Mitchel L. Zoler, PhD

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

CHICAGO – Black patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) may receive more benefit from treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor than do White patients, according to a new report.

A secondary analysis of data collected from the pivotal trials that assessed the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, EMPEROR-Reduced, and in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), EMPEROR-Preserved, was presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The “hypothesis-generating” analysis of data from EMPEROR-Reduced showed “a suggestion of a greater benefit of empagliflozin” in Black, compared with White patients, for the study’s primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure) as well as for first and total hospitalizations for heart failure, he reported.

However, a similar but separate analysis that compared Black and White patients with heart failure who received treatment with a second agent, dapagliflozin, from the same SGLT2-inhibitor class did not show any suggestion of heterogeneity in the drug’s effect based on race.
 

Race-linked heterogeneity in empagliflozin’s effect

In EMPEROR-Reduced, which randomized 3,730 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less, treatment of White patients with empagliflozin (Jardiance) produced a nonsignificant 16% relative reduction in the rate of the primary endpoint, compared with placebo, during a median 16-month follow-up.

By contrast, among Black patients, treatment with empagliflozin produced a significant 56% reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with placebo-treated patients, a significant heterogeneity (P = .02) in effect between the two race subgroups, said Dr. Verma, a cardiac surgeon and professor at the University of Toronto.

The analysis he reported used combined data from EMPEROR-Reduced and the companion trial EMPEROR-Preserved, which randomized 5,988 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40% to treatment with either empagliflozin or placebo and followed them for a median of 26 months.

To assess the effects of the randomized treatments in the two racial subgroups, Dr. Verma and associates used pooled data from both trials, but only from the 3,502 patients enrolled in the Americas, which included 3,024 White patients and 478 Black patients. Analysis of the patients in this subgroup who were randomized to placebo showed a significantly excess rate of the primary outcome among Blacks, who tallied 49% more of the primary outcome events during follow-up than did White patients, Dr. Verma reported. The absolute rate of the primary outcome without empagliflozin treatment was 13.15 events/100 patient-years of follow-up in White patients and 20.83 events/100 patient-years in Black patients.

The impact of empagliflozin was not statistically heterogeneous in the total pool of patients that included both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF. The drug reduced the primary outcome incidence by a significant 20% in White patients, and by a significant 44% among Black patients.

But this point-estimate difference in efficacy, when coupled with the underlying difference in risk for an event between the two racial groups, meant that the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one primary outcome event was 42 among White patients and 12 among Black patients.
 

Race-linked treatment responses only in HFrEF

This suggestion of an imbalance in treatment efficacy was especially apparent among patients with HFrEF. In addition to the heterogeneity for the primary outcome, the Black and White subgroups also showed significantly divergent results for the outcomes of first hospitalization for heart failure, with a nonsignificant 21% relative reduction with empagliflozin treatment in Whites but a significant 65% relative cut in this endpoint with empagliflozin in Blacks, and for total hospitalizations for heart failure, which showed a similar level of significant heterogeneity between the two race subgroups.

In contrast, the patients with HFpEF showed no signal at all for heterogeneous outcome rates between Black and White subgroups.

One other study outcome, change in symptom burden measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), also showed suggestion of a race-based imbalance. The adjusted mean difference from baseline in the KCCQ clinical summary score was 1.50 points higher with empagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo among all White patients (those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF), and compared with a 5.25-point increase with empagliflozin over placebo among all Black patients with heart failure in the pooled American EMPEROR dataset, a difference between White and Black patients that just missed significance (P = .06). Again, this difference was especially notable and significant among the patients with HFrEF, where the adjusted mean difference in KCCQ was a 0.77-point increase in White patients and a 6.71-point increase among Black patients (P = .043),

These results also appeared in a report published simultaneously with Dr. Verma’s talk.

But two other analyses that assessed a possible race-based difference in empagliflozin’s effect on renal protection and on functional status showed no suggestion of heterogeneity.

Dr. Verma stressed caution about the limitations of these analyses because they involved a relatively small number of Black patients, and were possibly subject to unadjusted confounding from differences in baseline characteristics between the Black and White patients.

Black patients also had a number-needed-to-treat advantage with dapagliflozin

The finding that Black patients with heart failure potentially get more bang for the buck from treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor by having a lower number needed to treat also showed up in a separate report at the meeting that assessed the treatment effect from dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in Black and White patients in a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF pivotal trial of patients with HFrEF and the DELIVER pivotal trial of patients with HFpEF. The pooled cohort included a total of 11,007, but for the analysis by race the investigators also limited their focus to patients from the Americas with 2,626 White patients and 381 Black patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Assessment of the effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure among all patients, both those with HFrEF and those with HFpEF, again showed that event rates among patients treated with placebo were significantly higher in Black, compared with White patients, and this led to a difference in the number needed to treat to prevent one primary outcome event of 12 in Blacks and 17 in Whites, Jawad H. Butt, MD said in a talk at the meeting.

Although treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome in this subgroup of patients from the DAPA-HF trial and the DELIVER trial by similar rates in Black and White patients, event rates were higher in the Black patients resulting in “greater benefit in absolute terms” for Black patients, explained Dr. Butt, a cardiologist at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.

But in contrast to the empagliflozin findings reported by Dr. Verma, the combined data from the dapagliflozin trials showed no suggestion of heterogeneity in the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin based on left ventricular ejection fraction. In the Black patients, for example, the relative benefit from dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the full spectrum of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF.

EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved were sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). The DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials were sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Verma has received honoraria, research support, or both from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, and from numerous other companies. Dr. Butt has been a consultant to and received travel grants from AstraZeneca, honoraria from Novartis, and has been an adviser to Bayer.




 

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

CHICAGO – A smartphone app that delivers nutritional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes produced an average 0.29 percentage point drop in hemoglobin A1c during 180 days of use compared with controls, and an average 0.37 percentage point reduction in A1c compared with baseline values in a randomized, pivotal trial with 669 adults.

Use of the app for 180 days also significantly linked with a reduced need for additional medications, reduced weight and blood pressure, and improved patient-reported outcomes, and it led to fewer adverse effects than seen in control subjects, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The findings also showed a clear dose-response relationship: The more CBT lessons a person completed with the app, the greater the A1c reduction.

The results suggest that the app, called BT-001, “potentially provides a scalable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Bonaca.

On the basis of the results from this trial, also called BT-001, the company developing the app, Better Therapeutics, announced in September 2022 that it had filed a classification request with the Food and Drug Administration that would allow marketing authorization for the BT-001 app. Better Therapeutics envisions that once authorized by the FDA, the app would be available to people with type 2 diabetes by prescriptions written by health care providers and that the cost for the app would be covered by health insurance, explained a company spokesperson.
 

A ‘modest positive impact’

“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” said Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression, “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira said in an interview.

Based on published results, the BT-001 app “seems to have a modest positive impact on glycemic control, especially among people who completed more than 10 [lesson] modules.” The evidence appears to suggest that the app “might be a good supplement to working with a behavioral health counselor.”

The BT-001 trial enrolled 669 adults with type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antidiabetes medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea. The researchers also highlighted that the enrolled cohort of people with type 2 diabetes had a demographic profile that was “generally representative” of U.S. adults with type 2 diabetes.

The researchers told the 326 people who were randomized to the active intervention group to use the app but subjects were free to determine their frequency of use. The app introduced a new lesson module weekly that took 10-20 minutes to complete, and each weekly lesson came with associated exercises aimed at practicing skills related to behavioral beliefs.

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was the average change from baseline in A1c compared with the 343 control participants after 90 days of app use, and 610 of the 669 enrolled participants (91%) had paired baseline and 90-day measurements. At 90 days, people in the app group had an average 0.28 percentage point decrease in their A1c compared with an average 0.11 percentage point increase among the controls, a between-group difference of 0.39 percentage points. Both the reduction from baseline with app use and the reduction relative to the controls were significant. These results appeared in an article published online in in Diabetes Care.

At the scientific sessions, Dr. Bonaca presented additional outcome data after 180 days of app use. He reported an average 0.37 percentage point reduction from baseline in A1c among app users and a 0.08 percentage point decrease from baseline among the controls, for a net 0.29 percentage point incremental decline with the app, a significant difference. At 180 days, 50% of the people in the app group had an A1c decline from baseline of at least 0.4 percentage points compared with 34% of the controls, a significant difference.


 

A dose-response relationship

Notably, app use showed a clear dose-response pattern. During 180 days of app availability, people who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use) average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times, also one-third of the intervention group, the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.

“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.

Dr. Bonaca, a cardiologist and vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colo., reported several other 180-day outcomes in the BT-001 trial:

• A 33% relative decrease in the percentage of subjects who needed during the study an additional antidiabetes medication or increased dosages of their baseline medications, which occurred at a rate of 21% among the controls and 14% among those who used the app.
• An average weight loss from baseline of 5.5 pounds using the app compared with an average 1.9 pound decrease among controls, a significant difference.
• A decline in average systolic blood pressure of 4.7 mm Hg with app use compared with a 1.8 mm Hg average decline among the controls, a significant difference.
• Significant incremental average improvements in a self-reported Short Form-12 physical component score with the app compared with controls, and increased average improvement in the PHQ9 self-reported measure of depression in app users compared with controls.
• Significantly fewer treatment-emergent adverse effects, and significantly fewer serious treatment-emergent adverse effects among the app users compared with the controls.

‘Ready for clinical use’

Based on these findings, “in my view the app is ready for [routine] clinical use,” declared Judith Hsia, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and with Dr. Bonaca a co-lead investigator for the study.

The BT-001 app can serve as “an addition to the toolkit of diabetes treatments,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview. One key advantage of the app is that, once approved, it could be available to many more people with type 2 diabetes than would be able to receive CBT directly from a therapist. Another potential plus for the CBT app is that “the effects should be durable in contrast to medications,” which must be taken on an ongoing basis to maintain effectiveness. In addition, the safety profile “is favorable compared with drug therapies, which should appeal to health care providers,” said Dr. Hsia, chief science officer for CPC Clinical Research.

However, Dr. Shapira cited the issue that therapeutic apps “raise privacy and licensing liability concerns.”

The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira had no disclosures. Dr. Hsia is a stockholder of AstraZeneca.

Allowing people with type 2 diabetes to try agents from three different classes of antidiabetes drugs showed they usually find a clear preference, often the drug that gives them the best glycemic control and least bothersome adverse effects, according to secondary findings from a randomized study of patients in the United Kingdom.

“This is the first study in which the same patient has tried three different types of glucose-lowering drug, enabling them to directly compare them and then choose which one is best for them,” Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in a written statement. “We’ve shown that going with the patients’ choice results in better glucose control and fewer side effects than any other approach. When it’s not clear which drug is best to use, then patients should try before they choose. Surprisingly, that approach has never been tried before.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

These secondary results from the TriMaster study were recently published in Nature Medicine and presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in September, as reported by this news organization.

TriMaster enrolled adults aged 30-80 years with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 12 months. Their glycemia was inadequately controlled despite treatment with metformin alone or two classes of oral glucose-lowering therapy that did not include an agent from any of the three classes tested in the study: dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones. The people taking two different drug classes at entry were most often taking metformin and a sulfonylurea.
 

Do BMI and renal function affect treatment response?

TriMaster tested two hypotheses. Firstly, would people with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m² have greater glucose lowering with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone (Actos) than with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (Januvia), compared to people with a lower BMI?

Secondly, would people with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m² have greater glucose lowering with sitagliptin than with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), compared with people with higher levels of renal function? The metric for both hypotheses was change in A1c levels from baseline.

The study included 525 adults with type 2 diabetes in a double-blind, three-way crossover trial that assigned each participant a random order of serial 16-week trials of treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily, and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily, with each agent added to the preexisting background regimen.

Analysis showed that for second- or third-line therapy in people with type 2 diabetes “simple predefined stratification using BMI and renal function can determine the choice of the drug most likely to be effective for glucose lowering,” the researchers concluded.

Among those with a BMI of more than 30 kg/m², patients achieved a lower A1c on pioglitazone, compared with sitagliptin, while those with a lower BMI had their best A1c response on sitagliptin. Patients with impaired renal function (eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m²) had better A1c lowering with sitagliptin, while those with a higher eGFR had better A1c lowering with canagliflozin.

These results appeared in a second article published in Nature Medicine, and the researchers also presented these findings at the EASD 2021 annual meeting, as reported by this news organization at the time.
 

Patients identified the agent they liked best

Dr. Hattersley and associates used the TriMaster study to also address the secondary question of which of the three tested agents patients preferred, focusing on the 457 patients who provided information on their treatment preference.

The results showed that patient preference varied: Twenty-four percent liked pioglitazone best, 33% preferred sitagliptin, and 37% said canagliflozin was their favorite, with 6% having no preference. These numbers barely budged when participants learned how well each agent worked for them in terms of reducing their A1c and lowering their BMI.

The findings also showed good correlation between patient preferences and their A1c and adverse-effect responses. The agents that patients identified as their favorites were also the drugs that lowered their A1c the most 53% of the time before they got any feedback on which one gave them their best glycemic control. Once they had this feedback, 70% preferred the most effective agent, with the results likely reflecting that patients feel better when they have improved glucose levels as well as the education patients received that lower A1c levels are better.

Patients also tended to understandably favor the agents that caused the fewest and mildest adverse effects: Sixty-eight percent of the patients who identified a favorite drug picked the one that gave them the best adverse-effect profile.

In an interview at the EASD 2022 annual meeting, Dr. Hattersley promoted the study’s design as a best-practice approach to deciding which drug to next give a person with type 2 diabetes who needs additional glycemic control.

“Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects,” he said. “Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” suggested Dr. Hattersley, a professor and diabetologist at the University of Exeter, England. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.”

But he stressed cautioning patients to return for treatment adjustment sooner than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug they’re trying.

TriMaster received no commercial funding. Dr. Hattersley has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allowing people with type 2 diabetes to try agents from three different classes of antidiabetes drugs showed they usually find a clear preference, often the drug that gives them the best glycemic control and least bothersome adverse effects, according to secondary findings from a randomized study of patients in the United Kingdom.

“This is the first study in which the same patient has tried three different types of glucose-lowering drug, enabling them to directly compare them and then choose which one is best for them,” Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in a written statement. “We’ve shown that going with the patients’ choice results in better glucose control and fewer side effects than any other approach. When it’s not clear which drug is best to use, then patients should try before they choose. Surprisingly, that approach has never been tried before.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

These secondary results from the TriMaster study were recently published in Nature Medicine and presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in September, as reported by this news organization.

TriMaster enrolled adults aged 30-80 years with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 12 months. Their glycemia was inadequately controlled despite treatment with metformin alone or two classes of oral glucose-lowering therapy that did not include an agent from any of the three classes tested in the study: dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones. The people taking two different drug classes at entry were most often taking metformin and a sulfonylurea.
 

Do BMI and renal function affect treatment response?

TriMaster tested two hypotheses. Firstly, would people with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m² have greater glucose lowering with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone (Actos) than with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (Januvia), compared to people with a lower BMI?

Secondly, would people with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m² have greater glucose lowering with sitagliptin than with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), compared with people with higher levels of renal function? The metric for both hypotheses was change in A1c levels from baseline.

The study included 525 adults with type 2 diabetes in a double-blind, three-way crossover trial that assigned each participant a random order of serial 16-week trials of treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily, and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily, with each agent added to the preexisting background regimen.

Analysis showed that for second- or third-line therapy in people with type 2 diabetes “simple predefined stratification using BMI and renal function can determine the choice of the drug most likely to be effective for glucose lowering,” the researchers concluded.

Among those with a BMI of more than 30 kg/m², patients achieved a lower A1c on pioglitazone, compared with sitagliptin, while those with a lower BMI had their best A1c response on sitagliptin. Patients with impaired renal function (eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m²) had better A1c lowering with sitagliptin, while those with a higher eGFR had better A1c lowering with canagliflozin.

These results appeared in a second article published in Nature Medicine, and the researchers also presented these findings at the EASD 2021 annual meeting, as reported by this news organization at the time.
 

Patients identified the agent they liked best

Dr. Hattersley and associates used the TriMaster study to also address the secondary question of which of the three tested agents patients preferred, focusing on the 457 patients who provided information on their treatment preference.

The results showed that patient preference varied: Twenty-four percent liked pioglitazone best, 33% preferred sitagliptin, and 37% said canagliflozin was their favorite, with 6% having no preference. These numbers barely budged when participants learned how well each agent worked for them in terms of reducing their A1c and lowering their BMI.

The findings also showed good correlation between patient preferences and their A1c and adverse-effect responses. The agents that patients identified as their favorites were also the drugs that lowered their A1c the most 53% of the time before they got any feedback on which one gave them their best glycemic control. Once they had this feedback, 70% preferred the most effective agent, with the results likely reflecting that patients feel better when they have improved glucose levels as well as the education patients received that lower A1c levels are better.

Patients also tended to understandably favor the agents that caused the fewest and mildest adverse effects: Sixty-eight percent of the patients who identified a favorite drug picked the one that gave them the best adverse-effect profile.

In an interview at the EASD 2022 annual meeting, Dr. Hattersley promoted the study’s design as a best-practice approach to deciding which drug to next give a person with type 2 diabetes who needs additional glycemic control.

“Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects,” he said. “Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” suggested Dr. Hattersley, a professor and diabetologist at the University of Exeter, England. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.”

But he stressed cautioning patients to return for treatment adjustment sooner than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug they’re trying.

TriMaster received no commercial funding. Dr. Hattersley has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allowing people with type 2 diabetes to try agents from three different classes of antidiabetes drugs showed they usually find a clear preference, often the drug that gives them the best glycemic control and least bothersome adverse effects, according to secondary findings from a randomized study of patients in the United Kingdom.

“This is the first study in which the same patient has tried three different types of glucose-lowering drug, enabling them to directly compare them and then choose which one is best for them,” Andrew Hattersley, BMBCh, DM, the study’s principal investigator, said in a written statement. “We’ve shown that going with the patients’ choice results in better glucose control and fewer side effects than any other approach. When it’s not clear which drug is best to use, then patients should try before they choose. Surprisingly, that approach has never been tried before.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

These secondary results from the TriMaster study were recently published in Nature Medicine and presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in September, as reported by this news organization.

TriMaster enrolled adults aged 30-80 years with a clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes for at least 12 months. Their glycemia was inadequately controlled despite treatment with metformin alone or two classes of oral glucose-lowering therapy that did not include an agent from any of the three classes tested in the study: dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and thiazolidinediones. The people taking two different drug classes at entry were most often taking metformin and a sulfonylurea.
 

Do BMI and renal function affect treatment response?

TriMaster tested two hypotheses. Firstly, would people with a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m² have greater glucose lowering with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone (Actos) than with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin (Januvia), compared to people with a lower BMI?

Secondly, would people with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m² have greater glucose lowering with sitagliptin than with the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), compared with people with higher levels of renal function? The metric for both hypotheses was change in A1c levels from baseline.

The study included 525 adults with type 2 diabetes in a double-blind, three-way crossover trial that assigned each participant a random order of serial 16-week trials of treatment with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, canagliflozin 100 mg once daily, and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily, with each agent added to the preexisting background regimen.

Analysis showed that for second- or third-line therapy in people with type 2 diabetes “simple predefined stratification using BMI and renal function can determine the choice of the drug most likely to be effective for glucose lowering,” the researchers concluded.

Among those with a BMI of more than 30 kg/m², patients achieved a lower A1c on pioglitazone, compared with sitagliptin, while those with a lower BMI had their best A1c response on sitagliptin. Patients with impaired renal function (eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73 m²) had better A1c lowering with sitagliptin, while those with a higher eGFR had better A1c lowering with canagliflozin.

These results appeared in a second article published in Nature Medicine, and the researchers also presented these findings at the EASD 2021 annual meeting, as reported by this news organization at the time.
 

Patients identified the agent they liked best

Dr. Hattersley and associates used the TriMaster study to also address the secondary question of which of the three tested agents patients preferred, focusing on the 457 patients who provided information on their treatment preference.

The results showed that patient preference varied: Twenty-four percent liked pioglitazone best, 33% preferred sitagliptin, and 37% said canagliflozin was their favorite, with 6% having no preference. These numbers barely budged when participants learned how well each agent worked for them in terms of reducing their A1c and lowering their BMI.

The findings also showed good correlation between patient preferences and their A1c and adverse-effect responses. The agents that patients identified as their favorites were also the drugs that lowered their A1c the most 53% of the time before they got any feedback on which one gave them their best glycemic control. Once they had this feedback, 70% preferred the most effective agent, with the results likely reflecting that patients feel better when they have improved glucose levels as well as the education patients received that lower A1c levels are better.

Patients also tended to understandably favor the agents that caused the fewest and mildest adverse effects: Sixty-eight percent of the patients who identified a favorite drug picked the one that gave them the best adverse-effect profile.

In an interview at the EASD 2022 annual meeting, Dr. Hattersley promoted the study’s design as a best-practice approach to deciding which drug to next give a person with type 2 diabetes who needs additional glycemic control.

“Whenever you’re not sure how to balance adverse effects and positive effects the best person to decide is the one who experiences the effects,” he said. “Patients had overwhelming positivity about being able to choose their drug. Do it when you’re not certain which drug to prescribe,” suggested Dr. Hattersley, a professor and diabetologist at the University of Exeter, England. “We can’t know which drug a patient might prefer.”

But he stressed cautioning patients to return for treatment adjustment sooner than 4 months if they can’t tolerate a new drug they’re trying.

TriMaster received no commercial funding. Dr. Hattersley has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Extended follow-up of patients with heart failure enrolled in the RAFT trial strengthens the case for starting treatment early with a cardiac resynchronization therapy plus defibrillation (CRT-D) device in appropriate patients.

RAFT, which compared CRT-D with treatment with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) alone, showed that the early survival benefit produced by CRT-D during an average 40-month follow-up in the original trial persisted during an additional mean follow-up of about 5 years. This result strengthens the case for starting treatment early with a CRT-D device in appropriate patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

During extended follow-up of more than half of the enrolled patients, out to an average of 7.6 years overall and to an average of 12.9 years among survivors, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant 21% relative reduction in their rate of all-cause mortality compared with randomized patients who received an ICD and no cardiac resynchronization, John L. Sapp, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The primary results of RAFT were first reported in 2010.

This magnitude of a survival benefit among the patients originally randomized to CRT is “dramatic,” given that many of the comparator patients who initially received no CRT likely crossed over to receive a CRT-D device once the initial, randomized 4 years of the study finished, commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, director of cardiomyopathy and the Lisa M. Jacobson Professor of Cardiology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved with the study.

‘CRT can remap heart failure trajectory’

The new findings “strengthen our conviction that CRT can remap the trajectory” of selected patients with heart failure, and that “candidates for CRT should be vigorously identified,” Dr. Stevenson said in an interview.

She also noted that the benefit with extended follow-up was “strikingly parallel” to that seen at 12 years after the addition of an ACE inhibitor for mild heart failure during the 4 years of the landmark SOLVD trial. The new RAFT extended follow-up, as well as the 12-year follow-up of the SOLVD trial, “support the concept that longer follow-up reveals vital information not provided by the relatively short randomized trial period,” she said.

“The new data say ‘don’t delay starting CRT in appropriate patients with heart failure,’ and ‘don’t think of CRT as just a treatment that makes patients feel better.’

 

“The totality of these data shows that CRT also treats the underlying heart muscle weakness, which helps patients live longer. Previous data showed that patients with left bundle branch block eligible for CRT are unlikely to respond well to the usual, recommended heart medications so it is important to start treatment with CRT-D early,” declared Dr. Stevenson, who cochaired the session where Dr. Sapp gave his report.

RAFT randomized 1,798 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of at least 120 msec to receive either a CRT-D or ICD device. The study’s primary endpoint was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. After an average 40 months of randomized follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 40% of the patients with an ICD and in 33% of those with a CRT-D device, a significant 25% relative reduction linked with CRT-D use. Both endpoint components contributed to the combined result significantly and to about the same extent, and the incremental benefit from CRT-D was significant for patients with NYHA class II heart failure as well as for those with class III.

However, prespecified subgroup analyses showed that the incremental benefit from CRT-D was significantly limited to patients with an intrinsic QRS duration of at least 150 msec, while in those with a duration of 120-149 msec CRT-D had a neutral effect compared with ICD. The same pattern also appeared when the analysis split patients into those with a left bundle branch block, who significantly benefited from CRT-D, but the initial benefit was not apparent in patients with right bundle branch block.

A study subgroup with extended follow-up

The new, extended follow-up analysis presented by Dr. Sapp included 1,050 of the original 1,798 patients (58%) enrolled at any of eight participating Canadian centers that each enrolled at least 100 patients and followed them through the end of 2021 (the full study cohort came from 34 centers, including 10 centers outside Canada). This subgroup included 520 patients randomized to receive CRT-D and 530 who received an ICD. Although this was a post hoc subgroup analysis, the CRT-D and ICD arms matched closely in all measured baseline characteristics.

The prespecified primary outcome of this follow-up analysis was the rate of all-cause mortality. Because of their longer disease trajectory, this pared-down study cohort included many more patients with NYHA class II function, 803, and in this subgroup CRT-D exerted a significant 23% incremental reduction in mortality compared with ICD treatment. CRT-D also produced a 17% relative reduction in long-term mortality among patients with NYHA class III function at baseline, but this point estimate of relative benefit was not significant in this subgroup of just 247 patients, said Dr. Sapp, a cardiologist and professor at Dalhousie University & Nova Scotia Health in Halifax.

Based on the original RAFT results from 2010, as well as on evidence from several other trials, the current heart failure management guideline from the AHA, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America give the highest level of recommendation, level 1, for CRT in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, sinus rhythm with left bundle branch block, a QRS duration of at least 150 msec, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms while on guideline-directed medical therapy.

The guideline also gives class 2a (“can be useful”) or 2b (“may be considered”) recommendation for certain other heart failure patients, including those with a QRS duration of 120-149 msec, a left ventricular ejection fraction as high as 50%, no left bundle branch block, or NYHA class I symptoms.

Don’t wait to start CRT

Although this 2022 guideline, as well as earlier versions that had roughly similar recommendations for CRT for about a decade, have led to “common” use of CRT in appropriate patients in U.S. practice, “it has not been used as much as it should be, in part because there’s been a feeling that CRT mostly treats symptoms and so perhaps you can wait” to start it, said Dr. Stevenson.

The findings from the new, extended follow-up RAFT analysis give increased urgency to starting CRT “as soon as possible” in appropriate patients with heart failure, even before they stabilize on guideline-directed medical therapy, said Dr. Stevenson. She also downplayed any ambiguity in the RAFT findings about optimal medical therapy, which during the RAFT study included traditional triple therapy at a time before treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors became recommended.

“There is no reason to think that these treatments will negate the benefit of CRT for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a wide left bundle branch block,” Dr. Stevenson said.

She also believes that the extended follow-up results, which showed clear efficacy for CRT-D in patients with NYHA class II function, support the case for upgrading the current 2b recommendation for using CRT treatment in patients with NYHA class I function and ischemic heart failure to a 2a recommendation regardless of whether or not patients have coronary artery disease. “The difference between class I and class II depends more on a patient’s lifestyle rather than on the severity of their heart failure,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “The RAFT study results encourage us to reexamine the clinical class and timing for CRT” in the current heart failure guideline.

RAFT received partial sponsorship from Medtronic. Dr. Sapp has been a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, and Varian and has received research funding from Abbott and Biosense Webster. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Extended follow-up of patients with heart failure enrolled in the RAFT trial strengthens the case for starting treatment early with a cardiac resynchronization therapy plus defibrillation (CRT-D) device in appropriate patients.

RAFT, which compared CRT-D with treatment with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) alone, showed that the early survival benefit produced by CRT-D during an average 40-month follow-up in the original trial persisted during an additional mean follow-up of about 5 years. This result strengthens the case for starting treatment early with a CRT-D device in appropriate patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

During extended follow-up of more than half of the enrolled patients, out to an average of 7.6 years overall and to an average of 12.9 years among survivors, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant 21% relative reduction in their rate of all-cause mortality compared with randomized patients who received an ICD and no cardiac resynchronization, John L. Sapp, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The primary results of RAFT were first reported in 2010.

This magnitude of a survival benefit among the patients originally randomized to CRT is “dramatic,” given that many of the comparator patients who initially received no CRT likely crossed over to receive a CRT-D device once the initial, randomized 4 years of the study finished, commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, director of cardiomyopathy and the Lisa M. Jacobson Professor of Cardiology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved with the study.

‘CRT can remap heart failure trajectory’

The new findings “strengthen our conviction that CRT can remap the trajectory” of selected patients with heart failure, and that “candidates for CRT should be vigorously identified,” Dr. Stevenson said in an interview.

She also noted that the benefit with extended follow-up was “strikingly parallel” to that seen at 12 years after the addition of an ACE inhibitor for mild heart failure during the 4 years of the landmark SOLVD trial. The new RAFT extended follow-up, as well as the 12-year follow-up of the SOLVD trial, “support the concept that longer follow-up reveals vital information not provided by the relatively short randomized trial period,” she said.

“The new data say ‘don’t delay starting CRT in appropriate patients with heart failure,’ and ‘don’t think of CRT as just a treatment that makes patients feel better.’

 

“The totality of these data shows that CRT also treats the underlying heart muscle weakness, which helps patients live longer. Previous data showed that patients with left bundle branch block eligible for CRT are unlikely to respond well to the usual, recommended heart medications so it is important to start treatment with CRT-D early,” declared Dr. Stevenson, who cochaired the session where Dr. Sapp gave his report.

RAFT randomized 1,798 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of at least 120 msec to receive either a CRT-D or ICD device. The study’s primary endpoint was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. After an average 40 months of randomized follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 40% of the patients with an ICD and in 33% of those with a CRT-D device, a significant 25% relative reduction linked with CRT-D use. Both endpoint components contributed to the combined result significantly and to about the same extent, and the incremental benefit from CRT-D was significant for patients with NYHA class II heart failure as well as for those with class III.

However, prespecified subgroup analyses showed that the incremental benefit from CRT-D was significantly limited to patients with an intrinsic QRS duration of at least 150 msec, while in those with a duration of 120-149 msec CRT-D had a neutral effect compared with ICD. The same pattern also appeared when the analysis split patients into those with a left bundle branch block, who significantly benefited from CRT-D, but the initial benefit was not apparent in patients with right bundle branch block.

A study subgroup with extended follow-up

The new, extended follow-up analysis presented by Dr. Sapp included 1,050 of the original 1,798 patients (58%) enrolled at any of eight participating Canadian centers that each enrolled at least 100 patients and followed them through the end of 2021 (the full study cohort came from 34 centers, including 10 centers outside Canada). This subgroup included 520 patients randomized to receive CRT-D and 530 who received an ICD. Although this was a post hoc subgroup analysis, the CRT-D and ICD arms matched closely in all measured baseline characteristics.

The prespecified primary outcome of this follow-up analysis was the rate of all-cause mortality. Because of their longer disease trajectory, this pared-down study cohort included many more patients with NYHA class II function, 803, and in this subgroup CRT-D exerted a significant 23% incremental reduction in mortality compared with ICD treatment. CRT-D also produced a 17% relative reduction in long-term mortality among patients with NYHA class III function at baseline, but this point estimate of relative benefit was not significant in this subgroup of just 247 patients, said Dr. Sapp, a cardiologist and professor at Dalhousie University & Nova Scotia Health in Halifax.

Based on the original RAFT results from 2010, as well as on evidence from several other trials, the current heart failure management guideline from the AHA, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America give the highest level of recommendation, level 1, for CRT in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, sinus rhythm with left bundle branch block, a QRS duration of at least 150 msec, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms while on guideline-directed medical therapy.

The guideline also gives class 2a (“can be useful”) or 2b (“may be considered”) recommendation for certain other heart failure patients, including those with a QRS duration of 120-149 msec, a left ventricular ejection fraction as high as 50%, no left bundle branch block, or NYHA class I symptoms.

Don’t wait to start CRT

Although this 2022 guideline, as well as earlier versions that had roughly similar recommendations for CRT for about a decade, have led to “common” use of CRT in appropriate patients in U.S. practice, “it has not been used as much as it should be, in part because there’s been a feeling that CRT mostly treats symptoms and so perhaps you can wait” to start it, said Dr. Stevenson.

The findings from the new, extended follow-up RAFT analysis give increased urgency to starting CRT “as soon as possible” in appropriate patients with heart failure, even before they stabilize on guideline-directed medical therapy, said Dr. Stevenson. She also downplayed any ambiguity in the RAFT findings about optimal medical therapy, which during the RAFT study included traditional triple therapy at a time before treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors became recommended.

“There is no reason to think that these treatments will negate the benefit of CRT for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a wide left bundle branch block,” Dr. Stevenson said.

She also believes that the extended follow-up results, which showed clear efficacy for CRT-D in patients with NYHA class II function, support the case for upgrading the current 2b recommendation for using CRT treatment in patients with NYHA class I function and ischemic heart failure to a 2a recommendation regardless of whether or not patients have coronary artery disease. “The difference between class I and class II depends more on a patient’s lifestyle rather than on the severity of their heart failure,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “The RAFT study results encourage us to reexamine the clinical class and timing for CRT” in the current heart failure guideline.

RAFT received partial sponsorship from Medtronic. Dr. Sapp has been a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, and Varian and has received research funding from Abbott and Biosense Webster. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Extended follow-up of patients with heart failure enrolled in the RAFT trial strengthens the case for starting treatment early with a cardiac resynchronization therapy plus defibrillation (CRT-D) device in appropriate patients.

RAFT, which compared CRT-D with treatment with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) alone, showed that the early survival benefit produced by CRT-D during an average 40-month follow-up in the original trial persisted during an additional mean follow-up of about 5 years. This result strengthens the case for starting treatment early with a CRT-D device in appropriate patients with heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

During extended follow-up of more than half of the enrolled patients, out to an average of 7.6 years overall and to an average of 12.9 years among survivors, patients who received a CRT-D device had a significant 21% relative reduction in their rate of all-cause mortality compared with randomized patients who received an ICD and no cardiac resynchronization, John L. Sapp, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The primary results of RAFT were first reported in 2010.

This magnitude of a survival benefit among the patients originally randomized to CRT is “dramatic,” given that many of the comparator patients who initially received no CRT likely crossed over to receive a CRT-D device once the initial, randomized 4 years of the study finished, commented Lynne W. Stevenson, MD, director of cardiomyopathy and the Lisa M. Jacobson Professor of Cardiology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved with the study.

‘CRT can remap heart failure trajectory’

The new findings “strengthen our conviction that CRT can remap the trajectory” of selected patients with heart failure, and that “candidates for CRT should be vigorously identified,” Dr. Stevenson said in an interview.

She also noted that the benefit with extended follow-up was “strikingly parallel” to that seen at 12 years after the addition of an ACE inhibitor for mild heart failure during the 4 years of the landmark SOLVD trial. The new RAFT extended follow-up, as well as the 12-year follow-up of the SOLVD trial, “support the concept that longer follow-up reveals vital information not provided by the relatively short randomized trial period,” she said.

“The new data say ‘don’t delay starting CRT in appropriate patients with heart failure,’ and ‘don’t think of CRT as just a treatment that makes patients feel better.’

 

“The totality of these data shows that CRT also treats the underlying heart muscle weakness, which helps patients live longer. Previous data showed that patients with left bundle branch block eligible for CRT are unlikely to respond well to the usual, recommended heart medications so it is important to start treatment with CRT-D early,” declared Dr. Stevenson, who cochaired the session where Dr. Sapp gave his report.

RAFT randomized 1,798 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of at least 120 msec to receive either a CRT-D or ICD device. The study’s primary endpoint was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. After an average 40 months of randomized follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 40% of the patients with an ICD and in 33% of those with a CRT-D device, a significant 25% relative reduction linked with CRT-D use. Both endpoint components contributed to the combined result significantly and to about the same extent, and the incremental benefit from CRT-D was significant for patients with NYHA class II heart failure as well as for those with class III.

However, prespecified subgroup analyses showed that the incremental benefit from CRT-D was significantly limited to patients with an intrinsic QRS duration of at least 150 msec, while in those with a duration of 120-149 msec CRT-D had a neutral effect compared with ICD. The same pattern also appeared when the analysis split patients into those with a left bundle branch block, who significantly benefited from CRT-D, but the initial benefit was not apparent in patients with right bundle branch block.

A study subgroup with extended follow-up

The new, extended follow-up analysis presented by Dr. Sapp included 1,050 of the original 1,798 patients (58%) enrolled at any of eight participating Canadian centers that each enrolled at least 100 patients and followed them through the end of 2021 (the full study cohort came from 34 centers, including 10 centers outside Canada). This subgroup included 520 patients randomized to receive CRT-D and 530 who received an ICD. Although this was a post hoc subgroup analysis, the CRT-D and ICD arms matched closely in all measured baseline characteristics.

The prespecified primary outcome of this follow-up analysis was the rate of all-cause mortality. Because of their longer disease trajectory, this pared-down study cohort included many more patients with NYHA class II function, 803, and in this subgroup CRT-D exerted a significant 23% incremental reduction in mortality compared with ICD treatment. CRT-D also produced a 17% relative reduction in long-term mortality among patients with NYHA class III function at baseline, but this point estimate of relative benefit was not significant in this subgroup of just 247 patients, said Dr. Sapp, a cardiologist and professor at Dalhousie University & Nova Scotia Health in Halifax.

Based on the original RAFT results from 2010, as well as on evidence from several other trials, the current heart failure management guideline from the AHA, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America give the highest level of recommendation, level 1, for CRT in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, sinus rhythm with left bundle branch block, a QRS duration of at least 150 msec, and NYHA class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms while on guideline-directed medical therapy.

The guideline also gives class 2a (“can be useful”) or 2b (“may be considered”) recommendation for certain other heart failure patients, including those with a QRS duration of 120-149 msec, a left ventricular ejection fraction as high as 50%, no left bundle branch block, or NYHA class I symptoms.

Don’t wait to start CRT

Although this 2022 guideline, as well as earlier versions that had roughly similar recommendations for CRT for about a decade, have led to “common” use of CRT in appropriate patients in U.S. practice, “it has not been used as much as it should be, in part because there’s been a feeling that CRT mostly treats symptoms and so perhaps you can wait” to start it, said Dr. Stevenson.

The findings from the new, extended follow-up RAFT analysis give increased urgency to starting CRT “as soon as possible” in appropriate patients with heart failure, even before they stabilize on guideline-directed medical therapy, said Dr. Stevenson. She also downplayed any ambiguity in the RAFT findings about optimal medical therapy, which during the RAFT study included traditional triple therapy at a time before treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors became recommended.

“There is no reason to think that these treatments will negate the benefit of CRT for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a wide left bundle branch block,” Dr. Stevenson said.

She also believes that the extended follow-up results, which showed clear efficacy for CRT-D in patients with NYHA class II function, support the case for upgrading the current 2b recommendation for using CRT treatment in patients with NYHA class I function and ischemic heart failure to a 2a recommendation regardless of whether or not patients have coronary artery disease. “The difference between class I and class II depends more on a patient’s lifestyle rather than on the severity of their heart failure,” Dr. Stevenson noted. “The RAFT study results encourage us to reexamine the clinical class and timing for CRT” in the current heart failure guideline.

RAFT received partial sponsorship from Medtronic. Dr. Sapp has been a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, and Varian and has received research funding from Abbott and Biosense Webster. Dr. Stevenson had no disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Nov. 22 that cited preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia and serious outcomes related to abnormally low calcium levels in people being treated with dialysis and receiving the osteoporosis medication denosumab (Prolia), including hospitalization and death.

In its alert, the FDA advised clinicians to make sure that people on dialysis who receive Prolia ingest adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation and undergo frequent blood calcium monitoring, “possibly more often than is already being conducted,” which “may help decrease the likelihood or severity of these risks.”

The agency also called on clinicians to “advise patients on dialysis to immediately seek help if they experience symptoms of hypocalcemia,” such as unusual tingling or numbness in the hands, arms, legs, or feet; painful muscle spasms or cramps; voice box or lung spasms causing difficulty breathing; vomiting; seizures; or irregular heart rhythm.

The FDA had a similar message for people being treated with dialysis who are also receiving Prolia. The alert advised patients to watch for these symptoms and to tell their health care provider if they occur. The agency also advised patients who are undergoing dialysis and receiving Prolia to not stop the agent on their own, without first discussing this step with their care provider.

The FDA also advised providers and patients to contact the agency about episodes of side effects from Prolia (or other medications) via the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

Frequent and serious

The FDA explained it issued the alert because of “the frequency and seriousness” of the risk for hypocalcemia and resulting complications. The agency noted that the risk seems most acute for people on dialysis who also receive Prolia, but the risk may also extend to people with advanced kidney disease who are not being treated with hemodialysis.

The alert stemmed from “interim results” in an ongoing safety study of Prolia that the FDA required the agent’s manufacturer, Amgen, to run when the agency first approved denosumab for U.S. marketing in 2010. The FDA said its review of these interim results suggested an increased risk of hypocalcemia with Prolia in patients with advanced kidney disease.

In addition, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA suggested in a separate, internal study that patients on dialysis treated with Prolia are at “substantial risk for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia, including hospitalization and death.”

The alert explained that “because of the frequency and seriousness of these risks, we are alerting healthcare professionals and patients about them and that we are continuing to evaluate this potential safety issue with Prolia use in patients with advanced kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis.” The FDA added that “we will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review or have more information to share.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Nov. 22 that cited preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia and serious outcomes related to abnormally low calcium levels in people being treated with dialysis and receiving the osteoporosis medication denosumab (Prolia), including hospitalization and death.

In its alert, the FDA advised clinicians to make sure that people on dialysis who receive Prolia ingest adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation and undergo frequent blood calcium monitoring, “possibly more often than is already being conducted,” which “may help decrease the likelihood or severity of these risks.”

The agency also called on clinicians to “advise patients on dialysis to immediately seek help if they experience symptoms of hypocalcemia,” such as unusual tingling or numbness in the hands, arms, legs, or feet; painful muscle spasms or cramps; voice box or lung spasms causing difficulty breathing; vomiting; seizures; or irregular heart rhythm.

The FDA had a similar message for people being treated with dialysis who are also receiving Prolia. The alert advised patients to watch for these symptoms and to tell their health care provider if they occur. The agency also advised patients who are undergoing dialysis and receiving Prolia to not stop the agent on their own, without first discussing this step with their care provider.

The FDA also advised providers and patients to contact the agency about episodes of side effects from Prolia (or other medications) via the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

Frequent and serious

The FDA explained it issued the alert because of “the frequency and seriousness” of the risk for hypocalcemia and resulting complications. The agency noted that the risk seems most acute for people on dialysis who also receive Prolia, but the risk may also extend to people with advanced kidney disease who are not being treated with hemodialysis.

The alert stemmed from “interim results” in an ongoing safety study of Prolia that the FDA required the agent’s manufacturer, Amgen, to run when the agency first approved denosumab for U.S. marketing in 2010. The FDA said its review of these interim results suggested an increased risk of hypocalcemia with Prolia in patients with advanced kidney disease.

In addition, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA suggested in a separate, internal study that patients on dialysis treated with Prolia are at “substantial risk for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia, including hospitalization and death.”

The alert explained that “because of the frequency and seriousness of these risks, we are alerting healthcare professionals and patients about them and that we are continuing to evaluate this potential safety issue with Prolia use in patients with advanced kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis.” The FDA added that “we will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review or have more information to share.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued an alert on Nov. 22 that cited preliminary evidence for a “substantial risk” for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia and serious outcomes related to abnormally low calcium levels in people being treated with dialysis and receiving the osteoporosis medication denosumab (Prolia), including hospitalization and death.

In its alert, the FDA advised clinicians to make sure that people on dialysis who receive Prolia ingest adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation and undergo frequent blood calcium monitoring, “possibly more often than is already being conducted,” which “may help decrease the likelihood or severity of these risks.”

The agency also called on clinicians to “advise patients on dialysis to immediately seek help if they experience symptoms of hypocalcemia,” such as unusual tingling or numbness in the hands, arms, legs, or feet; painful muscle spasms or cramps; voice box or lung spasms causing difficulty breathing; vomiting; seizures; or irregular heart rhythm.

The FDA had a similar message for people being treated with dialysis who are also receiving Prolia. The alert advised patients to watch for these symptoms and to tell their health care provider if they occur. The agency also advised patients who are undergoing dialysis and receiving Prolia to not stop the agent on their own, without first discussing this step with their care provider.

The FDA also advised providers and patients to contact the agency about episodes of side effects from Prolia (or other medications) via the FDA’s MedWatch program.
 

Frequent and serious

The FDA explained it issued the alert because of “the frequency and seriousness” of the risk for hypocalcemia and resulting complications. The agency noted that the risk seems most acute for people on dialysis who also receive Prolia, but the risk may also extend to people with advanced kidney disease who are not being treated with hemodialysis.

The alert stemmed from “interim results” in an ongoing safety study of Prolia that the FDA required the agent’s manufacturer, Amgen, to run when the agency first approved denosumab for U.S. marketing in 2010. The FDA said its review of these interim results suggested an increased risk of hypocalcemia with Prolia in patients with advanced kidney disease.

In addition, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA suggested in a separate, internal study that patients on dialysis treated with Prolia are at “substantial risk for severe and symptomatic hypocalcemia, including hospitalization and death.”

The alert explained that “because of the frequency and seriousness of these risks, we are alerting healthcare professionals and patients about them and that we are continuing to evaluate this potential safety issue with Prolia use in patients with advanced kidney disease, particularly those on dialysis.” The FDA added that “we will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review or have more information to share.”

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

ORLANDO – Using a low-chloride, balanced crystalloid solution for all intravenous fluids received by patients who received a deceased donor kidney transplant resulted in significantly fewer episodes of delayed graft function, compared with patients who received saline as their IV fluids, in a new multicenter trial with 807 randomized and evaluable patients called BEST-Fluids.

“The findings suggest that balanced crystalloids should be the standard-of-care IV fluid in deceased donor kidney transplantations,” Michael G. Collins, MBChB, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treating 10 patients prevents one delayed graft function

The incidence of delayed graft function, defined as the need for dialysis during the 7 days following transplantation, occurred in 30.0% of 404 patients who received balanced crystalloid fluids (Plasma-Lyte 148) and in 39.7% of 403 patients who received saline starting at the time of randomization (prior to surgery) until 48 hours post-surgery, Dr. Collins reported.

This translated into a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 26% and a number needed to treat of 10 to result in one avoided episode of delayed graft function.

Preventing delayed graft function is important because it is a “major complication” of deceased donor kidney transplantation that usually occurs in about 30%-50% of people who receive these organs, Dr. Collins explained. Incident delayed graft function leads to higher hospitalization costs because of a prolonged need for dialysis and extended hospital days, as well as increased risk for long-term graft failure and death.

A secondary outcome – the number of dialysis sessions required during the 28 days following transplantation – was 406 sessions among those who received balanced crystalloid fluids and 596 sessions among the controls who received saline, a significant adjusted relative decrease of 30%.

Freedom from need for dialysis by 12 weeks after surgery increased by a significant 10% among those treated with balanced crystalloid fluids, compared with controls. The balanced crystalloid fluids were also significantly linked with an average 1-L increase in urine output during the first 2 days after transplantation, compared with controls.
 

Chloride is the culprit

“I think this is driven by the harmful effects of saline,” which is currently the standard fluid that kidney transplant patients receive worldwide, said Dr. Collins. Specifically, he cited the chloride content of saline – which contains 0.9% sodium chloride – as the culprit by causing reduced kidney perfusion.

“Some data suggest that saline may be harmful because of chloride acidosis producing vasoconstriction and increasing ischemia,” commented Karen A. Griffin, MD, chief of the renal section at the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Medical Center, Hines, Illinois. But Dr. Griffin said she’d like to see further study of balanced crystalloid fluids in this setting before she’d be comfortable using it routinely as a replacement for saline.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Success attributed to early treatment

But Dr. Lafayette also wondered, “Why should this work for transplant patients when it did not work for patients who develop acute kidney injury in the ICU?” And he found it hard to understand how the impact of the balanced crystalloid fluid could manifest so quickly, with a change in urine output during the first day following surgery.

Dr. Collins attributed the rapid effects and overall success to the early initiation of balanced crystalloid fluids before the transplant occurred.   

The BEST-Fluids trial ran at 16 centers in Australia and New Zealand and enrolled patients from January 2018 to August 2020. It enrolled adults and children scheduled to receive a deceased donor kidney, excluding those who weighed less than 20 kg and those who received multiple organs.

Enrolled patients averaged about 55 years old, about 63% were men, and their average duration on dialysis prior to surgery was about 30 months. The study randomized 808 patients who received their transplanted kidney, with 807 included in the efficacy analysis. Patients in each of the two groups showed very close balance for all reported parameters of patient and donor characteristics. During the period of randomized fluid treatment, patients in the balanced crystalloid group received an average of just over 8 L of fluid, while those in the control group received an average of just over 7 L.

During follow-up, serious adverse events were rare and balanced, with three in the balanced crystalloid group and four among controls.

The only significant difference in adverse events was the rate of ICU admissions that required ventilation, which occurred in one patient in the balanced crystalloid group and 12 controls.

BEST-Fluids received balanced crystalloid and saline solutions at no charge from Baxter Healthcare, which markets Plasma-Lyte 148. The study received no other commercial funding. Dr. Collins, Dr. Griffin, and Dr. Lane have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lafayette has received personal fees and grants from Alexion, Aurinia, Calliditas, Omeros, Pfizer, Roche, Travere, and Vera and has been an advisor to Akahest and Equillium.

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

ORLANDO – Using a low-chloride, balanced crystalloid solution for all intravenous fluids received by patients who received a deceased donor kidney transplant resulted in significantly fewer episodes of delayed graft function, compared with patients who received saline as their IV fluids, in a new multicenter trial with 807 randomized and evaluable patients called BEST-Fluids.

“The findings suggest that balanced crystalloids should be the standard-of-care IV fluid in deceased donor kidney transplantations,” Michael G. Collins, MBChB, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treating 10 patients prevents one delayed graft function

The incidence of delayed graft function, defined as the need for dialysis during the 7 days following transplantation, occurred in 30.0% of 404 patients who received balanced crystalloid fluids (Plasma-Lyte 148) and in 39.7% of 403 patients who received saline starting at the time of randomization (prior to surgery) until 48 hours post-surgery, Dr. Collins reported.

This translated into a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 26% and a number needed to treat of 10 to result in one avoided episode of delayed graft function.

Preventing delayed graft function is important because it is a “major complication” of deceased donor kidney transplantation that usually occurs in about 30%-50% of people who receive these organs, Dr. Collins explained. Incident delayed graft function leads to higher hospitalization costs because of a prolonged need for dialysis and extended hospital days, as well as increased risk for long-term graft failure and death.

A secondary outcome – the number of dialysis sessions required during the 28 days following transplantation – was 406 sessions among those who received balanced crystalloid fluids and 596 sessions among the controls who received saline, a significant adjusted relative decrease of 30%.

Freedom from need for dialysis by 12 weeks after surgery increased by a significant 10% among those treated with balanced crystalloid fluids, compared with controls. The balanced crystalloid fluids were also significantly linked with an average 1-L increase in urine output during the first 2 days after transplantation, compared with controls.
 

Chloride is the culprit

“I think this is driven by the harmful effects of saline,” which is currently the standard fluid that kidney transplant patients receive worldwide, said Dr. Collins. Specifically, he cited the chloride content of saline – which contains 0.9% sodium chloride – as the culprit by causing reduced kidney perfusion.

“Some data suggest that saline may be harmful because of chloride acidosis producing vasoconstriction and increasing ischemia,” commented Karen A. Griffin, MD, chief of the renal section at the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Medical Center, Hines, Illinois. But Dr. Griffin said she’d like to see further study of balanced crystalloid fluids in this setting before she’d be comfortable using it routinely as a replacement for saline.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Success attributed to early treatment

But Dr. Lafayette also wondered, “Why should this work for transplant patients when it did not work for patients who develop acute kidney injury in the ICU?” And he found it hard to understand how the impact of the balanced crystalloid fluid could manifest so quickly, with a change in urine output during the first day following surgery.

Dr. Collins attributed the rapid effects and overall success to the early initiation of balanced crystalloid fluids before the transplant occurred.   

The BEST-Fluids trial ran at 16 centers in Australia and New Zealand and enrolled patients from January 2018 to August 2020. It enrolled adults and children scheduled to receive a deceased donor kidney, excluding those who weighed less than 20 kg and those who received multiple organs.

Enrolled patients averaged about 55 years old, about 63% were men, and their average duration on dialysis prior to surgery was about 30 months. The study randomized 808 patients who received their transplanted kidney, with 807 included in the efficacy analysis. Patients in each of the two groups showed very close balance for all reported parameters of patient and donor characteristics. During the period of randomized fluid treatment, patients in the balanced crystalloid group received an average of just over 8 L of fluid, while those in the control group received an average of just over 7 L.

During follow-up, serious adverse events were rare and balanced, with three in the balanced crystalloid group and four among controls.

The only significant difference in adverse events was the rate of ICU admissions that required ventilation, which occurred in one patient in the balanced crystalloid group and 12 controls.

BEST-Fluids received balanced crystalloid and saline solutions at no charge from Baxter Healthcare, which markets Plasma-Lyte 148. The study received no other commercial funding. Dr. Collins, Dr. Griffin, and Dr. Lane have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lafayette has received personal fees and grants from Alexion, Aurinia, Calliditas, Omeros, Pfizer, Roche, Travere, and Vera and has been an advisor to Akahest and Equillium.

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

ORLANDO – Using a low-chloride, balanced crystalloid solution for all intravenous fluids received by patients who received a deceased donor kidney transplant resulted in significantly fewer episodes of delayed graft function, compared with patients who received saline as their IV fluids, in a new multicenter trial with 807 randomized and evaluable patients called BEST-Fluids.

“The findings suggest that balanced crystalloids should be the standard-of-care IV fluid in deceased donor kidney transplantations,” Michael G. Collins, MBChB, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Treating 10 patients prevents one delayed graft function

The incidence of delayed graft function, defined as the need for dialysis during the 7 days following transplantation, occurred in 30.0% of 404 patients who received balanced crystalloid fluids (Plasma-Lyte 148) and in 39.7% of 403 patients who received saline starting at the time of randomization (prior to surgery) until 48 hours post-surgery, Dr. Collins reported.

This translated into a significant, adjusted relative risk reduction of 26% and a number needed to treat of 10 to result in one avoided episode of delayed graft function.

Preventing delayed graft function is important because it is a “major complication” of deceased donor kidney transplantation that usually occurs in about 30%-50% of people who receive these organs, Dr. Collins explained. Incident delayed graft function leads to higher hospitalization costs because of a prolonged need for dialysis and extended hospital days, as well as increased risk for long-term graft failure and death.

A secondary outcome – the number of dialysis sessions required during the 28 days following transplantation – was 406 sessions among those who received balanced crystalloid fluids and 596 sessions among the controls who received saline, a significant adjusted relative decrease of 30%.

Freedom from need for dialysis by 12 weeks after surgery increased by a significant 10% among those treated with balanced crystalloid fluids, compared with controls. The balanced crystalloid fluids were also significantly linked with an average 1-L increase in urine output during the first 2 days after transplantation, compared with controls.
 

Chloride is the culprit

“I think this is driven by the harmful effects of saline,” which is currently the standard fluid that kidney transplant patients receive worldwide, said Dr. Collins. Specifically, he cited the chloride content of saline – which contains 0.9% sodium chloride – as the culprit by causing reduced kidney perfusion.

“Some data suggest that saline may be harmful because of chloride acidosis producing vasoconstriction and increasing ischemia,” commented Karen A. Griffin, MD, chief of the renal section at the Edward Hines, Jr. VA Medical Center, Hines, Illinois. But Dr. Griffin said she’d like to see further study of balanced crystalloid fluids in this setting before she’d be comfortable using it routinely as a replacement for saline.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Success attributed to early treatment

But Dr. Lafayette also wondered, “Why should this work for transplant patients when it did not work for patients who develop acute kidney injury in the ICU?” And he found it hard to understand how the impact of the balanced crystalloid fluid could manifest so quickly, with a change in urine output during the first day following surgery.

Dr. Collins attributed the rapid effects and overall success to the early initiation of balanced crystalloid fluids before the transplant occurred.   

The BEST-Fluids trial ran at 16 centers in Australia and New Zealand and enrolled patients from January 2018 to August 2020. It enrolled adults and children scheduled to receive a deceased donor kidney, excluding those who weighed less than 20 kg and those who received multiple organs.

Enrolled patients averaged about 55 years old, about 63% were men, and their average duration on dialysis prior to surgery was about 30 months. The study randomized 808 patients who received their transplanted kidney, with 807 included in the efficacy analysis. Patients in each of the two groups showed very close balance for all reported parameters of patient and donor characteristics. During the period of randomized fluid treatment, patients in the balanced crystalloid group received an average of just over 8 L of fluid, while those in the control group received an average of just over 7 L.

During follow-up, serious adverse events were rare and balanced, with three in the balanced crystalloid group and four among controls.

The only significant difference in adverse events was the rate of ICU admissions that required ventilation, which occurred in one patient in the balanced crystalloid group and 12 controls.

BEST-Fluids received balanced crystalloid and saline solutions at no charge from Baxter Healthcare, which markets Plasma-Lyte 148. The study received no other commercial funding. Dr. Collins, Dr. Griffin, and Dr. Lane have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lafayette has received personal fees and grants from Alexion, Aurinia, Calliditas, Omeros, Pfizer, Roche, Travere, and Vera and has been an advisor to Akahest and Equillium.

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

ORLANDO – Automated alerts sent to clinicians via patients’ electronic health records identified patients with diagnosable acute kidney injury (AKI) who were taking one or more medications that could potentially further worsen their renal function. This led to a significant increase in discontinuations of the problematic drugs and better clinical outcomes in a subgroup of patients in a new multicenter, randomized study with more than 5,000 participants.

“Automated alerts for AKI can increase the rate of cessation of potentially nephrotoxic medications without endangering patients,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, at Kidney Week 2022, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L Zoler, Medscape Medical News © 2022 WebMD, LLC

In addition, the study provides “limited evidence that these alerts change clinical practice,” said Dr. Wilson, a nephrologist and director of the clinical and translational research accelerator at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

“It was encouraging to get providers to change their behavior” by quickly stopping treatment with potentially nephrotoxic medications in patients with incident AKI. But the results also confirmed that “patient decision-support systems tend to not be panaceas,” Dr. Wilson explained in an interview. Instead, “they tend to marginally improve” patients’ clinical status.

“Our hope is that widespread use may make some difference on a population scale, but rarely are these game changers,” he admitted.

“This was a very nice study showing how we can leverage the EHR to look not only at drugs but also contrast agents to direct educational efforts aimed at clinicians about when to discontinue” these treatments, commented Karen A. Griffin, MD, who was not involved with the study.
 

A danger for alert fatigue

But the results also showed that more research is needed to better refine this approach, added Dr. Griffin, a professor at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and chief of the renal section at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Medical Center in Hines, Ill. And she expressed caution about expanding the alerts that clinicians receive “because of the potential for alert fatigue.”

Dr. Wilson also acknowledged the danger for alert fatigue. “We’re doing these studies to try to reduce the number of alerts,” he said. “Most clinicians say that if we could show an alert improves patient outcomes, they would embrace it.”

Dr. Wilson and associates designed their current study to evaluate an enhanced type of alert that not only warned clinicians that a patient had developed AKI but also gave them an option to potentially intervene by stopping treatment with a medication that could possibly exacerbate worsening renal function. This enhancement followed their experience in a 2021 study that tested a purely informational alert that gave physicians no guidance about what actions to take to more quickly resolve the AKI.

These findings plus results from other studies suggested that “purely informational alerts may not be enough. They need to be linked” to suggested changes in patient management, Dr. Wilson explained.
 

Targeting NSAIDS, RAAS inhibitors, and PPIs

The new study used automated EHR analysis to not only identify patients with incident AKI, but also to flag medications these patients were receiving from any of three classes suspected of worsening renal function: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors (which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers), and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs).

“Our hypothesis was that giving clinicians actionable advice could significantly improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Wilson said. “NSAIDs are frequently discontinued” in patients who develop AKI. “RAAS inhibitors are sometimes discontinued,” although the benefit from doing this remains unproven and controversial. “PPIs are rarely discontinued,” and may be an underappreciated contributor to AKI by causing interstitial nephritis in some patients.

The prospective study included 5,060 adults admitted with a diagnosis of stage 1 AKI at any of four Yale-affiliated teaching hospitals who were also taking agents from at least one of the three targeted drug classes at the time of admission. Clinicians caring for 2,532 of these patients received an alert about the AKI diagnosis and use of the questionable medications, while those caring for the 2,528 control patients received no alert and delivered usual care.

The study excluded patients with higher-risk profiles, including those with extremely elevated serum creatinine levels at admission (4.0 mg/dL or higher), those recently treated with dialysis, and patients with end-stage kidney disease.

The study had two primary outcomes. One measured the impact of the intervention on stopping the targeted drugs. The second assessed the clinical effect of the intervention on progression of AKI to a higher stage, need for dialysis, or death during either the duration of hospitalization or during the first 14 days following randomization.
 

Overall, a 9% relative increase in discontinuations

In general, the intervention had a modest but significant effect on cessation of the targeted drug classes within 24 hours of sending the alert.

Overall, there was about a 58% discontinuation rate among controls and about a 62% discontinuation rate among patients managed using the alerts, a significant 9% relative increase in any drug discontinuation, Dr. Wilson reported.

Discontinuations of NSAIDs occurred at the highest rate, in about 80% of patients in both groups, and the intervention showed no significant effect on stopping agents from this class. Discontinuations of RAAS inhibitors showed the largest absolute difference in between-group effect, about a 10–percentage point increase that represented a significant 14% relative increase in stopping agents from this class. Discontinuations of PPIs occurred at the lowest rate, in roughly 20% of patients, but the alert intervention had the greatest impact by raising the relative rate of stopping by a significant 26% compared with controls.

Analysis of the effect of the intervention on the combined clinical outcome showed a less robust impact. The alerts produced no significant change in the clinical outcome overall, or in the use of NSAIDs or RAAS inhibitors. However, the change in use of PPIs following the alerts significantly linked with a 12% relative drop in the incidence of the combined clinical endpoint of progression of AKI to a higher stage, need for dialysis, or death.

The results were consistent across several prespecified subgroups based on parameters such as age, sex, and race, but these analyses showed a signal that the alerts were most helpful for patients who had serum creatinine levels at admission of less than 0.5 mg/dL.

Dr. Wilson speculated that the alerts might have been especially effective for these patients because their low creatinine levels might otherwise mask AKI onset.

A safety analysis showed no evidence that the alert interventions and drug cessations increased the incidence of any complications.
 

PPIs may distinguish ‘sicker’ patients

Dr. Wilson cited two potential explanations for why the tested alerts appeared most effective for patients taking a PPI at the time of admission. One is that PPIs are underappreciated as a contributor to AKI, a possibility supported by the low rates of discontinuation in both the control and intervention groups.

In addition, treatment with a PPI may be a marker of “sicker” patients who may have more to gain from quicker identification of their AKI. For example, 28% of the patients who were taking a PPI at admission were in the ICU when they entered the study compared with a 14% rate of ICU care among everyone else.

PPIs were also the most-used targeted drug class among enrolled patients, used by 65% at baseline, compared with 53% who were taking a RAAS inhibitor and about 31% who were taking an NSAID. About 6% of enrolled patients were taking agents from all three classes at baseline, and 36% were on treatment with agents from two of the classes.

The next step is to assess adding more refinement to the alert process, Dr. Wilson said. He and his associates are now running a study in which an AKI alert goes to a “kidney action team” that includes a trained clinician and a pharmacist. The team would review the patient who triggered the alert and quickly make an individualized assessment of the best intervention for resolving the AKI.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wilson has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop. Dr. Griffin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ORLANDO – Automated alerts sent to clinicians via patients’ electronic health records identified patients with diagnosable acute kidney injury (AKI) who were taking one or more medications that could potentially further worsen their renal function. This led to a significant increase in discontinuations of the problematic drugs and better clinical outcomes in a subgroup of patients in a new multicenter, randomized study with more than 5,000 participants.

“Automated alerts for AKI can increase the rate of cessation of potentially nephrotoxic medications without endangering patients,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, at Kidney Week 2022, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L Zoler, Medscape Medical News © 2022 WebMD, LLC

In addition, the study provides “limited evidence that these alerts change clinical practice,” said Dr. Wilson, a nephrologist and director of the clinical and translational research accelerator at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

“It was encouraging to get providers to change their behavior” by quickly stopping treatment with potentially nephrotoxic medications in patients with incident AKI. But the results also confirmed that “patient decision-support systems tend to not be panaceas,” Dr. Wilson explained in an interview. Instead, “they tend to marginally improve” patients’ clinical status.

“Our hope is that widespread use may make some difference on a population scale, but rarely are these game changers,” he admitted.

“This was a very nice study showing how we can leverage the EHR to look not only at drugs but also contrast agents to direct educational efforts aimed at clinicians about when to discontinue” these treatments, commented Karen A. Griffin, MD, who was not involved with the study.
 

A danger for alert fatigue

But the results also showed that more research is needed to better refine this approach, added Dr. Griffin, a professor at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and chief of the renal section at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Medical Center in Hines, Ill. And she expressed caution about expanding the alerts that clinicians receive “because of the potential for alert fatigue.”

Dr. Wilson also acknowledged the danger for alert fatigue. “We’re doing these studies to try to reduce the number of alerts,” he said. “Most clinicians say that if we could show an alert improves patient outcomes, they would embrace it.”

Dr. Wilson and associates designed their current study to evaluate an enhanced type of alert that not only warned clinicians that a patient had developed AKI but also gave them an option to potentially intervene by stopping treatment with a medication that could possibly exacerbate worsening renal function. This enhancement followed their experience in a 2021 study that tested a purely informational alert that gave physicians no guidance about what actions to take to more quickly resolve the AKI.

These findings plus results from other studies suggested that “purely informational alerts may not be enough. They need to be linked” to suggested changes in patient management, Dr. Wilson explained.
 

Targeting NSAIDS, RAAS inhibitors, and PPIs

The new study used automated EHR analysis to not only identify patients with incident AKI, but also to flag medications these patients were receiving from any of three classes suspected of worsening renal function: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors (which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers), and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs).

“Our hypothesis was that giving clinicians actionable advice could significantly improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Wilson said. “NSAIDs are frequently discontinued” in patients who develop AKI. “RAAS inhibitors are sometimes discontinued,” although the benefit from doing this remains unproven and controversial. “PPIs are rarely discontinued,” and may be an underappreciated contributor to AKI by causing interstitial nephritis in some patients.

The prospective study included 5,060 adults admitted with a diagnosis of stage 1 AKI at any of four Yale-affiliated teaching hospitals who were also taking agents from at least one of the three targeted drug classes at the time of admission. Clinicians caring for 2,532 of these patients received an alert about the AKI diagnosis and use of the questionable medications, while those caring for the 2,528 control patients received no alert and delivered usual care.

The study excluded patients with higher-risk profiles, including those with extremely elevated serum creatinine levels at admission (4.0 mg/dL or higher), those recently treated with dialysis, and patients with end-stage kidney disease.

The study had two primary outcomes. One measured the impact of the intervention on stopping the targeted drugs. The second assessed the clinical effect of the intervention on progression of AKI to a higher stage, need for dialysis, or death during either the duration of hospitalization or during the first 14 days following randomization.
 

Overall, a 9% relative increase in discontinuations

In general, the intervention had a modest but significant effect on cessation of the targeted drug classes within 24 hours of sending the alert.

Overall, there was about a 58% discontinuation rate among controls and about a 62% discontinuation rate among patients managed using the alerts, a significant 9% relative increase in any drug discontinuation, Dr. Wilson reported.

Discontinuations of NSAIDs occurred at the highest rate, in about 80% of patients in both groups, and the intervention showed no significant effect on stopping agents from this class. Discontinuations of RAAS inhibitors showed the largest absolute difference in between-group effect, about a 10–percentage point increase that represented a significant 14% relative increase in stopping agents from this class. Discontinuations of PPIs occurred at the lowest rate, in roughly 20% of patients, but the alert intervention had the greatest impact by raising the relative rate of stopping by a significant 26% compared with controls.

Analysis of the effect of the intervention on the combined clinical outcome showed a less robust impact. The alerts produced no significant change in the clinical outcome overall, or in the use of NSAIDs or RAAS inhibitors. However, the change in use of PPIs following the alerts significantly linked with a 12% relative drop in the incidence of the combined clinical endpoint of progression of AKI to a higher stage, need for dialysis, or death.

The results were consistent across several prespecified subgroups based on parameters such as age, sex, and race, but these analyses showed a signal that the alerts were most helpful for patients who had serum creatinine levels at admission of less than 0.5 mg/dL.

Dr. Wilson speculated that the alerts might have been especially effective for these patients because their low creatinine levels might otherwise mask AKI onset.

A safety analysis showed no evidence that the alert interventions and drug cessations increased the incidence of any complications.
 

PPIs may distinguish ‘sicker’ patients

Dr. Wilson cited two potential explanations for why the tested alerts appeared most effective for patients taking a PPI at the time of admission. One is that PPIs are underappreciated as a contributor to AKI, a possibility supported by the low rates of discontinuation in both the control and intervention groups.

In addition, treatment with a PPI may be a marker of “sicker” patients who may have more to gain from quicker identification of their AKI. For example, 28% of the patients who were taking a PPI at admission were in the ICU when they entered the study compared with a 14% rate of ICU care among everyone else.

PPIs were also the most-used targeted drug class among enrolled patients, used by 65% at baseline, compared with 53% who were taking a RAAS inhibitor and about 31% who were taking an NSAID. About 6% of enrolled patients were taking agents from all three classes at baseline, and 36% were on treatment with agents from two of the classes.

The next step is to assess adding more refinement to the alert process, Dr. Wilson said. He and his associates are now running a study in which an AKI alert goes to a “kidney action team” that includes a trained clinician and a pharmacist. The team would review the patient who triggered the alert and quickly make an individualized assessment of the best intervention for resolving the AKI.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wilson has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop. Dr. Griffin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

ORLANDO – Automated alerts sent to clinicians via patients’ electronic health records identified patients with diagnosable acute kidney injury (AKI) who were taking one or more medications that could potentially further worsen their renal function. This led to a significant increase in discontinuations of the problematic drugs and better clinical outcomes in a subgroup of patients in a new multicenter, randomized study with more than 5,000 participants.

“Automated alerts for AKI can increase the rate of cessation of potentially nephrotoxic medications without endangering patients,” said F. Perry Wilson, MD, at Kidney Week 2022, organized by the American Society of Nephrology.

Mitchel L Zoler, Medscape Medical News © 2022 WebMD, LLC

In addition, the study provides “limited evidence that these alerts change clinical practice,” said Dr. Wilson, a nephrologist and director of the clinical and translational research accelerator at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

“It was encouraging to get providers to change their behavior” by quickly stopping treatment with potentially nephrotoxic medications in patients with incident AKI. But the results also confirmed that “patient decision-support systems tend to not be panaceas,” Dr. Wilson explained in an interview. Instead, “they tend to marginally improve” patients’ clinical status.

“Our hope is that widespread use may make some difference on a population scale, but rarely are these game changers,” he admitted.

“This was a very nice study showing how we can leverage the EHR to look not only at drugs but also contrast agents to direct educational efforts aimed at clinicians about when to discontinue” these treatments, commented Karen A. Griffin, MD, who was not involved with the study.
 

A danger for alert fatigue

But the results also showed that more research is needed to better refine this approach, added Dr. Griffin, a professor at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and chief of the renal section at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Medical Center in Hines, Ill. And she expressed caution about expanding the alerts that clinicians receive “because of the potential for alert fatigue.”

Dr. Wilson also acknowledged the danger for alert fatigue. “We’re doing these studies to try to reduce the number of alerts,” he said. “Most clinicians say that if we could show an alert improves patient outcomes, they would embrace it.”

Dr. Wilson and associates designed their current study to evaluate an enhanced type of alert that not only warned clinicians that a patient had developed AKI but also gave them an option to potentially intervene by stopping treatment with a medication that could possibly exacerbate worsening renal function. This enhancement followed their experience in a 2021 study that tested a purely informational alert that gave physicians no guidance about what actions to take to more quickly resolve the AKI.

These findings plus results from other studies suggested that “purely informational alerts may not be enough. They need to be linked” to suggested changes in patient management, Dr. Wilson explained.
 

Targeting NSAIDS, RAAS inhibitors, and PPIs

The new study used automated EHR analysis to not only identify patients with incident AKI, but also to flag medications these patients were receiving from any of three classes suspected of worsening renal function: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors (which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers), and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs).

“Our hypothesis was that giving clinicians actionable advice could significantly improve patient outcomes,” Dr. Wilson said. “NSAIDs are frequently discontinued” in patients who develop AKI. “RAAS inhibitors are sometimes discontinued,” although the benefit from doing this remains unproven and controversial. “PPIs are rarely discontinued,” and may be an underappreciated contributor to AKI by causing interstitial nephritis in some patients.

The prospective study included 5,060 adults admitted with a diagnosis of stage 1 AKI at any of four Yale-affiliated teaching hospitals who were also taking agents from at least one of the three targeted drug classes at the time of admission. Clinicians caring for 2,532 of these patients received an alert about the AKI diagnosis and use of the questionable medications, while those caring for the 2,528 control patients received no alert and delivered usual care.

The study excluded patients with higher-risk profiles, including those with extremely elevated serum creatinine levels at admission (4.0 mg/dL or higher), those recently treated with dialysis, and patients with end-stage kidney disease.

The study had two primary outcomes. One measured the impact of the intervention on stopping the targeted drugs. The second assessed the clinical effect of the intervention on progression of AKI to a higher stage, need for dialysis, or death during either the duration of hospitalization or during the first 14 days following randomization.
 

Overall, a 9% relative increase in discontinuations

In general, the intervention had a modest but significant effect on cessation of the targeted drug classes within 24 hours of sending the alert.

Overall, there was about a 58% discontinuation rate among controls and about a 62% discontinuation rate among patients managed using the alerts, a significant 9% relative increase in any drug discontinuation, Dr. Wilson reported.

Discontinuations of NSAIDs occurred at the highest rate, in about 80% of patients in both groups, and the intervention showed no significant effect on stopping agents from this class. Discontinuations of RAAS inhibitors showed the largest absolute difference in between-group effect, about a 10–percentage point increase that represented a significant 14% relative increase in stopping agents from this class. Discontinuations of PPIs occurred at the lowest rate, in roughly 20% of patients, but the alert intervention had the greatest impact by raising the relative rate of stopping by a significant 26% compared with controls.

Analysis of the effect of the intervention on the combined clinical outcome showed a less robust impact. The alerts produced no significant change in the clinical outcome overall, or in the use of NSAIDs or RAAS inhibitors. However, the change in use of PPIs following the alerts significantly linked with a 12% relative drop in the incidence of the combined clinical endpoint of progression of AKI to a higher stage, need for dialysis, or death.

The results were consistent across several prespecified subgroups based on parameters such as age, sex, and race, but these analyses showed a signal that the alerts were most helpful for patients who had serum creatinine levels at admission of less than 0.5 mg/dL.

Dr. Wilson speculated that the alerts might have been especially effective for these patients because their low creatinine levels might otherwise mask AKI onset.

A safety analysis showed no evidence that the alert interventions and drug cessations increased the incidence of any complications.
 

PPIs may distinguish ‘sicker’ patients

Dr. Wilson cited two potential explanations for why the tested alerts appeared most effective for patients taking a PPI at the time of admission. One is that PPIs are underappreciated as a contributor to AKI, a possibility supported by the low rates of discontinuation in both the control and intervention groups.

In addition, treatment with a PPI may be a marker of “sicker” patients who may have more to gain from quicker identification of their AKI. For example, 28% of the patients who were taking a PPI at admission were in the ICU when they entered the study compared with a 14% rate of ICU care among everyone else.

PPIs were also the most-used targeted drug class among enrolled patients, used by 65% at baseline, compared with 53% who were taking a RAAS inhibitor and about 31% who were taking an NSAID. About 6% of enrolled patients were taking agents from all three classes at baseline, and 36% were on treatment with agents from two of the classes.

The next step is to assess adding more refinement to the alert process, Dr. Wilson said. He and his associates are now running a study in which an AKI alert goes to a “kidney action team” that includes a trained clinician and a pharmacist. The team would review the patient who triggered the alert and quickly make an individualized assessment of the best intervention for resolving the AKI.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Wilson has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop. Dr. Griffin has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide led to significant and potentially clinically meaningful cuts in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, compared with placebo, while causing modest increases in heart rate, in a prespecified substudy of the SURMOUNT-1 trial.

“The large effects on ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure raise the possibility that there may be important long-term benefits of [tirzepatide] on the complications of obesity,” said James A. de Lemos, MD, during a presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The findings are concordant with the [previously reported] office-based measurements, and the blood pressure reductions provide further evidence for the potential benefits of tirzepatide on cardiovascular health and outcomes,” said Dr. de Lemos, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The substudy included 600 of the 2,539 people enrolled in SURMOUNT-1, the first of two pivotal trials for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in people without diabetes but with obesity or overweight (body mass index of 27-29 kg/m²) plus at least one weight-related complication. The primary endpoints of SURMOUNT-1 were the percent change in weight from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment with either of three different weekly injected doses of tirzepatide, compared with control subjects who received placebo, and the percentage of enrolled subjects achieving at least 5% loss in baseline weight, compared with the controls.

Tirzepatide treatment led to significant increases in both results, compared with controls, with the highest dose tested, 15 mg/week, resulting in an average 20.9% drop in weight from baseline after 72 weeks of treatment, and 91% of enrolled subjects on that dose achieving the 5% weight-loss threshold during the same time frame, in results published in 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

24-hour ambulatory pressures from 494 people

The substudy enrolled 600 of the SURMOUNT-1 participants and involved 24-hour ambulatory BP and heart rate measurements at entry and after 36 weeks on treatment. Full results were available for 494 of these people. The substudy included only study participants who entered with a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Enrollment in SURMOUNT-1 overall excluded people with a BP of 160/100 mm Hg or higher. The average BP among all enrolled participants was about 123/80 mm Hg, while heart rates averaged about 73 beats per minute.

Systolic BP measured with the ambulatory monitor fell from baseline by an average of 5.6, 8.8, and 6.2 mm Hg in the people who received tirzepatide in weekly doses of 5, 10, or 15 mg, respectively, and rose by an average 1.8 mm Hg among the controls, Dr. de Lemos reported. Diastolic BP dropped among the tirzepatide recipients by an average of 1.5, 2.4, and 0.0 mm Hg in the three ascending tirzepatide treatment arms, and rose by an average 0.5 mm Hg among the controls. All of the differences between the intervention groups and the controls were significant except for the change in diastolic BP among participants who received 15 mg of tirzepatide weekly.

The results showed that 36 weeks on tirzepatide treatment was associated with “arguably clinically meaningful” reductions in systolic and diastolic BPs, Dr. de Lemos said. “There is a lot of optimism that this will translate into clinical benefits.” He also noted that, “within the limits of cross-study comparisons, the blood pressure changes look favorable, compared with the single-incretin mechanism GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists.”

Heart rate fell by an average 1.8 bpm in the controls, and rose by an average 0.3, 0.5, and 3.6 bpm among the three groups receiving ascending weekly tirzepatide doses, effects that were “consistent with what’s been seen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists,” noted Dr. de Lemos.

Tirzepatide is known as a “twincretin” because it shares this GLP-1 receptor agonism and also has a second incretin agonist activity, to the receptor for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Lowering of blood pressure plateaus

Changes in BP over time during the 72 weeks on treatment, data first presented in the original report, showed that average systolic pressure in the people who received tirzepatide fell sharply during the first 24 weeks on treatment, and then leveled out with little further change over time. Furthermore, all three tirzepatide doses produced roughly similar systolic BP reductions. Changes in diastolic pressure over time showed a mostly similar pattern of reduction, although a modest ongoing decrease in average diastolic pressure continued beyond 24 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This pattern of a plateau in BP reduction has been seen before in studies using other treatments to produce weight loss, including bariatric surgery, said Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in SURMOUNT-1. He attributed the plateau in BP reduction among tirzepatide-treated people to them hitting a wall in their BP nadir based on homeostatic limits. Dr. Sattar noted that most enrolled participants had normal BPs at entry based on the reported study averages.

“It’s hard to go lower, but the blood pressure reduction may be larger in people who start at higher pressure levels,” Dr. Sattar said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another inferred cap on BP reductions in the trial hypothesizes that the individual clinicians who managed the enrolled patients may have cut back on other BP-lowering agents as the pressures of the tirzepatide recipients fell to relatively low levels, suggested Darren McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, who also was not involved in the SURMOUNT-1 study.
 

Incretin agonists as antihypertensive drugs

The substantial BP-lowering seen with tirzepatide, as well as with other incretin agonist agents, suggests a new way to think about BP control in people with overweight or obesity, Dr. Sattar said.

“Until now, we haven’t had tools where people lose so much weight. Now that we have these tools [incretin agonists as well as bariatric surgery], we see substantial blood pressure reductions. It makes you think we should use weight-loss agents to lower blood pressure rather than a beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; then we’d also produce all the other benefits from weight loss,” Dr. Sattar suggested.

Dr. de Lemos said he sees signals that the BP reductions caused by tirzepatide and the GLP-1 receptor agonists may go beyond just weight-loss effects.

“There appears to be a larger blood pressure reduction than anticipated based on the change in weight,” he said during his presentation. “GLP-1 is active in most vascular tissues, so these [receptor agonist] agents likely have vascular or cardiac effects, or even effects on other tissues that may affect blood pressure.”
 

Heart rate increases were usually modest

The experiences with GLP-1 receptor agonists also suggest that the heart rate increases seen with tirzepatide treatment in SURMOUNT-1 will not have long-term effects. “The [Food and Drug Administration] mandated this heart rate substudy to make sure that the increase in heart rate was not larger than what would be anticipated” with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, Dr. de Lemos explained.

SURMOUNT-1 had a treatment-stopping rule to prevent a person’s heart rate from rising beyond 10 bpm from baseline. “Trivial numbers” of patients experienced a heart rate increase of this magnitude, he said. If used in routine practice, Dr. de Lemos said that he would closely investigate a patient with a heart rate increase greater than 10 mm Hg. The average increase seen with the highest dose, about 4 bpm above baseline, would generally not be concerning.

Tirzepatide received U.S. marketing approval from the FDA in May 2022 for treating people with type 2 diabetes. In October 2022, the FDA gave tirzepatide “Fast Track” designation for the pending application for approval of an indication to treat people with overweight or obesity who match the entry criteria for SURMOUNT-1 and for the second pivotal trial for this indication, SURMOUNT-2. According to a statement from Eli Lilly, the company that is developing and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), the FDA’s decision on the obesity indication will remain pending until the SURMOUNT-2 results are available, which the company expects will occur in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 were sponsored by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide. Dr. de Lemos has been a consultant to Lilly as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Ortho, Quidel Cardiovascular, and Regeneron. Dr. Sattar has financial ties to Lilly, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hammi, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. McGuire has ties to Lilly as well as to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Lexicon, Merck, Metavant, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide led to significant and potentially clinically meaningful cuts in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, compared with placebo, while causing modest increases in heart rate, in a prespecified substudy of the SURMOUNT-1 trial.

“The large effects on ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure raise the possibility that there may be important long-term benefits of [tirzepatide] on the complications of obesity,” said James A. de Lemos, MD, during a presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The findings are concordant with the [previously reported] office-based measurements, and the blood pressure reductions provide further evidence for the potential benefits of tirzepatide on cardiovascular health and outcomes,” said Dr. de Lemos, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The substudy included 600 of the 2,539 people enrolled in SURMOUNT-1, the first of two pivotal trials for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in people without diabetes but with obesity or overweight (body mass index of 27-29 kg/m²) plus at least one weight-related complication. The primary endpoints of SURMOUNT-1 were the percent change in weight from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment with either of three different weekly injected doses of tirzepatide, compared with control subjects who received placebo, and the percentage of enrolled subjects achieving at least 5% loss in baseline weight, compared with the controls.

Tirzepatide treatment led to significant increases in both results, compared with controls, with the highest dose tested, 15 mg/week, resulting in an average 20.9% drop in weight from baseline after 72 weeks of treatment, and 91% of enrolled subjects on that dose achieving the 5% weight-loss threshold during the same time frame, in results published in 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

24-hour ambulatory pressures from 494 people

The substudy enrolled 600 of the SURMOUNT-1 participants and involved 24-hour ambulatory BP and heart rate measurements at entry and after 36 weeks on treatment. Full results were available for 494 of these people. The substudy included only study participants who entered with a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Enrollment in SURMOUNT-1 overall excluded people with a BP of 160/100 mm Hg or higher. The average BP among all enrolled participants was about 123/80 mm Hg, while heart rates averaged about 73 beats per minute.

Systolic BP measured with the ambulatory monitor fell from baseline by an average of 5.6, 8.8, and 6.2 mm Hg in the people who received tirzepatide in weekly doses of 5, 10, or 15 mg, respectively, and rose by an average 1.8 mm Hg among the controls, Dr. de Lemos reported. Diastolic BP dropped among the tirzepatide recipients by an average of 1.5, 2.4, and 0.0 mm Hg in the three ascending tirzepatide treatment arms, and rose by an average 0.5 mm Hg among the controls. All of the differences between the intervention groups and the controls were significant except for the change in diastolic BP among participants who received 15 mg of tirzepatide weekly.

The results showed that 36 weeks on tirzepatide treatment was associated with “arguably clinically meaningful” reductions in systolic and diastolic BPs, Dr. de Lemos said. “There is a lot of optimism that this will translate into clinical benefits.” He also noted that, “within the limits of cross-study comparisons, the blood pressure changes look favorable, compared with the single-incretin mechanism GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists.”

Heart rate fell by an average 1.8 bpm in the controls, and rose by an average 0.3, 0.5, and 3.6 bpm among the three groups receiving ascending weekly tirzepatide doses, effects that were “consistent with what’s been seen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists,” noted Dr. de Lemos.

Tirzepatide is known as a “twincretin” because it shares this GLP-1 receptor agonism and also has a second incretin agonist activity, to the receptor for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Lowering of blood pressure plateaus

Changes in BP over time during the 72 weeks on treatment, data first presented in the original report, showed that average systolic pressure in the people who received tirzepatide fell sharply during the first 24 weeks on treatment, and then leveled out with little further change over time. Furthermore, all three tirzepatide doses produced roughly similar systolic BP reductions. Changes in diastolic pressure over time showed a mostly similar pattern of reduction, although a modest ongoing decrease in average diastolic pressure continued beyond 24 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This pattern of a plateau in BP reduction has been seen before in studies using other treatments to produce weight loss, including bariatric surgery, said Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in SURMOUNT-1. He attributed the plateau in BP reduction among tirzepatide-treated people to them hitting a wall in their BP nadir based on homeostatic limits. Dr. Sattar noted that most enrolled participants had normal BPs at entry based on the reported study averages.

“It’s hard to go lower, but the blood pressure reduction may be larger in people who start at higher pressure levels,” Dr. Sattar said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another inferred cap on BP reductions in the trial hypothesizes that the individual clinicians who managed the enrolled patients may have cut back on other BP-lowering agents as the pressures of the tirzepatide recipients fell to relatively low levels, suggested Darren McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, who also was not involved in the SURMOUNT-1 study.
 

Incretin agonists as antihypertensive drugs

The substantial BP-lowering seen with tirzepatide, as well as with other incretin agonist agents, suggests a new way to think about BP control in people with overweight or obesity, Dr. Sattar said.

“Until now, we haven’t had tools where people lose so much weight. Now that we have these tools [incretin agonists as well as bariatric surgery], we see substantial blood pressure reductions. It makes you think we should use weight-loss agents to lower blood pressure rather than a beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; then we’d also produce all the other benefits from weight loss,” Dr. Sattar suggested.

Dr. de Lemos said he sees signals that the BP reductions caused by tirzepatide and the GLP-1 receptor agonists may go beyond just weight-loss effects.

“There appears to be a larger blood pressure reduction than anticipated based on the change in weight,” he said during his presentation. “GLP-1 is active in most vascular tissues, so these [receptor agonist] agents likely have vascular or cardiac effects, or even effects on other tissues that may affect blood pressure.”
 

Heart rate increases were usually modest

The experiences with GLP-1 receptor agonists also suggest that the heart rate increases seen with tirzepatide treatment in SURMOUNT-1 will not have long-term effects. “The [Food and Drug Administration] mandated this heart rate substudy to make sure that the increase in heart rate was not larger than what would be anticipated” with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, Dr. de Lemos explained.

SURMOUNT-1 had a treatment-stopping rule to prevent a person’s heart rate from rising beyond 10 bpm from baseline. “Trivial numbers” of patients experienced a heart rate increase of this magnitude, he said. If used in routine practice, Dr. de Lemos said that he would closely investigate a patient with a heart rate increase greater than 10 mm Hg. The average increase seen with the highest dose, about 4 bpm above baseline, would generally not be concerning.

Tirzepatide received U.S. marketing approval from the FDA in May 2022 for treating people with type 2 diabetes. In October 2022, the FDA gave tirzepatide “Fast Track” designation for the pending application for approval of an indication to treat people with overweight or obesity who match the entry criteria for SURMOUNT-1 and for the second pivotal trial for this indication, SURMOUNT-2. According to a statement from Eli Lilly, the company that is developing and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), the FDA’s decision on the obesity indication will remain pending until the SURMOUNT-2 results are available, which the company expects will occur in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 were sponsored by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide. Dr. de Lemos has been a consultant to Lilly as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Ortho, Quidel Cardiovascular, and Regeneron. Dr. Sattar has financial ties to Lilly, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hammi, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. McGuire has ties to Lilly as well as to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Lexicon, Merck, Metavant, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – Treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide led to significant and potentially clinically meaningful cuts in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, compared with placebo, while causing modest increases in heart rate, in a prespecified substudy of the SURMOUNT-1 trial.

“The large effects on ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure raise the possibility that there may be important long-term benefits of [tirzepatide] on the complications of obesity,” said James A. de Lemos, MD, during a presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The findings are concordant with the [previously reported] office-based measurements, and the blood pressure reductions provide further evidence for the potential benefits of tirzepatide on cardiovascular health and outcomes,” said Dr. de Lemos, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The substudy included 600 of the 2,539 people enrolled in SURMOUNT-1, the first of two pivotal trials for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) in people without diabetes but with obesity or overweight (body mass index of 27-29 kg/m²) plus at least one weight-related complication. The primary endpoints of SURMOUNT-1 were the percent change in weight from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment with either of three different weekly injected doses of tirzepatide, compared with control subjects who received placebo, and the percentage of enrolled subjects achieving at least 5% loss in baseline weight, compared with the controls.

Tirzepatide treatment led to significant increases in both results, compared with controls, with the highest dose tested, 15 mg/week, resulting in an average 20.9% drop in weight from baseline after 72 weeks of treatment, and 91% of enrolled subjects on that dose achieving the 5% weight-loss threshold during the same time frame, in results published in 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

24-hour ambulatory pressures from 494 people

The substudy enrolled 600 of the SURMOUNT-1 participants and involved 24-hour ambulatory BP and heart rate measurements at entry and after 36 weeks on treatment. Full results were available for 494 of these people. The substudy included only study participants who entered with a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg. Enrollment in SURMOUNT-1 overall excluded people with a BP of 160/100 mm Hg or higher. The average BP among all enrolled participants was about 123/80 mm Hg, while heart rates averaged about 73 beats per minute.

Systolic BP measured with the ambulatory monitor fell from baseline by an average of 5.6, 8.8, and 6.2 mm Hg in the people who received tirzepatide in weekly doses of 5, 10, or 15 mg, respectively, and rose by an average 1.8 mm Hg among the controls, Dr. de Lemos reported. Diastolic BP dropped among the tirzepatide recipients by an average of 1.5, 2.4, and 0.0 mm Hg in the three ascending tirzepatide treatment arms, and rose by an average 0.5 mm Hg among the controls. All of the differences between the intervention groups and the controls were significant except for the change in diastolic BP among participants who received 15 mg of tirzepatide weekly.

The results showed that 36 weeks on tirzepatide treatment was associated with “arguably clinically meaningful” reductions in systolic and diastolic BPs, Dr. de Lemos said. “There is a lot of optimism that this will translate into clinical benefits.” He also noted that, “within the limits of cross-study comparisons, the blood pressure changes look favorable, compared with the single-incretin mechanism GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists.”

Heart rate fell by an average 1.8 bpm in the controls, and rose by an average 0.3, 0.5, and 3.6 bpm among the three groups receiving ascending weekly tirzepatide doses, effects that were “consistent with what’s been seen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists,” noted Dr. de Lemos.

Tirzepatide is known as a “twincretin” because it shares this GLP-1 receptor agonism and also has a second incretin agonist activity, to the receptor for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Lowering of blood pressure plateaus

Changes in BP over time during the 72 weeks on treatment, data first presented in the original report, showed that average systolic pressure in the people who received tirzepatide fell sharply during the first 24 weeks on treatment, and then leveled out with little further change over time. Furthermore, all three tirzepatide doses produced roughly similar systolic BP reductions. Changes in diastolic pressure over time showed a mostly similar pattern of reduction, although a modest ongoing decrease in average diastolic pressure continued beyond 24 weeks.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This pattern of a plateau in BP reduction has been seen before in studies using other treatments to produce weight loss, including bariatric surgery, said Naveed Sattar, MBChB, PhD, professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, who was not involved in SURMOUNT-1. He attributed the plateau in BP reduction among tirzepatide-treated people to them hitting a wall in their BP nadir based on homeostatic limits. Dr. Sattar noted that most enrolled participants had normal BPs at entry based on the reported study averages.

“It’s hard to go lower, but the blood pressure reduction may be larger in people who start at higher pressure levels,” Dr. Sattar said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Another inferred cap on BP reductions in the trial hypothesizes that the individual clinicians who managed the enrolled patients may have cut back on other BP-lowering agents as the pressures of the tirzepatide recipients fell to relatively low levels, suggested Darren McGuire, MD, a cardiologist and professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, who also was not involved in the SURMOUNT-1 study.
 

Incretin agonists as antihypertensive drugs

The substantial BP-lowering seen with tirzepatide, as well as with other incretin agonist agents, suggests a new way to think about BP control in people with overweight or obesity, Dr. Sattar said.

“Until now, we haven’t had tools where people lose so much weight. Now that we have these tools [incretin agonists as well as bariatric surgery], we see substantial blood pressure reductions. It makes you think we should use weight-loss agents to lower blood pressure rather than a beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; then we’d also produce all the other benefits from weight loss,” Dr. Sattar suggested.

Dr. de Lemos said he sees signals that the BP reductions caused by tirzepatide and the GLP-1 receptor agonists may go beyond just weight-loss effects.

“There appears to be a larger blood pressure reduction than anticipated based on the change in weight,” he said during his presentation. “GLP-1 is active in most vascular tissues, so these [receptor agonist] agents likely have vascular or cardiac effects, or even effects on other tissues that may affect blood pressure.”
 

Heart rate increases were usually modest

The experiences with GLP-1 receptor agonists also suggest that the heart rate increases seen with tirzepatide treatment in SURMOUNT-1 will not have long-term effects. “The [Food and Drug Administration] mandated this heart rate substudy to make sure that the increase in heart rate was not larger than what would be anticipated” with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, Dr. de Lemos explained.

SURMOUNT-1 had a treatment-stopping rule to prevent a person’s heart rate from rising beyond 10 bpm from baseline. “Trivial numbers” of patients experienced a heart rate increase of this magnitude, he said. If used in routine practice, Dr. de Lemos said that he would closely investigate a patient with a heart rate increase greater than 10 mm Hg. The average increase seen with the highest dose, about 4 bpm above baseline, would generally not be concerning.

Tirzepatide received U.S. marketing approval from the FDA in May 2022 for treating people with type 2 diabetes. In October 2022, the FDA gave tirzepatide “Fast Track” designation for the pending application for approval of an indication to treat people with overweight or obesity who match the entry criteria for SURMOUNT-1 and for the second pivotal trial for this indication, SURMOUNT-2. According to a statement from Eli Lilly, the company that is developing and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), the FDA’s decision on the obesity indication will remain pending until the SURMOUNT-2 results are available, which the company expects will occur in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 were sponsored by Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide. Dr. de Lemos has been a consultant to Lilly as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Ortho, Quidel Cardiovascular, and Regeneron. Dr. Sattar has financial ties to Lilly, Afimmune, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hammi, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. McGuire has ties to Lilly as well as to Altimmune, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Lexicon, Merck, Metavant, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A new, expanded meta-analysis confirmed the long-known effect that statin treatment has on raising blood glucose levels and causing incident diabetes, but it also documented that these effects are small and any risk they pose to statin users is dwarfed by the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins and their ability to reduce risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This meta-analysis of 23 trials with a total of more than 150,000 participants showed that statin therapy significantly increased the risk for new-onset diabetes and worsening glycemia, driven by a “very small but generalized increase in glucose,” with a greater effect from high-intensity statin regimens and a similar but somewhat more muted effect from low- and moderate-intensity statin treatment, David Preiss, MBChB, PhD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Preiss also stressed that despite this, “the cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy remain substantial and profound” in people regardless of whether they have diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycemia when they start statin treatment, noting that the impact of even high-intensity statin treatment is “absolutely tiny” increases in hemoglobin A1c and blood glucose.

“This does not detract from the substantial benefit of statin treatment,” declared Dr. Preiss, a metabolic medicine specialist and endocrinologist at Oxford (England) University.
 

Small glycemia increases ‘nudge’ some into diabetes

The data Dr. Preiss reported showed that high-intensity statin treatment (atorvastatin at a daily dose of at least 40 mg, or rosuvastatin at a daily dose of at least 20 mg) led to an average increase in A1c levels of 0.08 percentage points among people without diabetes when their treatment began and 0.24 percentage points among people already diagnosed with diabetes. Blood glucose levels rose by an average of 0.04 mmol/L (less than 1 mg/d) in those without diabetes, and by an average 0.22 mmol/L (about 4 mg/dL) in those with diabetes. People who received low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens had significant but smaller increases.

“We’re not talking about people going from no diabetes to frank diabetes. We’re talking about [statins] nudging a very small number of people across a diabetes threshold,” an A1c of 6.5% that is set somewhat arbitrarily based on an increased risk for developing retinopathy, Dr. Preiss said. ”A person just needs to lose a [daily] can of Coke’s worth of weight to eliminate any apparent diabetes risk,” he noted.
 

Benefit outweighs risks by three- to sevenfold

Dr. Preiss presented two other examples of what his findings showed to illustrate the relatively small risk posed by statin therapy compared with its potential benefits. Treating 10,000 people for 5 years with a high-intensity statin regimen in those with established ASCVD (secondary prevention) would result in an increment of 150 extra people developing diabetes because of the hyperglycemic effect of statins, compared with an expected prevention of 1,000 ASCVD events. Among 10,000 people at high ASCVD risk and taking a high-intensity statin regimen for primary prevention 5 years of treatment would result in roughly 130 extra cases of incident diabetes while preventing about 500 ASCVD events.

In addition, applying the new risk estimates to the people included in the UK Biobank database, whose median A1c is 5.5%, showed that a high-intensity statin regimen could be expected to raise the prevalence of those with an A1c of 6.5% or greater from 4.5% to 5.7%.

Several preventive cardiologists who heard the report and were not involved with the analysis agreed with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statin treatment substantially offset this confirmed hyperglycemic effect.
 

Risk ‘more than counterbalanced by benefit’

“He clearly showed that the small hyperglycemia risk posed by statin use is more than counterbalanced by its benefit for reducing ASCVD events,” commented Neil J. Stone, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. “I agree that, for those with prediabetes who are on the road to diabetes with or without a statin, the small increase in glucose with a statin should not dissuade statin usage because the benefit is so large. Rather, it should focus efforts to improve diet, increase physical activity, and keep weight controlled.”

Dr. Stone also noted in an interview that in the JUPITER trial, which examined the effects of a daily 20-mg dose of rosuvastatin (Crestor), a high-intensity regimen, study participants with diabetes risk factors who were assigned to rosuvastatin had an onset of diabetes that was earlier than people assigned to placebo by only about 5.4 weeks, yet this group had evidence of significant benefit.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“I agree with Dr. Preiss that the benefits of statins in reducing heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death far outweigh their modest effects on glycemia,” commented Brendan M. Everett, MD, a cardiologist and preventive medicine specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is particularly true for those with preexisting prediabetes or diabetes, who have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic events and thus stand to derive more significant benefit from statins. The benefits of lowering LDL cholesterol with a statin for preventing seriously morbid, and potentially fatal, cardiovascular events far outweigh the extremely modest, or even negligible, increases in the risk of diabetes that could be seen with the extremely small increases in A1c,” Dr. Everett said in an interview.

The new findings “reaffirm that there is a increased risk [from statins] but the most important point is that it is a very, very tiny difference in A1c,” commented Marc S. Sabatine, MD, a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “These data have been known for quite some time, but this analysis was done in a more rigorous way.” The finding of “a small increase in risk for diabetes is really because diabetes has a biochemical threshold and statin treatment nudges some people a little past a line that is semi-arbitrary. It’s important to be cognizant of this, but it in no way dissuades me from treating patients aggressively with statins to reduce their ASCVD risk. I would monitor their A1c levels, and if they go higher and can’t be controlled with lifestyle we have plenty of medications that can control it,” he said in an interview.
 

No difference by statin type

The meta-analysis used data from 13 placebo-controlled statin trials that together involved 123,940 participants and had an average 4.3 years of follow-up, and four trials that compared one statin with another and collectively involved 30,734 participants with an average 4.9 years of follow-up.

The analyses showed that high-intensity statin treatment increased the rate of incident diabetes by a significant 36% relative to controls and increased the rate of worsening glycemia by a significant 24% compared with controls. Low- or moderate-intensity statin regimens increased incident diabetes by a significant 10% and raised the incidence of worsening glycemia by a significant 10% compared with controls, Dr. Preiss reported.

These effects did not significantly differ by type of statin (the study included people treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin), nor across a variety of subgroups based on age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes risk, renal function, cholesterol levels, or cardiovascular disease. The effect was also consistent regardless of the duration of treatment.

Dr. Preiss also downplayed the magnitude of the apparent difference in risk posed by high-intensity and less intense statin regimens. “I suspect the apparent heterogeneity is true, but not quite as big as what we see,” he said.

The mechanisms by which statins have this effect remain unclear, but evidence suggests that it may be a direct effect of the main action of statins, inhibition of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Preiss and Dr. Stone had no disclosures. Dr. Everett has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ipsen, Janssen, and Provention. Dr. Sabatine has been a consultant to Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, Intarcia, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.