inequities that have resulted from routinely raising the eGFR in African Americans.

This has led to “withholding treatment from people longer than needed. We arrived at the conclusion that reporting eGFR by race does more harm than good,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

Dr. Sequist added: “Researchers across Mass General Brigham have demonstrated that use of these race multipliers can lead to important delays in care for Black patients, such as timely evaluation for kidney transplantation.”

“Our main concern is that race correction is creating harm.”

Dr. Eneanya concurs: “It was never designed to oppress patients, but that’s where we are. No one ever thought about the repercussions of using race.”

And while the movement to eliminate the race modifier is clearly gaining steam, it’s also receiving pushback from those who see benefit from the modification and have concern that its abolition could lead to overestimates of kidney disease severity.

Some clinicians “have a hard time letting the race modifier go,” Dr. Eneanya noted.
 

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial”

In their 2020 commentary, Levey and coauthors wrote: “We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group.”

Their suggested remedies included full disclosure of use of race, accommodation of people who decline to self-identify themselves that way, shared decision-making, and “mindful” use of cystatin C, an alternative to serum creatinine for calculating eGFR.

The latter is regarded as more precise and accurate than serum creatinine across populations but is often not as readily available to many clinicians. Their article also supported looking for even better and more accessible ways to calculate eGFR.

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial,” said Mallika L. Mendu, MD, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied the effects of using the modifier on patient assessment.

Her recent review of Mass General Brigham patients found that close to a third of African Americans would have been reclassified with a more severe form of kidney disease if their eGFR had remained unmodified.

“That raised concerns that, by using race adjustment we’re potentially leading to less equitable outcomes for African American patients,” she said. “I’d rather over diagnose than not diagnose in a timely way.”

The research that led to development of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations “are gold-standard studies” that “saw a real difference,” Dr. Mendu acknowledged in an interview. “But the way those studies were run and the way they defined the patients was problematic.” Despite that, “many nephrologists” agree with the position taken by Dr. Levey and coauthors in their recent commentary, she said.

She added that she stopped using the modifier about a year ago in her own practice, well before the system where she works adopted the same approach.
 

Consensus takes time

In one sign of the controversy, a quartet of clinicians affiliated with San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) recently posted an online petition in which they noted that the race modifier had been eliminated in eGFR reports from the hospital’s laboratory in October 2019, but more recently had been slated for reinstitution. “We were deeply distressed to recently discover the intended plan to revert back to race-based eGFR reporting at SFGH,” they noted.

The same four clinicians also wrote an opinion piece calling for elimination of the modifier in November 2019 in the San Francisco Examiner.

Controversy will likely linger as the movement to withdraw the race modifier spreads without clear agreement on what to do instead.

Dr. Mehrotra said he’s received inquiries about his system’s experience from clinicians at several U.S. medical centers and systems, and he remains comfortable applying the unadjusted CKD-EPI formula to all adults, an approach he called “sufficient.”

Other physicians, like nephrologist Vanessa Grubbs, MD, call for a rapid shift to a cystatin C–based, fully race-neutral method for calculating eGFR, a position she detailed in a recent editorial.

And at the University of Pennsylvania, where the health system continues to issue eGFR reports with the race modifier, Dr. Eneanya says that she stopped using the modifier “some time” ago.

“People have a hard time letting it go because it is so important in clinical care. Getting everyone to come to a consensus takes time,” she said.

Dr. Eneanya, Dr. Sequist, and Dr. Mendu have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehrotra has been a consultant for Baxter Healthcare.

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

Background: The United States Renal Data System registry estimates that approximately 30% of patients die within 1 year of initiating hemodialysis.

Dr. Lublin is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: The United States Renal Data System registry estimates that approximately 30% of patients die within 1 year of initiating hemodialysis.

Dr. Lublin is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: The United States Renal Data System registry estimates that approximately 30% of patients die within 1 year of initiating hemodialysis.

Dr. Lublin is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide. Few treatment options exist to help improve on this outcome in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dr. Hoegh is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide. Few treatment options exist to help improve on this outcome in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dr. Hoegh is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide. Few treatment options exist to help improve on this outcome in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dr. Hoegh is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.