User login
CHICAGO – Phased withdrawal of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who seemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy resulted in relapses in 40% of patients within 6 months in the TRED-HF trial.
The clinical implications of this small pilot randomized trial are clear: “Withdrawal of therapy should not usually be attempted, at least until we can predict who’s going to relapse and who’s not,” Brian P. Halliday, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Improvement in function represents remission rather than permanent recovery for many patients,” added Dr. Halliday of Imperial College London.
The study was performed to address a question that arises with increasing frequency in clinical practice as a result of the impressive advances in heart failure therapy in recent years, he said. “Patients frequently come to us in clinic and ask us, ‘Do I need to continue to take these medications forever?’ They’re frequently young, and they want to know if they really need to be subject to 40 or 50 years of medication. Some are concerned about side effects, others are interested in pregnancy, and then there is the financial cost.”
Simultaneously published in The Lancet, TRED-HF was a single-center, open-label study of 51 patients who had prior dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25% at the time of diagnosis 4.9 years earlier and who subsequently recovered in response to therapy. That is, they became symptom-free with an LVEF greater than 50%, a normal left ventricular end diastolic volume index, and a reassuringly low median N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NP-pro-BNP) level of 72 ng/L.
For the study, 25 patients were randomized to phased withdrawal of their heart failure drugs over a 16-week period: First they reduced or stopped loop diuretics, then mineralocorticoid antagonists, then beta-blockers, and finally their ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The other 26 participants continued therapy during the first 6 months of the study, then 25 of the 26 crossed over to phased withdrawal. The outlier didn’t cross over because of atrial fibrillation.
The primary endpoint was relapse of DCM within 6 months of the start of the study. Relapse was defined as either a drop in LVEF of more than 10% to a level below 50%, at least a doubling of NT-pro-BNP to greater than 400 ng/L, clinical evidence of heart failure, or a greater than 10% increase in LV end diastolic volume as assessed by cardiac MRI.
The results
During the first half of the study, 11 of 25 patients (44%) relapsed during or after medication withdrawal. None of the controls relapsed. In the crossover phase, 9 of 25 patients (35%) relapsed in response to treatment withdrawal. Of the 20 patients who relapsed, 13 did so within 16 weeks of beginning medication withdrawal. Indeed, most patients relapsed within 8 weeks of their last medication. Ten of the twenty fulfilled multiple criteria for relapse.
Medication withdrawal was accompanied not only by a mean 9.5% reduction in LVEF, compared with baseline, but by a 15.4-bpm rise in heart rate, a 7.0–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, and 5.1-point deterioration in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, demonstrating that what happened off treatment was true DCM recurrence and not simply an imaging artifact.
Everyone who relapsed immediately restarted treatment. At their next follow-up visit, all were once again asymptomatic, and 17 of the 20 (85%) had an LVEF greater than 50%. Two of the other three had an LVEF of 45%-50%, and the other had an LVEF of 43%.
“So they did seem to recover when they went back on medication,” Dr. Halliday observed.
Underpowered exploratory analyses designed for hypothesis generation identified several potential baseline predictors of DCM relapse, including older age, being on three or more heart failure drugs, and use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist.
Experts react
Designated discussant Jane E. Wilcox, MD, commented, “Currently, in 2018, we have no true signature of recovery. These patients are indeed in cardiac remission and have an indefinite indication for continuing their evidence-based medical therapy without interruption.”
“The clinical implication here is, I think, we should TRED-lightly,” quipped Dr. Wilcox of Northwestern University in Chicago.
Her own research indicates that even patients who have recovered their LVEF and no longer seem to have a heart failure phenotype still have an abnormal myocardial substrate as evidenced by persistent dysfunctional cardiac mechanics on echocardiography. Nonetheless, she remains optimistic.
“I don’t think [TRED-HF] squelches the future of myocardial recovery. I think it actually invigorates the field for an assessment of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics looking for that true signature of cardiac recovery,” she said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference where Dr. Halliday presented the TRED-HF results, complimented the investigators for tackling what he termed “an incredibly important clinical question that comes up all the time.”
“I really want to commend the investigators for taking on what, on its face, might be an ethically challenging question by taking treatment away when we don’t know what the answer is likely to be. But they really checked all the boxes to make sure this was done in a very safe and monitored way, so that even though the outcome was what it turned out to be, the harm to patients was minimalized,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine and director of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Chicago.
“No patient wants to be on more medication than they need to be, but I think for the time being this class of patients is going to have to be maintained on medications until we understand a little more,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded.
Dr. Halliday reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.
CHICAGO – Phased withdrawal of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who seemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy resulted in relapses in 40% of patients within 6 months in the TRED-HF trial.
The clinical implications of this small pilot randomized trial are clear: “Withdrawal of therapy should not usually be attempted, at least until we can predict who’s going to relapse and who’s not,” Brian P. Halliday, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Improvement in function represents remission rather than permanent recovery for many patients,” added Dr. Halliday of Imperial College London.
The study was performed to address a question that arises with increasing frequency in clinical practice as a result of the impressive advances in heart failure therapy in recent years, he said. “Patients frequently come to us in clinic and ask us, ‘Do I need to continue to take these medications forever?’ They’re frequently young, and they want to know if they really need to be subject to 40 or 50 years of medication. Some are concerned about side effects, others are interested in pregnancy, and then there is the financial cost.”
Simultaneously published in The Lancet, TRED-HF was a single-center, open-label study of 51 patients who had prior dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25% at the time of diagnosis 4.9 years earlier and who subsequently recovered in response to therapy. That is, they became symptom-free with an LVEF greater than 50%, a normal left ventricular end diastolic volume index, and a reassuringly low median N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NP-pro-BNP) level of 72 ng/L.
For the study, 25 patients were randomized to phased withdrawal of their heart failure drugs over a 16-week period: First they reduced or stopped loop diuretics, then mineralocorticoid antagonists, then beta-blockers, and finally their ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The other 26 participants continued therapy during the first 6 months of the study, then 25 of the 26 crossed over to phased withdrawal. The outlier didn’t cross over because of atrial fibrillation.
The primary endpoint was relapse of DCM within 6 months of the start of the study. Relapse was defined as either a drop in LVEF of more than 10% to a level below 50%, at least a doubling of NT-pro-BNP to greater than 400 ng/L, clinical evidence of heart failure, or a greater than 10% increase in LV end diastolic volume as assessed by cardiac MRI.
The results
During the first half of the study, 11 of 25 patients (44%) relapsed during or after medication withdrawal. None of the controls relapsed. In the crossover phase, 9 of 25 patients (35%) relapsed in response to treatment withdrawal. Of the 20 patients who relapsed, 13 did so within 16 weeks of beginning medication withdrawal. Indeed, most patients relapsed within 8 weeks of their last medication. Ten of the twenty fulfilled multiple criteria for relapse.
Medication withdrawal was accompanied not only by a mean 9.5% reduction in LVEF, compared with baseline, but by a 15.4-bpm rise in heart rate, a 7.0–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, and 5.1-point deterioration in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, demonstrating that what happened off treatment was true DCM recurrence and not simply an imaging artifact.
Everyone who relapsed immediately restarted treatment. At their next follow-up visit, all were once again asymptomatic, and 17 of the 20 (85%) had an LVEF greater than 50%. Two of the other three had an LVEF of 45%-50%, and the other had an LVEF of 43%.
“So they did seem to recover when they went back on medication,” Dr. Halliday observed.
Underpowered exploratory analyses designed for hypothesis generation identified several potential baseline predictors of DCM relapse, including older age, being on three or more heart failure drugs, and use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist.
Experts react
Designated discussant Jane E. Wilcox, MD, commented, “Currently, in 2018, we have no true signature of recovery. These patients are indeed in cardiac remission and have an indefinite indication for continuing their evidence-based medical therapy without interruption.”
“The clinical implication here is, I think, we should TRED-lightly,” quipped Dr. Wilcox of Northwestern University in Chicago.
Her own research indicates that even patients who have recovered their LVEF and no longer seem to have a heart failure phenotype still have an abnormal myocardial substrate as evidenced by persistent dysfunctional cardiac mechanics on echocardiography. Nonetheless, she remains optimistic.
“I don’t think [TRED-HF] squelches the future of myocardial recovery. I think it actually invigorates the field for an assessment of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics looking for that true signature of cardiac recovery,” she said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference where Dr. Halliday presented the TRED-HF results, complimented the investigators for tackling what he termed “an incredibly important clinical question that comes up all the time.”
“I really want to commend the investigators for taking on what, on its face, might be an ethically challenging question by taking treatment away when we don’t know what the answer is likely to be. But they really checked all the boxes to make sure this was done in a very safe and monitored way, so that even though the outcome was what it turned out to be, the harm to patients was minimalized,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine and director of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Chicago.
“No patient wants to be on more medication than they need to be, but I think for the time being this class of patients is going to have to be maintained on medications until we understand a little more,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded.
Dr. Halliday reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.
CHICAGO – Phased withdrawal of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who seemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy resulted in relapses in 40% of patients within 6 months in the TRED-HF trial.
The clinical implications of this small pilot randomized trial are clear: “Withdrawal of therapy should not usually be attempted, at least until we can predict who’s going to relapse and who’s not,” Brian P. Halliday, MD, PhD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Improvement in function represents remission rather than permanent recovery for many patients,” added Dr. Halliday of Imperial College London.
The study was performed to address a question that arises with increasing frequency in clinical practice as a result of the impressive advances in heart failure therapy in recent years, he said. “Patients frequently come to us in clinic and ask us, ‘Do I need to continue to take these medications forever?’ They’re frequently young, and they want to know if they really need to be subject to 40 or 50 years of medication. Some are concerned about side effects, others are interested in pregnancy, and then there is the financial cost.”
Simultaneously published in The Lancet, TRED-HF was a single-center, open-label study of 51 patients who had prior dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 25% at the time of diagnosis 4.9 years earlier and who subsequently recovered in response to therapy. That is, they became symptom-free with an LVEF greater than 50%, a normal left ventricular end diastolic volume index, and a reassuringly low median N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NP-pro-BNP) level of 72 ng/L.
For the study, 25 patients were randomized to phased withdrawal of their heart failure drugs over a 16-week period: First they reduced or stopped loop diuretics, then mineralocorticoid antagonists, then beta-blockers, and finally their ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. The other 26 participants continued therapy during the first 6 months of the study, then 25 of the 26 crossed over to phased withdrawal. The outlier didn’t cross over because of atrial fibrillation.
The primary endpoint was relapse of DCM within 6 months of the start of the study. Relapse was defined as either a drop in LVEF of more than 10% to a level below 50%, at least a doubling of NT-pro-BNP to greater than 400 ng/L, clinical evidence of heart failure, or a greater than 10% increase in LV end diastolic volume as assessed by cardiac MRI.
The results
During the first half of the study, 11 of 25 patients (44%) relapsed during or after medication withdrawal. None of the controls relapsed. In the crossover phase, 9 of 25 patients (35%) relapsed in response to treatment withdrawal. Of the 20 patients who relapsed, 13 did so within 16 weeks of beginning medication withdrawal. Indeed, most patients relapsed within 8 weeks of their last medication. Ten of the twenty fulfilled multiple criteria for relapse.
Medication withdrawal was accompanied not only by a mean 9.5% reduction in LVEF, compared with baseline, but by a 15.4-bpm rise in heart rate, a 7.0–mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure, and 5.1-point deterioration in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, demonstrating that what happened off treatment was true DCM recurrence and not simply an imaging artifact.
Everyone who relapsed immediately restarted treatment. At their next follow-up visit, all were once again asymptomatic, and 17 of the 20 (85%) had an LVEF greater than 50%. Two of the other three had an LVEF of 45%-50%, and the other had an LVEF of 43%.
“So they did seem to recover when they went back on medication,” Dr. Halliday observed.
Underpowered exploratory analyses designed for hypothesis generation identified several potential baseline predictors of DCM relapse, including older age, being on three or more heart failure drugs, and use of a mineralocorticoid antagonist.
Experts react
Designated discussant Jane E. Wilcox, MD, commented, “Currently, in 2018, we have no true signature of recovery. These patients are indeed in cardiac remission and have an indefinite indication for continuing their evidence-based medical therapy without interruption.”
“The clinical implication here is, I think, we should TRED-lightly,” quipped Dr. Wilcox of Northwestern University in Chicago.
Her own research indicates that even patients who have recovered their LVEF and no longer seem to have a heart failure phenotype still have an abnormal myocardial substrate as evidenced by persistent dysfunctional cardiac mechanics on echocardiography. Nonetheless, she remains optimistic.
“I don’t think [TRED-HF] squelches the future of myocardial recovery. I think it actually invigorates the field for an assessment of genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics looking for that true signature of cardiac recovery,” she said.
Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference where Dr. Halliday presented the TRED-HF results, complimented the investigators for tackling what he termed “an incredibly important clinical question that comes up all the time.”
“I really want to commend the investigators for taking on what, on its face, might be an ethically challenging question by taking treatment away when we don’t know what the answer is likely to be. But they really checked all the boxes to make sure this was done in a very safe and monitored way, so that even though the outcome was what it turned out to be, the harm to patients was minimalized,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine and director of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Chicago.
“No patient wants to be on more medication than they need to be, but I think for the time being this class of patients is going to have to be maintained on medications until we understand a little more,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones concluded.
Dr. Halliday reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the British Heart Foundation.
SOURCE: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: The heart failure relapse rate is high after medication withdrawal.
Major finding: Of patients who were seemingly recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy, 40% experienced early relapse following structured medication withdrawal.
Study details: This randomized crossover trial included 51 patients whose medications were withdrawn after their apparent recovery from dilated cardiomyopathy.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the British Heart Foundation. The presenter reported having no financial conflicts.
Source: Halliday BP. AHA scientific sessions, Abstract 18621. Simulpub The Lancet. 2018 Nov 11. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32484-X.