User login
SGLT-2 inhibitors promising for heart failure prevention, not treatment
LOS ANGELES –
They also may play a role in the treatment of patients with known heart failure (HF), but further studies are required to prove definite treatment benefit.
“These trials enrolled a minority of patients with known heart failure, and, in those subgroups, the drugs seems to reduce the risk for hospitalization, opening the possibility of treatment benefit,” Javed Butler, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “But there were not enough patients to conclude this. If you are treating diabetes with these agents in patients with heart failure, more power to you. But don’t think you are treating heart failure per se until the results of the dedicated heart failure trials come out.”
Good glycemic control has not been shown to affect heart failure outcomes per se, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
“People seem to mix the concepts of prevention and treatment together,” he said. “We have now very good evidence across all trials with SGLT-2 inhibitors for prevention of heart failure. But for treatment, we need more data despite favorable early signals.
“Also, these trials include most patients with ischemic heart disease, but we don’t have data on nonischemic etiology for the development of heart failure from these trials,” Dr. Butler added.
The best available data from clinical trials suggest that patients with American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association heart failure classification stages A and B benefit the most from aggressive treatment to prevent HF.
“Either they have diseases like high blood pressure or diabetes, but their hearts are normal, or, perhaps, their hearts are abnormal, and they develop left ventricular hypertrophy or atrial fibrillation,” he said. “However, if someone is stage C – manifest heart failure – or stage D – advanced heart failure – we need further data on novel therapies to improve their outcomes.”
Dr. Butler emphasized that not all heart failure is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease. In fact, the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study showed that the incidence of heart failure increased progressively across age groups, both for those with and without a preceding vascular event (P = .03 and P less than .001, respectively; Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 May;16[5]:526-34). “There’s a whole other world of nonischemic heart failure that we also need to worry about,” he said. “There is a lot of microvascular endothelial dysfunction.”
The combination of heart failure and diabetes is especially lethal. “If you put them together, you’re looking at about a 10-fold higher risk of mortality, which is a horrible prognosis,” Dr. Butler said. “That means that we need to think about prevention and treatment separately.”
Data from the SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS trials show there is no protective effect of dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors when it comes to hospitalization for heart failure.
“The other classes of drugs either increase the risk, or we don’t have very good data,” Dr. Butler said. “So far, across the spectrum of therapies for diabetes, the effect on heart failure is neutral and perhaps confers some risk.”
SGLT-2 inhibitors convey a different story.
In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial, one inclusion criterion was established cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the form of a prior MI, coronary artery disease, stroke, unstable angina, or occlusive peripheral artery disease, but not heart failure alone (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26; 373[22]:2117-28). “This was not a heart failure study, so we don’t know what their New York Heart Association class was, or the details of their baseline HF treatment in the minority of patients who were enrolled who had a history of HF,” Dr. Butler cautioned.
However, the trial found that empagliflozin conferred an overall cardiovascular death risk reduction of 38%, compared with placebo. When the researchers assessed the impact of treatment on all modes of cardiovascular death, they found that death from heart failure benefited the most (hazard ratio, 0.32; P = .0008), while sudden death benefited as well. Empagliflozin also had a significant impact on reduced hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo (HR, 0.65).
“This is a large enough cohort that you should feel comfortable that this drug is preventing heart failure in those with HF at baseline,” said Dr. Butler, who was not involved with the study. “We can have a debate about whether this is a treatment for heart failure or not, but for prevention of heart failure, I feel comfortable that these drugs do that.”
A subsequent study of canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes showed the same result (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17; 377[7]:644-57). It reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 33% (HR, 0.67).
Then came the CVD-REAL study, which found low rates of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death in new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. More recently, DECLARE-TIMI 58 yielded similar results.
“One of the criticisms of these findings is that heart failure characteristics were not well phenotyped in these studies,” Dr. Butler said. “I say it really does not matter. Heart failure hospitalizations are associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of whether the hospitalization occurred in patients without heart failure or in a patient with previously diagnosed heart failure, or whether the patient has reduced or preserved ejection fraction.
“Framingham and other classic studies show us that 5-year mortality for heart failure is about 50%,” he noted. “If you can prevent a disease that has a 5-year mortality of 50%, doesn’t that sound like a really good deal?”
A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmstead County, Minn., during 2000-2010 found that the mortality was 20.2% at 1 year after diagnosis, and 52.6% at 5 years after diagnosis. The data include new-onset HF in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
Specifically, new-onset HF hospitalization was associated with a 1-year post discharge mortality of 21.1% (JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175[6]:996-1004). “We cannot ignore prevention of heart failure,” Dr. Butler said. “Also, for treatment, once you get hospitalized for heart failure, the fundamental natural history of the disease changes. There is a 30% cumulative incremental death risk between the second and third hospitalizations.”
Dr. Butler concluded his presentation by noting that five randomized, controlled trials evaluating SGLT-2 inhibitors in HF have been launched, and should help elucidate any effects the drugs may have in treating the condition. They include EMPEROR-Preserved (NCT03057951), EMPEROR-Reduced (NCT03057977), Dapa-HF (NCT03036124), and SOLOIST-WHF (NCT03521934) and DELIVER (NCT03619213).
Dr. Butler disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the European Union, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also been a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca, which sponsored the EMPA-REG, CANVAS, and DECLARE TIMI 58 trials.
LOS ANGELES –
They also may play a role in the treatment of patients with known heart failure (HF), but further studies are required to prove definite treatment benefit.
“These trials enrolled a minority of patients with known heart failure, and, in those subgroups, the drugs seems to reduce the risk for hospitalization, opening the possibility of treatment benefit,” Javed Butler, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “But there were not enough patients to conclude this. If you are treating diabetes with these agents in patients with heart failure, more power to you. But don’t think you are treating heart failure per se until the results of the dedicated heart failure trials come out.”
Good glycemic control has not been shown to affect heart failure outcomes per se, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
“People seem to mix the concepts of prevention and treatment together,” he said. “We have now very good evidence across all trials with SGLT-2 inhibitors for prevention of heart failure. But for treatment, we need more data despite favorable early signals.
“Also, these trials include most patients with ischemic heart disease, but we don’t have data on nonischemic etiology for the development of heart failure from these trials,” Dr. Butler added.
The best available data from clinical trials suggest that patients with American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association heart failure classification stages A and B benefit the most from aggressive treatment to prevent HF.
“Either they have diseases like high blood pressure or diabetes, but their hearts are normal, or, perhaps, their hearts are abnormal, and they develop left ventricular hypertrophy or atrial fibrillation,” he said. “However, if someone is stage C – manifest heart failure – or stage D – advanced heart failure – we need further data on novel therapies to improve their outcomes.”
Dr. Butler emphasized that not all heart failure is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease. In fact, the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study showed that the incidence of heart failure increased progressively across age groups, both for those with and without a preceding vascular event (P = .03 and P less than .001, respectively; Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 May;16[5]:526-34). “There’s a whole other world of nonischemic heart failure that we also need to worry about,” he said. “There is a lot of microvascular endothelial dysfunction.”
The combination of heart failure and diabetes is especially lethal. “If you put them together, you’re looking at about a 10-fold higher risk of mortality, which is a horrible prognosis,” Dr. Butler said. “That means that we need to think about prevention and treatment separately.”
Data from the SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS trials show there is no protective effect of dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors when it comes to hospitalization for heart failure.
“The other classes of drugs either increase the risk, or we don’t have very good data,” Dr. Butler said. “So far, across the spectrum of therapies for diabetes, the effect on heart failure is neutral and perhaps confers some risk.”
SGLT-2 inhibitors convey a different story.
In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial, one inclusion criterion was established cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the form of a prior MI, coronary artery disease, stroke, unstable angina, or occlusive peripheral artery disease, but not heart failure alone (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26; 373[22]:2117-28). “This was not a heart failure study, so we don’t know what their New York Heart Association class was, or the details of their baseline HF treatment in the minority of patients who were enrolled who had a history of HF,” Dr. Butler cautioned.
However, the trial found that empagliflozin conferred an overall cardiovascular death risk reduction of 38%, compared with placebo. When the researchers assessed the impact of treatment on all modes of cardiovascular death, they found that death from heart failure benefited the most (hazard ratio, 0.32; P = .0008), while sudden death benefited as well. Empagliflozin also had a significant impact on reduced hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo (HR, 0.65).
“This is a large enough cohort that you should feel comfortable that this drug is preventing heart failure in those with HF at baseline,” said Dr. Butler, who was not involved with the study. “We can have a debate about whether this is a treatment for heart failure or not, but for prevention of heart failure, I feel comfortable that these drugs do that.”
A subsequent study of canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes showed the same result (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17; 377[7]:644-57). It reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 33% (HR, 0.67).
Then came the CVD-REAL study, which found low rates of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death in new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. More recently, DECLARE-TIMI 58 yielded similar results.
“One of the criticisms of these findings is that heart failure characteristics were not well phenotyped in these studies,” Dr. Butler said. “I say it really does not matter. Heart failure hospitalizations are associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of whether the hospitalization occurred in patients without heart failure or in a patient with previously diagnosed heart failure, or whether the patient has reduced or preserved ejection fraction.
“Framingham and other classic studies show us that 5-year mortality for heart failure is about 50%,” he noted. “If you can prevent a disease that has a 5-year mortality of 50%, doesn’t that sound like a really good deal?”
A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmstead County, Minn., during 2000-2010 found that the mortality was 20.2% at 1 year after diagnosis, and 52.6% at 5 years after diagnosis. The data include new-onset HF in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
Specifically, new-onset HF hospitalization was associated with a 1-year post discharge mortality of 21.1% (JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175[6]:996-1004). “We cannot ignore prevention of heart failure,” Dr. Butler said. “Also, for treatment, once you get hospitalized for heart failure, the fundamental natural history of the disease changes. There is a 30% cumulative incremental death risk between the second and third hospitalizations.”
Dr. Butler concluded his presentation by noting that five randomized, controlled trials evaluating SGLT-2 inhibitors in HF have been launched, and should help elucidate any effects the drugs may have in treating the condition. They include EMPEROR-Preserved (NCT03057951), EMPEROR-Reduced (NCT03057977), Dapa-HF (NCT03036124), and SOLOIST-WHF (NCT03521934) and DELIVER (NCT03619213).
Dr. Butler disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the European Union, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also been a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca, which sponsored the EMPA-REG, CANVAS, and DECLARE TIMI 58 trials.
LOS ANGELES –
They also may play a role in the treatment of patients with known heart failure (HF), but further studies are required to prove definite treatment benefit.
“These trials enrolled a minority of patients with known heart failure, and, in those subgroups, the drugs seems to reduce the risk for hospitalization, opening the possibility of treatment benefit,” Javed Butler, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “But there were not enough patients to conclude this. If you are treating diabetes with these agents in patients with heart failure, more power to you. But don’t think you are treating heart failure per se until the results of the dedicated heart failure trials come out.”
Good glycemic control has not been shown to affect heart failure outcomes per se, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
“People seem to mix the concepts of prevention and treatment together,” he said. “We have now very good evidence across all trials with SGLT-2 inhibitors for prevention of heart failure. But for treatment, we need more data despite favorable early signals.
“Also, these trials include most patients with ischemic heart disease, but we don’t have data on nonischemic etiology for the development of heart failure from these trials,” Dr. Butler added.
The best available data from clinical trials suggest that patients with American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association heart failure classification stages A and B benefit the most from aggressive treatment to prevent HF.
“Either they have diseases like high blood pressure or diabetes, but their hearts are normal, or, perhaps, their hearts are abnormal, and they develop left ventricular hypertrophy or atrial fibrillation,” he said. “However, if someone is stage C – manifest heart failure – or stage D – advanced heart failure – we need further data on novel therapies to improve their outcomes.”
Dr. Butler emphasized that not all heart failure is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease. In fact, the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study showed that the incidence of heart failure increased progressively across age groups, both for those with and without a preceding vascular event (P = .03 and P less than .001, respectively; Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 May;16[5]:526-34). “There’s a whole other world of nonischemic heart failure that we also need to worry about,” he said. “There is a lot of microvascular endothelial dysfunction.”
The combination of heart failure and diabetes is especially lethal. “If you put them together, you’re looking at about a 10-fold higher risk of mortality, which is a horrible prognosis,” Dr. Butler said. “That means that we need to think about prevention and treatment separately.”
Data from the SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS trials show there is no protective effect of dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors when it comes to hospitalization for heart failure.
“The other classes of drugs either increase the risk, or we don’t have very good data,” Dr. Butler said. “So far, across the spectrum of therapies for diabetes, the effect on heart failure is neutral and perhaps confers some risk.”
SGLT-2 inhibitors convey a different story.
In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial, one inclusion criterion was established cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the form of a prior MI, coronary artery disease, stroke, unstable angina, or occlusive peripheral artery disease, but not heart failure alone (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26; 373[22]:2117-28). “This was not a heart failure study, so we don’t know what their New York Heart Association class was, or the details of their baseline HF treatment in the minority of patients who were enrolled who had a history of HF,” Dr. Butler cautioned.
However, the trial found that empagliflozin conferred an overall cardiovascular death risk reduction of 38%, compared with placebo. When the researchers assessed the impact of treatment on all modes of cardiovascular death, they found that death from heart failure benefited the most (hazard ratio, 0.32; P = .0008), while sudden death benefited as well. Empagliflozin also had a significant impact on reduced hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo (HR, 0.65).
“This is a large enough cohort that you should feel comfortable that this drug is preventing heart failure in those with HF at baseline,” said Dr. Butler, who was not involved with the study. “We can have a debate about whether this is a treatment for heart failure or not, but for prevention of heart failure, I feel comfortable that these drugs do that.”
A subsequent study of canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes showed the same result (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17; 377[7]:644-57). It reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 33% (HR, 0.67).
Then came the CVD-REAL study, which found low rates of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death in new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. More recently, DECLARE-TIMI 58 yielded similar results.
“One of the criticisms of these findings is that heart failure characteristics were not well phenotyped in these studies,” Dr. Butler said. “I say it really does not matter. Heart failure hospitalizations are associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of whether the hospitalization occurred in patients without heart failure or in a patient with previously diagnosed heart failure, or whether the patient has reduced or preserved ejection fraction.
“Framingham and other classic studies show us that 5-year mortality for heart failure is about 50%,” he noted. “If you can prevent a disease that has a 5-year mortality of 50%, doesn’t that sound like a really good deal?”
A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmstead County, Minn., during 2000-2010 found that the mortality was 20.2% at 1 year after diagnosis, and 52.6% at 5 years after diagnosis. The data include new-onset HF in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
Specifically, new-onset HF hospitalization was associated with a 1-year post discharge mortality of 21.1% (JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175[6]:996-1004). “We cannot ignore prevention of heart failure,” Dr. Butler said. “Also, for treatment, once you get hospitalized for heart failure, the fundamental natural history of the disease changes. There is a 30% cumulative incremental death risk between the second and third hospitalizations.”
Dr. Butler concluded his presentation by noting that five randomized, controlled trials evaluating SGLT-2 inhibitors in HF have been launched, and should help elucidate any effects the drugs may have in treating the condition. They include EMPEROR-Preserved (NCT03057951), EMPEROR-Reduced (NCT03057977), Dapa-HF (NCT03036124), and SOLOIST-WHF (NCT03521934) and DELIVER (NCT03619213).
Dr. Butler disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the European Union, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also been a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca, which sponsored the EMPA-REG, CANVAS, and DECLARE TIMI 58 trials.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM WCIRDC 2018
New or existing drugs? Both fuel price inflation
Inflation in existing drugs’ prices and the debut of new drugs are both contributing to the overall rising costs of pharmaceuticals.
.
For oral and injectable specialty drugs, costs increased 20.6% and 12.5%, respectively, with 71.1% and 52.4% attributable to new drugs. Costs of oral and injectable generic drugs grew by 4.4% and 7.3%, also driven by entrants into the market.
Researchers looked at monthly wholesale acquisition costs of 24,877 National Drug Codes for oral drugs and 3,049 injectable drugs from 2005 to 2016. They compared them with pharmacy claims from the UPMC Health Plan, which offers insurance products to more than 3.2 million members across the spectrum of private and public arenas.
“Our analyses yielded three main findings,” explained Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, and her colleagues in a report published in the January 2019 issue of Health Affairs.
“First, costs increased considerably faster than inflation across all drug classes, and increases were highest for oral specialty drugs and lowest for oral generics,” Dr. Hernandez and her colleagues wrote.
“Second, rising costs of brand-name drugs were driven by inflation in the prices of widely used existing drugs,” they added. A combination of new products and price inflation in existing drugs drove the rising costs of specialty drugs, with new drugs accounting for a larger share of the price increases.
Third, “existing generics tended to decrease the average cost of generic drugs,” Dr. Hernandez noted. However, new generic products cost more than those already on the market, which fueled the annual increases in average costs.
The authors noted that their estimates demonstrate the role of inflation on pharmaceutical cost increases and support policy efforts to control that inflation.
“In the current value-based landscape, increasing drug costs attributable to new products can sometimes be justified on the basis of improved outcomes,” Dr. Hernandez and colleagues stated. “However, rising costs due to inflation do not reflect improved value for patients.”
The researchers noted that the data are limited by the lack of rebate information, which is generally proprietary. Thus, “the contribution of existing drugs may have been lower than we estimated,” they noted. In addition, “because the magnitude of rebates has increased in the past decade, our findings likely overestimated cost increases for brand-name drugs.” The researchers also didn’t examine the effect of drugs transitioning from brand to generic offerings.
The authors provided no disclosures.
SOURCE: Hernandez I et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05147.
Inflation in existing drugs’ prices and the debut of new drugs are both contributing to the overall rising costs of pharmaceuticals.
.
For oral and injectable specialty drugs, costs increased 20.6% and 12.5%, respectively, with 71.1% and 52.4% attributable to new drugs. Costs of oral and injectable generic drugs grew by 4.4% and 7.3%, also driven by entrants into the market.
Researchers looked at monthly wholesale acquisition costs of 24,877 National Drug Codes for oral drugs and 3,049 injectable drugs from 2005 to 2016. They compared them with pharmacy claims from the UPMC Health Plan, which offers insurance products to more than 3.2 million members across the spectrum of private and public arenas.
“Our analyses yielded three main findings,” explained Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, and her colleagues in a report published in the January 2019 issue of Health Affairs.
“First, costs increased considerably faster than inflation across all drug classes, and increases were highest for oral specialty drugs and lowest for oral generics,” Dr. Hernandez and her colleagues wrote.
“Second, rising costs of brand-name drugs were driven by inflation in the prices of widely used existing drugs,” they added. A combination of new products and price inflation in existing drugs drove the rising costs of specialty drugs, with new drugs accounting for a larger share of the price increases.
Third, “existing generics tended to decrease the average cost of generic drugs,” Dr. Hernandez noted. However, new generic products cost more than those already on the market, which fueled the annual increases in average costs.
The authors noted that their estimates demonstrate the role of inflation on pharmaceutical cost increases and support policy efforts to control that inflation.
“In the current value-based landscape, increasing drug costs attributable to new products can sometimes be justified on the basis of improved outcomes,” Dr. Hernandez and colleagues stated. “However, rising costs due to inflation do not reflect improved value for patients.”
The researchers noted that the data are limited by the lack of rebate information, which is generally proprietary. Thus, “the contribution of existing drugs may have been lower than we estimated,” they noted. In addition, “because the magnitude of rebates has increased in the past decade, our findings likely overestimated cost increases for brand-name drugs.” The researchers also didn’t examine the effect of drugs transitioning from brand to generic offerings.
The authors provided no disclosures.
SOURCE: Hernandez I et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05147.
Inflation in existing drugs’ prices and the debut of new drugs are both contributing to the overall rising costs of pharmaceuticals.
.
For oral and injectable specialty drugs, costs increased 20.6% and 12.5%, respectively, with 71.1% and 52.4% attributable to new drugs. Costs of oral and injectable generic drugs grew by 4.4% and 7.3%, also driven by entrants into the market.
Researchers looked at monthly wholesale acquisition costs of 24,877 National Drug Codes for oral drugs and 3,049 injectable drugs from 2005 to 2016. They compared them with pharmacy claims from the UPMC Health Plan, which offers insurance products to more than 3.2 million members across the spectrum of private and public arenas.
“Our analyses yielded three main findings,” explained Inmaculada Hernandez, PharmD, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, and her colleagues in a report published in the January 2019 issue of Health Affairs.
“First, costs increased considerably faster than inflation across all drug classes, and increases were highest for oral specialty drugs and lowest for oral generics,” Dr. Hernandez and her colleagues wrote.
“Second, rising costs of brand-name drugs were driven by inflation in the prices of widely used existing drugs,” they added. A combination of new products and price inflation in existing drugs drove the rising costs of specialty drugs, with new drugs accounting for a larger share of the price increases.
Third, “existing generics tended to decrease the average cost of generic drugs,” Dr. Hernandez noted. However, new generic products cost more than those already on the market, which fueled the annual increases in average costs.
The authors noted that their estimates demonstrate the role of inflation on pharmaceutical cost increases and support policy efforts to control that inflation.
“In the current value-based landscape, increasing drug costs attributable to new products can sometimes be justified on the basis of improved outcomes,” Dr. Hernandez and colleagues stated. “However, rising costs due to inflation do not reflect improved value for patients.”
The researchers noted that the data are limited by the lack of rebate information, which is generally proprietary. Thus, “the contribution of existing drugs may have been lower than we estimated,” they noted. In addition, “because the magnitude of rebates has increased in the past decade, our findings likely overestimated cost increases for brand-name drugs.” The researchers also didn’t examine the effect of drugs transitioning from brand to generic offerings.
The authors provided no disclosures.
SOURCE: Hernandez I et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan 2019. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05147.
FROM HEALTH AFFAIRS
Key clinical point: Price inflation in existing drugs and new product introductions are driving increases in pharmaceutical costs.
Major finding: 71% of oral specialty drug price increases during 2005-2019 are attributable to new products.
Study details: Researchers analyzed the wholesale acquisition prices of 24,877 oral drugs and 3,049 injectable drugs and compared them with pharmacy claims across all public and private insurance products offered by the UPMC Health Plan.
Disclosures: The authors provided no disclosures.
Source: Hernandez I et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jan. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05147.
Flu season showing signs of decline
The 2018-2019 flu season may have peaked as measures of influenza-like illness (ILI) activity dropped in the first week of the new year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The proportion of outpatients visits for ILI dropped to 3.5% for the week ending Jan. 5, 2019, after reaching 4.0% the previous week. Outpatient ILI visits first topped the national baseline of 2.2% during the week ending Dec. 8, 2018, and have remained above that value for 5 consecutive weeks, the CDC’s influenza division said on Jan. 11.
Flu activity reported by the states reflects the national drop: 10 states came in at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale of activity for the week ending Jan. 5 – down from 12 the week before – and a total of 15 were in the high range from 8 to 10, compared with 19 the previous week, the CDC said. Two states, Mississippi and Texas, dropped from level 10 to level 7, which the CDC categorizes as moderate activity.
A total of 73 ILI-related deaths were reported during the week ending Dec. 29 (the latest with data available; reporting less than 68% complete), which already exceeds the 71 deaths reported for the week ending Dec. 22 (reporting 85% complete). Flu deaths totaled 437 through the first 13 weeks of the 2018-2019 season, compared with the 1,659 that occurred during weeks 1-13 of the very severe 2017-2018 season, CDC data show.
For the week ending Jan. 5, the CDC received reports of three flu-related pediatric deaths, all of which occurred the previous week. For the season so far, there have been 16 pediatric deaths, compared with 20 at this point in the 2017-2018 season.
Estimates released during the flu season for the first time show that between 6 and 7 million Americans have been infected since Oct. 1, 2018, and that 69,000-84,000 people have been hospitalized with the flu through Jan. 5, 2019. These cumulative totals have previously been available only at the end of the season, the CDC noted.
The 2018-2019 flu season may have peaked as measures of influenza-like illness (ILI) activity dropped in the first week of the new year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The proportion of outpatients visits for ILI dropped to 3.5% for the week ending Jan. 5, 2019, after reaching 4.0% the previous week. Outpatient ILI visits first topped the national baseline of 2.2% during the week ending Dec. 8, 2018, and have remained above that value for 5 consecutive weeks, the CDC’s influenza division said on Jan. 11.
Flu activity reported by the states reflects the national drop: 10 states came in at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale of activity for the week ending Jan. 5 – down from 12 the week before – and a total of 15 were in the high range from 8 to 10, compared with 19 the previous week, the CDC said. Two states, Mississippi and Texas, dropped from level 10 to level 7, which the CDC categorizes as moderate activity.
A total of 73 ILI-related deaths were reported during the week ending Dec. 29 (the latest with data available; reporting less than 68% complete), which already exceeds the 71 deaths reported for the week ending Dec. 22 (reporting 85% complete). Flu deaths totaled 437 through the first 13 weeks of the 2018-2019 season, compared with the 1,659 that occurred during weeks 1-13 of the very severe 2017-2018 season, CDC data show.
For the week ending Jan. 5, the CDC received reports of three flu-related pediatric deaths, all of which occurred the previous week. For the season so far, there have been 16 pediatric deaths, compared with 20 at this point in the 2017-2018 season.
Estimates released during the flu season for the first time show that between 6 and 7 million Americans have been infected since Oct. 1, 2018, and that 69,000-84,000 people have been hospitalized with the flu through Jan. 5, 2019. These cumulative totals have previously been available only at the end of the season, the CDC noted.
The 2018-2019 flu season may have peaked as measures of influenza-like illness (ILI) activity dropped in the first week of the new year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The proportion of outpatients visits for ILI dropped to 3.5% for the week ending Jan. 5, 2019, after reaching 4.0% the previous week. Outpatient ILI visits first topped the national baseline of 2.2% during the week ending Dec. 8, 2018, and have remained above that value for 5 consecutive weeks, the CDC’s influenza division said on Jan. 11.
Flu activity reported by the states reflects the national drop: 10 states came in at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale of activity for the week ending Jan. 5 – down from 12 the week before – and a total of 15 were in the high range from 8 to 10, compared with 19 the previous week, the CDC said. Two states, Mississippi and Texas, dropped from level 10 to level 7, which the CDC categorizes as moderate activity.
A total of 73 ILI-related deaths were reported during the week ending Dec. 29 (the latest with data available; reporting less than 68% complete), which already exceeds the 71 deaths reported for the week ending Dec. 22 (reporting 85% complete). Flu deaths totaled 437 through the first 13 weeks of the 2018-2019 season, compared with the 1,659 that occurred during weeks 1-13 of the very severe 2017-2018 season, CDC data show.
For the week ending Jan. 5, the CDC received reports of three flu-related pediatric deaths, all of which occurred the previous week. For the season so far, there have been 16 pediatric deaths, compared with 20 at this point in the 2017-2018 season.
Estimates released during the flu season for the first time show that between 6 and 7 million Americans have been infected since Oct. 1, 2018, and that 69,000-84,000 people have been hospitalized with the flu through Jan. 5, 2019. These cumulative totals have previously been available only at the end of the season, the CDC noted.
Hospitalist movers and shakers – January 2019
The Michigan chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine has named Peter Watson, MD, SFHM, as state Hospitalist of the Year. Dr. Watson is the vice president of care management and outcomes for Health Alliance Plan (HAP) in Detroit. The Michigan chapter cited Dr. Watson’s leadership in hospital medicine and “generosity of spirit” as reasons for his selection.
Dr. Watson oversees nurses, social workers, and support staff while also serving as HAP Midwest Health Plan’s medical director. He’s a founding member of the Michigan SHM chapter, which he formerly represented as president.
Dr. Watson spent 11 years overseeing the Henry Ford Medical Group’s hospitalist program prior to joining HAP, and still works as an attending hospitalist for Henry Ford.
Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, was named the inaugural chief value officer for NYC Health + Hospitals, which includes 11 hospitals in New York and is the largest public health system in the United States. He will oversee systemwide initiatives in value improvement and the reduction of unnecessary testing and treatment.
Prior to this appointment, Dr. Cho served as an academic hospitalist at Mount Sinai Hospital for 7 years, leading high-value care initiatives. Currently, he is a senior fellow with the Lown Institute in Brookline, Mass., and director of quality improvement implementation for the High Value Practice Academic Alliance.
Nick Fitterman, MD, SFHM, has been promoted to executive director at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital. Dr. Fitterman has been a long-time physician and administrator at Huntington, serving previously as vice chair of medicine as well as head of hospitalists.
Dr. Fitterman has served as president of SHM’s Long Island chapter.
Previously, Dr. Fitterman was chief resident at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and he remains an associate professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
Allen Kachalia, MD, was named director of the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality and senior vice president of patient safety and quality for Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. Dr. Kachalia is a general internist who has been an active academic hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Dr. Kachalia will oversee patient safety and quality across all of Hopkins Medicine, with a focus on ending preventable harm, improving outcomes and patient experience, and reducing waste in the system’s delivery of care. He also will guide academic efforts for the Armstrong Institute, formed recently thanks to a $10 million gift.
In addition to his hospitalist work, Dr. Kachalia comes to Hopkins after serving as chief quality officer and vice president of quality and safety at Brigham Health.
Riane Dodge, PA, has been elevated to director of clinical education in physician assistant studies at Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y. The veteran physician assistant previously worked as a hospitalist in the Claxton Hepburn Medical Center in Ogdensburg, N.Y. There, she cared for patients in acute rehab, mental health, and on regular medical floors.
Dodge also has a background in urgent care and family medicine, and has experience as an emergency department technician.
BUSINESS MOVES
Surgical Affiliates of Sacramento, a surgical hospitalist provider with expertise in trauma, orthopedic, neurosurgery, and general surgery for hospital systems, has added partnerships with Christus Spohn Hospital South and Christus Spohn Hospital Shoreline in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Surgical Affiliates’ hospitalist system will provide round-the-clock emergency orthopedic surgery service to adult and pediatric patients in the two hospitals. With Surgical Affiliates’ help, Christus Spohn facilities will be able to cover its own patients, as well as those requiring transfer from regional hospitals.
Hospitalist surgeons will handle emergency surgeries and patient surgery consultations. Clinics will be provided at each facility to care for patients after they are discharged.
The Michigan chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine has named Peter Watson, MD, SFHM, as state Hospitalist of the Year. Dr. Watson is the vice president of care management and outcomes for Health Alliance Plan (HAP) in Detroit. The Michigan chapter cited Dr. Watson’s leadership in hospital medicine and “generosity of spirit” as reasons for his selection.
Dr. Watson oversees nurses, social workers, and support staff while also serving as HAP Midwest Health Plan’s medical director. He’s a founding member of the Michigan SHM chapter, which he formerly represented as president.
Dr. Watson spent 11 years overseeing the Henry Ford Medical Group’s hospitalist program prior to joining HAP, and still works as an attending hospitalist for Henry Ford.
Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, was named the inaugural chief value officer for NYC Health + Hospitals, which includes 11 hospitals in New York and is the largest public health system in the United States. He will oversee systemwide initiatives in value improvement and the reduction of unnecessary testing and treatment.
Prior to this appointment, Dr. Cho served as an academic hospitalist at Mount Sinai Hospital for 7 years, leading high-value care initiatives. Currently, he is a senior fellow with the Lown Institute in Brookline, Mass., and director of quality improvement implementation for the High Value Practice Academic Alliance.
Nick Fitterman, MD, SFHM, has been promoted to executive director at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital. Dr. Fitterman has been a long-time physician and administrator at Huntington, serving previously as vice chair of medicine as well as head of hospitalists.
Dr. Fitterman has served as president of SHM’s Long Island chapter.
Previously, Dr. Fitterman was chief resident at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and he remains an associate professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
Allen Kachalia, MD, was named director of the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality and senior vice president of patient safety and quality for Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. Dr. Kachalia is a general internist who has been an active academic hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Dr. Kachalia will oversee patient safety and quality across all of Hopkins Medicine, with a focus on ending preventable harm, improving outcomes and patient experience, and reducing waste in the system’s delivery of care. He also will guide academic efforts for the Armstrong Institute, formed recently thanks to a $10 million gift.
In addition to his hospitalist work, Dr. Kachalia comes to Hopkins after serving as chief quality officer and vice president of quality and safety at Brigham Health.
Riane Dodge, PA, has been elevated to director of clinical education in physician assistant studies at Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y. The veteran physician assistant previously worked as a hospitalist in the Claxton Hepburn Medical Center in Ogdensburg, N.Y. There, she cared for patients in acute rehab, mental health, and on regular medical floors.
Dodge also has a background in urgent care and family medicine, and has experience as an emergency department technician.
BUSINESS MOVES
Surgical Affiliates of Sacramento, a surgical hospitalist provider with expertise in trauma, orthopedic, neurosurgery, and general surgery for hospital systems, has added partnerships with Christus Spohn Hospital South and Christus Spohn Hospital Shoreline in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Surgical Affiliates’ hospitalist system will provide round-the-clock emergency orthopedic surgery service to adult and pediatric patients in the two hospitals. With Surgical Affiliates’ help, Christus Spohn facilities will be able to cover its own patients, as well as those requiring transfer from regional hospitals.
Hospitalist surgeons will handle emergency surgeries and patient surgery consultations. Clinics will be provided at each facility to care for patients after they are discharged.
The Michigan chapter of the Society of Hospital Medicine has named Peter Watson, MD, SFHM, as state Hospitalist of the Year. Dr. Watson is the vice president of care management and outcomes for Health Alliance Plan (HAP) in Detroit. The Michigan chapter cited Dr. Watson’s leadership in hospital medicine and “generosity of spirit” as reasons for his selection.
Dr. Watson oversees nurses, social workers, and support staff while also serving as HAP Midwest Health Plan’s medical director. He’s a founding member of the Michigan SHM chapter, which he formerly represented as president.
Dr. Watson spent 11 years overseeing the Henry Ford Medical Group’s hospitalist program prior to joining HAP, and still works as an attending hospitalist for Henry Ford.
Hyung (Harry) Cho, MD, was named the inaugural chief value officer for NYC Health + Hospitals, which includes 11 hospitals in New York and is the largest public health system in the United States. He will oversee systemwide initiatives in value improvement and the reduction of unnecessary testing and treatment.
Prior to this appointment, Dr. Cho served as an academic hospitalist at Mount Sinai Hospital for 7 years, leading high-value care initiatives. Currently, he is a senior fellow with the Lown Institute in Brookline, Mass., and director of quality improvement implementation for the High Value Practice Academic Alliance.
Nick Fitterman, MD, SFHM, has been promoted to executive director at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital. Dr. Fitterman has been a long-time physician and administrator at Huntington, serving previously as vice chair of medicine as well as head of hospitalists.
Dr. Fitterman has served as president of SHM’s Long Island chapter.
Previously, Dr. Fitterman was chief resident at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and he remains an associate professor at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
Allen Kachalia, MD, was named director of the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality and senior vice president of patient safety and quality for Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. Dr. Kachalia is a general internist who has been an active academic hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
Dr. Kachalia will oversee patient safety and quality across all of Hopkins Medicine, with a focus on ending preventable harm, improving outcomes and patient experience, and reducing waste in the system’s delivery of care. He also will guide academic efforts for the Armstrong Institute, formed recently thanks to a $10 million gift.
In addition to his hospitalist work, Dr. Kachalia comes to Hopkins after serving as chief quality officer and vice president of quality and safety at Brigham Health.
Riane Dodge, PA, has been elevated to director of clinical education in physician assistant studies at Clarkson University, Potsdam, N.Y. The veteran physician assistant previously worked as a hospitalist in the Claxton Hepburn Medical Center in Ogdensburg, N.Y. There, she cared for patients in acute rehab, mental health, and on regular medical floors.
Dodge also has a background in urgent care and family medicine, and has experience as an emergency department technician.
BUSINESS MOVES
Surgical Affiliates of Sacramento, a surgical hospitalist provider with expertise in trauma, orthopedic, neurosurgery, and general surgery for hospital systems, has added partnerships with Christus Spohn Hospital South and Christus Spohn Hospital Shoreline in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Surgical Affiliates’ hospitalist system will provide round-the-clock emergency orthopedic surgery service to adult and pediatric patients in the two hospitals. With Surgical Affiliates’ help, Christus Spohn facilities will be able to cover its own patients, as well as those requiring transfer from regional hospitals.
Hospitalist surgeons will handle emergency surgeries and patient surgery consultations. Clinics will be provided at each facility to care for patients after they are discharged.
RE-SPECT ESUS: Dabigatran matched aspirin for second stroke prevention
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: A second stroke occurred at 4.1%/year with dabigatran and 4.8%/year with aspirin, not a statistically significant difference.
Study details: RE-SPECT ESUS, an international randomized trial with 5,390 ESUS patients.
Disclosures: RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
Source: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
AAN publishes position statement on brain death
In a position statement published online ahead of print Jan. 2 in Neurology, Such uniformity would reduce uncertainty and improve patient care, according to the authors. The statement, which was drafted by the AAN’s Brain Death Working Group, also supports the development of uniform policies regarding brain death and its determination within American medical institutions. Finally, the document provides neurologists with guidance for responding to requests for accommodation, including objections to the determination of brain death and to the withdrawal of organ-sustaining technology.
The AAN defines brain death as death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the entire brain. The Uniform Determination of Death Act of 1981 held that brain death and circulatory death (that is, death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the circulatory system) are equivalent, and the AAN acknowledges this equivalence.
The two current medical standards for brain death are the AAN’s 2010 Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults and the 2011 Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children, which was published by the pediatric section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the sections of neurology and critical care of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Neurology Society. “The AAN is unaware of any cases in which compliant application of the brain death guidelines led to inaccurate determination of death with return of any brain function, including consciousness, brainstem reflexes, or ventilatory effort,” according to their 2019 statement.
The only jurisdiction with laws that specifically defer to these standards, however, is Nevada. The vagueness of most states’ laws has contributed to divergent legal interpretations and idiosyncratic standards for determining brain death, according to the statement.
“The AAN believes that a specific, uniform standard for the determination of brain death is critically important to provide the highest quality patient-centered neurologic and end-of-life care,” said James Russell, DO, MS, a neurologist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass., and lead author of the position statement. “The AAN supports the development of legislation in every state modeled after the Nevada statute, which specifically defers to these current adult and pediatric brain death guidelines and any future updates.”
In addition to uniform institutional policies for determining brain death within U.S. medical facilities, the AAN calls for the development of training programs and credentialing mechanisms for physicians who determine brain death, regardless of their specialties. The association also supports research that enhances understanding of brain death and enhanced professional and public education.
While expressing respect and sympathy for requests for limited accommodation, the AAN asserts that these requests “must be based on the values of the patient, and not those of loved ones or other surrogate decision makers.” The association further observes that physicians have no ethical obligation to provide medical treatment to a deceased patient. New Jersey is the only state that legally obliges physicians to provide indefinite accommodation and continued application of organ-sustaining technology.
“The AAN believes that its members have both the moral authority and professional responsibility, when lawful, to perform a brain death evaluation, including apnea testing, after informing a patient’s loved ones or lawful surrogates of that intention, but without obligation to obtain informed consent,” according to the statement. “This position is analogous to the authority and responsibility historically granted to the medical profession to determine circulatory death without the requirement for additional informed consent.”
If a dispute about indefinite accommodation cannot be resolved, it is acceptable for a physician to withdraw organ-sustaining technology unilaterally over the objection of loved ones when legally permitted, according to the AAN. Such unilateral action is a measure of last resort and does not apply when the patient is a pregnant woman, said the authors. In the latter case, the ethical analysis should focus mainly on the welfare of the fetus.
The AAN provided financial support for the Brain Death Working Group’s efforts. The statement’s authors reported no relevant disclosures. The American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society have endorsed the AAN’s position statement.
SOURCE: Russell JA et al. Neurology. 2018 Jan 2. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750.
In a position statement published online ahead of print Jan. 2 in Neurology, Such uniformity would reduce uncertainty and improve patient care, according to the authors. The statement, which was drafted by the AAN’s Brain Death Working Group, also supports the development of uniform policies regarding brain death and its determination within American medical institutions. Finally, the document provides neurologists with guidance for responding to requests for accommodation, including objections to the determination of brain death and to the withdrawal of organ-sustaining technology.
The AAN defines brain death as death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the entire brain. The Uniform Determination of Death Act of 1981 held that brain death and circulatory death (that is, death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the circulatory system) are equivalent, and the AAN acknowledges this equivalence.
The two current medical standards for brain death are the AAN’s 2010 Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults and the 2011 Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children, which was published by the pediatric section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the sections of neurology and critical care of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Neurology Society. “The AAN is unaware of any cases in which compliant application of the brain death guidelines led to inaccurate determination of death with return of any brain function, including consciousness, brainstem reflexes, or ventilatory effort,” according to their 2019 statement.
The only jurisdiction with laws that specifically defer to these standards, however, is Nevada. The vagueness of most states’ laws has contributed to divergent legal interpretations and idiosyncratic standards for determining brain death, according to the statement.
“The AAN believes that a specific, uniform standard for the determination of brain death is critically important to provide the highest quality patient-centered neurologic and end-of-life care,” said James Russell, DO, MS, a neurologist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass., and lead author of the position statement. “The AAN supports the development of legislation in every state modeled after the Nevada statute, which specifically defers to these current adult and pediatric brain death guidelines and any future updates.”
In addition to uniform institutional policies for determining brain death within U.S. medical facilities, the AAN calls for the development of training programs and credentialing mechanisms for physicians who determine brain death, regardless of their specialties. The association also supports research that enhances understanding of brain death and enhanced professional and public education.
While expressing respect and sympathy for requests for limited accommodation, the AAN asserts that these requests “must be based on the values of the patient, and not those of loved ones or other surrogate decision makers.” The association further observes that physicians have no ethical obligation to provide medical treatment to a deceased patient. New Jersey is the only state that legally obliges physicians to provide indefinite accommodation and continued application of organ-sustaining technology.
“The AAN believes that its members have both the moral authority and professional responsibility, when lawful, to perform a brain death evaluation, including apnea testing, after informing a patient’s loved ones or lawful surrogates of that intention, but without obligation to obtain informed consent,” according to the statement. “This position is analogous to the authority and responsibility historically granted to the medical profession to determine circulatory death without the requirement for additional informed consent.”
If a dispute about indefinite accommodation cannot be resolved, it is acceptable for a physician to withdraw organ-sustaining technology unilaterally over the objection of loved ones when legally permitted, according to the AAN. Such unilateral action is a measure of last resort and does not apply when the patient is a pregnant woman, said the authors. In the latter case, the ethical analysis should focus mainly on the welfare of the fetus.
The AAN provided financial support for the Brain Death Working Group’s efforts. The statement’s authors reported no relevant disclosures. The American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society have endorsed the AAN’s position statement.
SOURCE: Russell JA et al. Neurology. 2018 Jan 2. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750.
In a position statement published online ahead of print Jan. 2 in Neurology, Such uniformity would reduce uncertainty and improve patient care, according to the authors. The statement, which was drafted by the AAN’s Brain Death Working Group, also supports the development of uniform policies regarding brain death and its determination within American medical institutions. Finally, the document provides neurologists with guidance for responding to requests for accommodation, including objections to the determination of brain death and to the withdrawal of organ-sustaining technology.
The AAN defines brain death as death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the entire brain. The Uniform Determination of Death Act of 1981 held that brain death and circulatory death (that is, death resulting from irreversible loss of function of the circulatory system) are equivalent, and the AAN acknowledges this equivalence.
The two current medical standards for brain death are the AAN’s 2010 Evidence-Based Guideline Update: Determining Brain Death in Adults and the 2011 Guidelines for the Determination of Brain Death in Infants and Children, which was published by the pediatric section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the sections of neurology and critical care of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Neurology Society. “The AAN is unaware of any cases in which compliant application of the brain death guidelines led to inaccurate determination of death with return of any brain function, including consciousness, brainstem reflexes, or ventilatory effort,” according to their 2019 statement.
The only jurisdiction with laws that specifically defer to these standards, however, is Nevada. The vagueness of most states’ laws has contributed to divergent legal interpretations and idiosyncratic standards for determining brain death, according to the statement.
“The AAN believes that a specific, uniform standard for the determination of brain death is critically important to provide the highest quality patient-centered neurologic and end-of-life care,” said James Russell, DO, MS, a neurologist at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center in Burlington, Mass., and lead author of the position statement. “The AAN supports the development of legislation in every state modeled after the Nevada statute, which specifically defers to these current adult and pediatric brain death guidelines and any future updates.”
In addition to uniform institutional policies for determining brain death within U.S. medical facilities, the AAN calls for the development of training programs and credentialing mechanisms for physicians who determine brain death, regardless of their specialties. The association also supports research that enhances understanding of brain death and enhanced professional and public education.
While expressing respect and sympathy for requests for limited accommodation, the AAN asserts that these requests “must be based on the values of the patient, and not those of loved ones or other surrogate decision makers.” The association further observes that physicians have no ethical obligation to provide medical treatment to a deceased patient. New Jersey is the only state that legally obliges physicians to provide indefinite accommodation and continued application of organ-sustaining technology.
“The AAN believes that its members have both the moral authority and professional responsibility, when lawful, to perform a brain death evaluation, including apnea testing, after informing a patient’s loved ones or lawful surrogates of that intention, but without obligation to obtain informed consent,” according to the statement. “This position is analogous to the authority and responsibility historically granted to the medical profession to determine circulatory death without the requirement for additional informed consent.”
If a dispute about indefinite accommodation cannot be resolved, it is acceptable for a physician to withdraw organ-sustaining technology unilaterally over the objection of loved ones when legally permitted, according to the AAN. Such unilateral action is a measure of last resort and does not apply when the patient is a pregnant woman, said the authors. In the latter case, the ethical analysis should focus mainly on the welfare of the fetus.
The AAN provided financial support for the Brain Death Working Group’s efforts. The statement’s authors reported no relevant disclosures. The American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society have endorsed the AAN’s position statement.
SOURCE: Russell JA et al. Neurology. 2018 Jan 2. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Key clinical point: The AAN calls for uniform brain death laws, policies, and practices.
Major finding: The association published a position statement online on January 2.
Study details: The AAN’s Brain Death Working Group drafted the statement.
Disclosures: The authors reported no relevant disclosures, and the American Academy of Neurology funded their work.
Source: Russell JA et al. Neurology. 2018 Jan 2. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006750.
The state of hospital medicine in 2018
Productivity, pay, and roles remain center stage
In a national health care environment undergoing unprecedented transformation, the specialty of hospital medicine appears to be an island of relative stability, a conclusion that is supported by the principal findings from SHM’s 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report.
The report of hospitalist group practice characteristics, as well as other key data defining the field’s current status, that the Society of Hospital Medicine puts out every 2 years reveals that overall salaries for hospitalist physicians are up by 3.8% since 2016. Although productivity, as measured by work relative value units (RVUs), remained largely flat over the same period, financial support per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician position to hospitalist groups from their hospitals and health systems is up significantly.
Total support per FTE averaged $176,657 in 2018, 12% higher than in 2016, noted Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM, of Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, which oversees the biennial survey. Compensation and productivity data were collected by the Medical Group Management Association and licensed by SHM for inclusion in its report.
These findings – particularly the flat productivity – raise questions about long-term sustainability, Ms. Flores said. “What is going on? Do hospital administrators still recognize the value hospitalists bring to the operations and the quality of their hospitals? Or is paying the subsidy just a cost of doing business – a necessity for most hospitals in a setting where demand for hospitalist positions remains high?”
Andrew White, MD, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee and director of the hospital medicine service at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said basic market forces dictate that it is “pretty much inconceivable” to run a modern hospital of any size without hospitalists.
“Clearly, demand outstrips supply, which drives up salaries and support, whether CEOs feel that the hospitalist group is earning that support or not,” Dr. White said. “The unfilled hospitalist positions we identified speak to ongoing projected greater demand than supply. That said, hospitalists and group leaders can’t be complacent and must collaborate effectively with hospitals to provide highly valuable services.” Turnover of hospitalist positions was up slightly, he noted, at 7.4% in 2018, from 6.9% in 2016, reversing a trend of previous years.
But will these trends continue at a time when hospitals face continued pressure to cut costs, as the hospital medicine subsidy may represent one of their largest cost centers? Because the size of hospitalist groups continues to grow, hospitals’ total subsidy for hospital medicine is going up faster than the percentage increase in support per FTE.
How do hospitalists use the SoHM report?
Dr. White called the 2018 SoHM report the “most representative and balanced sample to date” of hospitalist group practices, with some of the highest quality data, thanks to more robust participation in the survey by pediatric groups and improved distribution among hospitalist management companies and academic programs.
“Not that past reports had major flaws, but this version is more authoritative, reflecting an intentional effort by our Practice Analysis Committee to bring in more participants from key groups,” he said.
The biennial report has been around long enough to achieve brand recognition in the field as the most authoritative source of information regarding hospitalist practice, he added. “We worked hard this year to balance the participants, with more of our responses than in the past coming from multi-hospital groups, whether 4 to 5 sites, or 20 to 30.”
Surveys were conducted online in January and February of 2018 in response to invitations mailed and emailed to targeted hospital medicine group leaders. A total of 569 groups completed the survey, representing 8,889 hospitalist FTEs, approximately 16% of the total hospitalist workforce. Responses were presented in several categories, including by size of program, region and employment model. Groups that care for adults only represented 87.9% of the surveys, while groups that care for children only were 6.7% and groups that care for both adults and children were 5.4%.
“This survey doesn’t tell us what should be best practice in hospital medicine,” Dr. White said, only what is actual current practice. He uses it in his own health system to not only contextualize and justify his group’s performance metrics for hospital administrators – relative to national and categorical averages – but also to see if the direction his group is following is consistent with what’s going on in the larger field.
“These data offer a very powerful resource regarding the trends in hospital medicine,” said Romil Chadha, MD, MPH, FACP, SFHM, associate division chief for operations in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky and UK Healthcare, Lexington. “It is my repository of data to go before my administrators for decisions that need to be made or to pilot new programs.” 
Dr. Chadha also uses the data to help answer compensation, scheduling, and support questions from his group’s members.
Thomas McIlraith, MD, immediate past chairman of the hospital medicine department at Mercy Medical Group, Sacramento, Calif., said the report’s value is that it allows comparisons of salaries in different settings, and to see, for example, how night staffing is structured. “A lot of leaders I spoke to at SHM’s 2018 Leadership Academy in Vancouver were saying they didn’t feel up to parity with the national standards. You can use the report to look at the state of hospital medicine nationally and make comparisons,” he said.
Calls for more productivity
Roberta Himebaugh, MBA, SFHM, senior vice president of acute care services for the national hospitalist management company TeamHealth, and cochair of the SHM Practice Administrators Special Interest Group, said her company’s clients have traditionally asked for greater productivity from their hospitalist contracts as a way to decrease overall costs. Some markets are starting to see a change in that approach, she noted.
“Recently there’s been an increased focus on paying hospitalists to focus on quality rather than just productivity. Some of our clients are willing to pay for that, and we are trying to assign value to this non-billable time or adjust our productivity standards appropriately. I think hospitals definitely understand the value of non-billable services from hospitalists, but still will push us on the productivity targets,” Ms. Himebaugh said.
“I don’t believe hospital medicine can be sustainable long term on flat productivity or flat RVUs,” she added. “Yet the costs of burnout associated with pushing higher productivity are not sustainable, either.” So what are the answers? She said many inefficiencies are involved in responding to inquiries on the floor that could have been addressed another way, or waiting for the turnaround of diagnostic tests.
“Maybe we don’t need physicians to be in the hospital 24/7 if we have access to telehealth, or a partnership with the emergency department, or greater use of advanced care practice providers,” Ms. Himebaugh said. “Our hospitals are examining those options, and we have to look at how we can become more efficient and less costly. At TeamHealth, we are trying to staff for value – looking at patient flow patterns and adjusting our schedules accordingly. Is there a bolus of admissions tied to emergency department shift changes, or to certain days of the week? How can we move from the 12-hour shift that begins at 7 a.m. and ends at 7 p.m., and instead provide coverage for when the patients are there?”
Mark Williams, MD, MHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said he appreciates the volume of data in the report but wishes for even more survey participants, which could make the breakouts for subgroups such as academic hospitalists more robust. Other current sources of hospitalist salary data include the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which produces compensation reports to help medical schools and teaching hospitals with benchmarking, and the Faculty Practice Solution Center developed jointly by AAMC and Vizient to provide faculty practice plans with analytic tools. The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) is another valuable source of information, some of which was licensed for inclusion in the SoHM report.
“There is no source of absolute truth that hospitalists can point to,” Dr. Williams said. “I will present my data and my administrators will reply: ‘We have our own data.’ Our institution has consistently ranked first or second nationwide for the sickest patients. We take more Medicaid and dually eligible patients, who have a lot of social issues. They take a lot of time to manage medically and the RVUs don’t reflect that. And yet I’m still judged by my RVUs generated per hospitalist. Hospital administrators understandably want to get the most productivity, and they are looking for their own data for average productivity numbers.”
Ryan Brown, MD, specialty medical director for hospital medicine with Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., said that hospital medicine’s flat productivity trends would be difficult to sustain in the business world. But there aren’t easy or obvious ways to increase hospitalists’ productivity. The SoHM report also shows that as productivity increases, total compensation increases but at a lower rate, resulting in a gradual decrease in compensation per RVU.
Pressures to increase productivity can be a double-edged sword, Dr. Williams added. Demanding that doctors make more billable visits faster to generate more RVUs can be a recipe for burnout and turnover, with huge costs associated with recruiting replacements.
“If there was recent turnover of hospitalists at the hospital, with the need to find replacements, there may be institutional memory about that,” he said. “But where are hospitals spending their money? Bottom line, we still need to learn to cut our costs.”
How is hospitalist practice evolving?
In addition to payment and productivity data, the SoHM report provides a current picture of the evolving state of hospitalist group practices. A key thread is how the work hospitalists are doing, and the way they do it, is changing, with new information about comanagement roles, dedicated admitters, night coverage, geographic rounding, and the like.
Making greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs), may be one way to change the flat productivity trends, Dr. Brown said. With a cost per RVU that’s roughly half that of a doctor’s, NPs/PAs could contribute to the bottom line. But he sees surprisingly large variation in how hospitalist groups are using them. Typically, they are deployed at a ratio of four doctors to one NP/PA, but that ratio could be two to one or even one to one, he said.
Use of NPs/PAs by academic hospitalist groups is up, from 52.1% in 2016 to 75.7% in 2018. For adult-only groups, 76.8% had NPs/PAs, with higher rates in hospitals and health systems and lower rates in the West region. But a lot of groups are using these practitioners for nonproductive work, and some are failing to generate any billing income, Dr. Brown said.
“The rate at which NPs/PAs performed billable services was higher in physician-owned practices, resulting in a lower cost per RVU, suggesting that many practices may be underutilizing their NPs/PAs or not sharing the work.” Not every NP or PA wants to or is able to care for very complex patients, Dr. Brown said, “but you want a system where the NP and PA can work at the highest level permitted by state law.”
The predominant scheduling model of hospital medicine, 7 days on duty followed by 7 days off, has diminished somewhat in recent years. There appears to be some fluctuation and a gradual move away from 7 on/7 off toward some kind of variable approach, since the former may not be physically sustainable for the doctor over the long haul, Dr. Brown said. Some groups are experimenting with a combined approach.
“I think balancing workload with manpower has always been a challenge for our field. Maybe we should be working shorter shifts or fewer days and making sure our hospitalists aren’t ever sitting around idle,” he said. “And could we come in on nonclinical days to do administrative tasks? I think the solution is out there, but we haven’t created the algorithms to define that yet. If you could somehow use the data for volume, number of beds, nurse staffing, etc., by year and seasonally, you might be able to reliably predict census. This is about applying data hospitals already have in their electronic health records, but utilizing the data in ways that are more helpful.”
Dr. McIlraith added that a big driver of the future of hospital medicine will be the evolution of the EHR and the digitalization of health care, as hospitals learn how to leverage more of what’s in their EHRs. “The impact will grow for hospitalists through the creation and maturation of big data systems – and the learning that can be extracted from what’s contained in the electronic health record.”
Another important question for hospitalist groups is their model of backup scheduling, to make sure there is a replacement available if a scheduled doctor calls in sick or if demand is unexpectedly high.
“In today’s world, this is how we have traditionally managed unpredictability,” Dr. Brown said. “You don’t know when you will need it, but if you need it, you want it immediately. So how do you pay for it – only when the doctor comes in, or also an amount just for being on call?” Some groups pay for both, he said, others for neither.
“We are a group of 70 hospitalists, and if someone is sick you can’t just shut down the service,” said Dr. Chadha. “We are one of the few to use incentives for both, which could include a 1-week decrease in clinical shifts in exchange for 2 weeks of backup. We have times with 25% usage of backup number 1, and 10% usage of backup number 2,” he noted. “But the goal is for our hospitalists to have assurances that there is a backup system and that it works.”
The presence of nocturnists in hospitals continues to rise, with 76.1% of adults-only groups having nocturnists, 27.6% of children-only groups, and 68.2% of adults and children groups. Geographic or unit-based hospital assignments have grown to 36.4% of adult-only groups.
What are hospitalists’ other new roles?
“We have a large group of 50 doctors, with about 40 FTEs, and we are evolving from the traditional generalist role toward more subspecialty comanagement,” said Bryan Huang, MD, physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California–San Diego. “Our hospitalists are asking what it means to be an academic hospitalist as our teaching roles have shrunk.”
Dr. Huang recently took on a new role as physician adviser for his hospital in such areas as utilization review, patient flow, and length of stay. “I’m spearheading a work group to address quality issues – all of which involve collaboration with other professionals. We also developed an admitting role here for a hospitalist whose sole role for the day is to admit patients.” Nationally up to 51.2% of hospitalist groups utilize a dedicated daytime admitter.
The report found that hospital services for which hospitalists are more likely to be attendings than consultants include GI/liver, 78.4%; palliative care, 77.3%; neurology/stroke, 73.6%; oncology, 67.8%; cardiology, 56.9%; and critical care, 50.7%. Conditions where hospitalists are more likely to consult rather than admit and attend include neurosurgery, orthopedics, general surgery, cardiovascular surgery, and other surgical subspecialties.
Other hospital services routinely provided by adult-only hospitalists include care of patients in an ICU setting (62.7%); primary responsibility for observation units (54.6%); primary clinical responsibility for rapid response teams (48.8%); primary responsibility for code blue or cardiac arrest teams (43.8%); nighttime admissions or tuck-in services (33.9%); and medical procedures (31.5%). For pediatric hospital medicine groups, care of healthy newborns and medical procedures were among the most common services provided, while for hospitalists serving adults and children, rapid response teams, ICUs, and specialty units were most common.
New models of payment for health care
As the larger health care system is being transformed by new payment models and benefit structures, including accountable care organizations (ACOs), value-based purchasing, bundled payments, and other forms of population-based coverage – which is described as a volume-to-value shift in health care – how are these new models affecting hospitalists?
Observers say penetration of these new models varies widely by locality but they haven’t had much direct impact on hospitalists’ practices – at least not yet. However, as hospitals and health systems find themselves needing to learn new ways to invest their resources differently in response to these trends, what matters to the hospital should be of great importance to the hospitalist group.
“I haven’t seen a lot of dramatic changes in how hospitalists engage with value-based purchasing,” Dr. White said. “If we know that someone is part of an ACO, the instinctual – and right – response is to treat them like any other patient. But we still need to be committed to not waste resources.”
Hospitalists are the best people to understand the intricacies of how the health care system works under value-based approaches, Dr. Huang said. “That’s why so many hospitalists have taken leadership positions in their hospitals. I think all of this translates to the practical, day-to-day work of hospitalists, reflected in our focus on readmissions and length of stay.”
Dr. Williams said the health care system still hasn’t turned the corner from fee-for-service to value-based purchasing. “It still represents a tiny fraction of the income of hospitalists. Hospitals still have to focus on the bottom line, as fee-for-service reimbursement for hospitalized patients continues to get squeezed, and ACOs aren’t exactly paying premium rates either. Ask almost any hospital CEO what drives their bottom line today and the answer is volume – along with optimizing productivity. Pretty much every place I look, the future does not look terribly rosy for hospitals.”
Ms. Himebaugh said she is bullish on hospital medicine, in the sense that it’s unlikely to go away anytime soon. “Hospitalists are needed and provide value. But I don’t think we have devised the right model yet. I’m not sure our current model is sustainable. We need to find new models we can afford that don’t require squeezing our providers.”
For more information about the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, contact SHM’s Practice Management Department at: [email protected] or call 800-843-3360. See also: https://www.hospitalmedicine.org/practice-management/shms-state-of-hospital-medicine/.
Productivity, pay, and roles remain center stage
Productivity, pay, and roles remain center stage
In a national health care environment undergoing unprecedented transformation, the specialty of hospital medicine appears to be an island of relative stability, a conclusion that is supported by the principal findings from SHM’s 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report.
The report of hospitalist group practice characteristics, as well as other key data defining the field’s current status, that the Society of Hospital Medicine puts out every 2 years reveals that overall salaries for hospitalist physicians are up by 3.8% since 2016. Although productivity, as measured by work relative value units (RVUs), remained largely flat over the same period, financial support per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician position to hospitalist groups from their hospitals and health systems is up significantly.
Total support per FTE averaged $176,657 in 2018, 12% higher than in 2016, noted Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM, of Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, which oversees the biennial survey. Compensation and productivity data were collected by the Medical Group Management Association and licensed by SHM for inclusion in its report.
These findings – particularly the flat productivity – raise questions about long-term sustainability, Ms. Flores said. “What is going on? Do hospital administrators still recognize the value hospitalists bring to the operations and the quality of their hospitals? Or is paying the subsidy just a cost of doing business – a necessity for most hospitals in a setting where demand for hospitalist positions remains high?”
Andrew White, MD, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee and director of the hospital medicine service at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said basic market forces dictate that it is “pretty much inconceivable” to run a modern hospital of any size without hospitalists.
“Clearly, demand outstrips supply, which drives up salaries and support, whether CEOs feel that the hospitalist group is earning that support or not,” Dr. White said. “The unfilled hospitalist positions we identified speak to ongoing projected greater demand than supply. That said, hospitalists and group leaders can’t be complacent and must collaborate effectively with hospitals to provide highly valuable services.” Turnover of hospitalist positions was up slightly, he noted, at 7.4% in 2018, from 6.9% in 2016, reversing a trend of previous years.
But will these trends continue at a time when hospitals face continued pressure to cut costs, as the hospital medicine subsidy may represent one of their largest cost centers? Because the size of hospitalist groups continues to grow, hospitals’ total subsidy for hospital medicine is going up faster than the percentage increase in support per FTE.
How do hospitalists use the SoHM report?
Dr. White called the 2018 SoHM report the “most representative and balanced sample to date” of hospitalist group practices, with some of the highest quality data, thanks to more robust participation in the survey by pediatric groups and improved distribution among hospitalist management companies and academic programs.
“Not that past reports had major flaws, but this version is more authoritative, reflecting an intentional effort by our Practice Analysis Committee to bring in more participants from key groups,” he said.
The biennial report has been around long enough to achieve brand recognition in the field as the most authoritative source of information regarding hospitalist practice, he added. “We worked hard this year to balance the participants, with more of our responses than in the past coming from multi-hospital groups, whether 4 to 5 sites, or 20 to 30.”
Surveys were conducted online in January and February of 2018 in response to invitations mailed and emailed to targeted hospital medicine group leaders. A total of 569 groups completed the survey, representing 8,889 hospitalist FTEs, approximately 16% of the total hospitalist workforce. Responses were presented in several categories, including by size of program, region and employment model. Groups that care for adults only represented 87.9% of the surveys, while groups that care for children only were 6.7% and groups that care for both adults and children were 5.4%.
“This survey doesn’t tell us what should be best practice in hospital medicine,” Dr. White said, only what is actual current practice. He uses it in his own health system to not only contextualize and justify his group’s performance metrics for hospital administrators – relative to national and categorical averages – but also to see if the direction his group is following is consistent with what’s going on in the larger field.
“These data offer a very powerful resource regarding the trends in hospital medicine,” said Romil Chadha, MD, MPH, FACP, SFHM, associate division chief for operations in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky and UK Healthcare, Lexington. “It is my repository of data to go before my administrators for decisions that need to be made or to pilot new programs.”
Dr. Chadha also uses the data to help answer compensation, scheduling, and support questions from his group’s members.
Thomas McIlraith, MD, immediate past chairman of the hospital medicine department at Mercy Medical Group, Sacramento, Calif., said the report’s value is that it allows comparisons of salaries in different settings, and to see, for example, how night staffing is structured. “A lot of leaders I spoke to at SHM’s 2018 Leadership Academy in Vancouver were saying they didn’t feel up to parity with the national standards. You can use the report to look at the state of hospital medicine nationally and make comparisons,” he said.
Calls for more productivity
Roberta Himebaugh, MBA, SFHM, senior vice president of acute care services for the national hospitalist management company TeamHealth, and cochair of the SHM Practice Administrators Special Interest Group, said her company’s clients have traditionally asked for greater productivity from their hospitalist contracts as a way to decrease overall costs. Some markets are starting to see a change in that approach, she noted.
“Recently there’s been an increased focus on paying hospitalists to focus on quality rather than just productivity. Some of our clients are willing to pay for that, and we are trying to assign value to this non-billable time or adjust our productivity standards appropriately. I think hospitals definitely understand the value of non-billable services from hospitalists, but still will push us on the productivity targets,” Ms. Himebaugh said.
“I don’t believe hospital medicine can be sustainable long term on flat productivity or flat RVUs,” she added. “Yet the costs of burnout associated with pushing higher productivity are not sustainable, either.” So what are the answers? She said many inefficiencies are involved in responding to inquiries on the floor that could have been addressed another way, or waiting for the turnaround of diagnostic tests.
“Maybe we don’t need physicians to be in the hospital 24/7 if we have access to telehealth, or a partnership with the emergency department, or greater use of advanced care practice providers,” Ms. Himebaugh said. “Our hospitals are examining those options, and we have to look at how we can become more efficient and less costly. At TeamHealth, we are trying to staff for value – looking at patient flow patterns and adjusting our schedules accordingly. Is there a bolus of admissions tied to emergency department shift changes, or to certain days of the week? How can we move from the 12-hour shift that begins at 7 a.m. and ends at 7 p.m., and instead provide coverage for when the patients are there?”
Mark Williams, MD, MHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said he appreciates the volume of data in the report but wishes for even more survey participants, which could make the breakouts for subgroups such as academic hospitalists more robust. Other current sources of hospitalist salary data include the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which produces compensation reports to help medical schools and teaching hospitals with benchmarking, and the Faculty Practice Solution Center developed jointly by AAMC and Vizient to provide faculty practice plans with analytic tools. The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) is another valuable source of information, some of which was licensed for inclusion in the SoHM report.
“There is no source of absolute truth that hospitalists can point to,” Dr. Williams said. “I will present my data and my administrators will reply: ‘We have our own data.’ Our institution has consistently ranked first or second nationwide for the sickest patients. We take more Medicaid and dually eligible patients, who have a lot of social issues. They take a lot of time to manage medically and the RVUs don’t reflect that. And yet I’m still judged by my RVUs generated per hospitalist. Hospital administrators understandably want to get the most productivity, and they are looking for their own data for average productivity numbers.”
Ryan Brown, MD, specialty medical director for hospital medicine with Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., said that hospital medicine’s flat productivity trends would be difficult to sustain in the business world. But there aren’t easy or obvious ways to increase hospitalists’ productivity. The SoHM report also shows that as productivity increases, total compensation increases but at a lower rate, resulting in a gradual decrease in compensation per RVU.
Pressures to increase productivity can be a double-edged sword, Dr. Williams added. Demanding that doctors make more billable visits faster to generate more RVUs can be a recipe for burnout and turnover, with huge costs associated with recruiting replacements.
“If there was recent turnover of hospitalists at the hospital, with the need to find replacements, there may be institutional memory about that,” he said. “But where are hospitals spending their money? Bottom line, we still need to learn to cut our costs.”
How is hospitalist practice evolving?
In addition to payment and productivity data, the SoHM report provides a current picture of the evolving state of hospitalist group practices. A key thread is how the work hospitalists are doing, and the way they do it, is changing, with new information about comanagement roles, dedicated admitters, night coverage, geographic rounding, and the like.
Making greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs), may be one way to change the flat productivity trends, Dr. Brown said. With a cost per RVU that’s roughly half that of a doctor’s, NPs/PAs could contribute to the bottom line. But he sees surprisingly large variation in how hospitalist groups are using them. Typically, they are deployed at a ratio of four doctors to one NP/PA, but that ratio could be two to one or even one to one, he said.
Use of NPs/PAs by academic hospitalist groups is up, from 52.1% in 2016 to 75.7% in 2018. For adult-only groups, 76.8% had NPs/PAs, with higher rates in hospitals and health systems and lower rates in the West region. But a lot of groups are using these practitioners for nonproductive work, and some are failing to generate any billing income, Dr. Brown said.
“The rate at which NPs/PAs performed billable services was higher in physician-owned practices, resulting in a lower cost per RVU, suggesting that many practices may be underutilizing their NPs/PAs or not sharing the work.” Not every NP or PA wants to or is able to care for very complex patients, Dr. Brown said, “but you want a system where the NP and PA can work at the highest level permitted by state law.”
The predominant scheduling model of hospital medicine, 7 days on duty followed by 7 days off, has diminished somewhat in recent years. There appears to be some fluctuation and a gradual move away from 7 on/7 off toward some kind of variable approach, since the former may not be physically sustainable for the doctor over the long haul, Dr. Brown said. Some groups are experimenting with a combined approach.
“I think balancing workload with manpower has always been a challenge for our field. Maybe we should be working shorter shifts or fewer days and making sure our hospitalists aren’t ever sitting around idle,” he said. “And could we come in on nonclinical days to do administrative tasks? I think the solution is out there, but we haven’t created the algorithms to define that yet. If you could somehow use the data for volume, number of beds, nurse staffing, etc., by year and seasonally, you might be able to reliably predict census. This is about applying data hospitals already have in their electronic health records, but utilizing the data in ways that are more helpful.”
Dr. McIlraith added that a big driver of the future of hospital medicine will be the evolution of the EHR and the digitalization of health care, as hospitals learn how to leverage more of what’s in their EHRs. “The impact will grow for hospitalists through the creation and maturation of big data systems – and the learning that can be extracted from what’s contained in the electronic health record.”
Another important question for hospitalist groups is their model of backup scheduling, to make sure there is a replacement available if a scheduled doctor calls in sick or if demand is unexpectedly high.
“In today’s world, this is how we have traditionally managed unpredictability,” Dr. Brown said. “You don’t know when you will need it, but if you need it, you want it immediately. So how do you pay for it – only when the doctor comes in, or also an amount just for being on call?” Some groups pay for both, he said, others for neither.
“We are a group of 70 hospitalists, and if someone is sick you can’t just shut down the service,” said Dr. Chadha. “We are one of the few to use incentives for both, which could include a 1-week decrease in clinical shifts in exchange for 2 weeks of backup. We have times with 25% usage of backup number 1, and 10% usage of backup number 2,” he noted. “But the goal is for our hospitalists to have assurances that there is a backup system and that it works.”
The presence of nocturnists in hospitals continues to rise, with 76.1% of adults-only groups having nocturnists, 27.6% of children-only groups, and 68.2% of adults and children groups. Geographic or unit-based hospital assignments have grown to 36.4% of adult-only groups.
What are hospitalists’ other new roles?
“We have a large group of 50 doctors, with about 40 FTEs, and we are evolving from the traditional generalist role toward more subspecialty comanagement,” said Bryan Huang, MD, physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California–San Diego. “Our hospitalists are asking what it means to be an academic hospitalist as our teaching roles have shrunk.”
Dr. Huang recently took on a new role as physician adviser for his hospital in such areas as utilization review, patient flow, and length of stay. “I’m spearheading a work group to address quality issues – all of which involve collaboration with other professionals. We also developed an admitting role here for a hospitalist whose sole role for the day is to admit patients.” Nationally up to 51.2% of hospitalist groups utilize a dedicated daytime admitter.
The report found that hospital services for which hospitalists are more likely to be attendings than consultants include GI/liver, 78.4%; palliative care, 77.3%; neurology/stroke, 73.6%; oncology, 67.8%; cardiology, 56.9%; and critical care, 50.7%. Conditions where hospitalists are more likely to consult rather than admit and attend include neurosurgery, orthopedics, general surgery, cardiovascular surgery, and other surgical subspecialties.
Other hospital services routinely provided by adult-only hospitalists include care of patients in an ICU setting (62.7%); primary responsibility for observation units (54.6%); primary clinical responsibility for rapid response teams (48.8%); primary responsibility for code blue or cardiac arrest teams (43.8%); nighttime admissions or tuck-in services (33.9%); and medical procedures (31.5%). For pediatric hospital medicine groups, care of healthy newborns and medical procedures were among the most common services provided, while for hospitalists serving adults and children, rapid response teams, ICUs, and specialty units were most common.
New models of payment for health care
As the larger health care system is being transformed by new payment models and benefit structures, including accountable care organizations (ACOs), value-based purchasing, bundled payments, and other forms of population-based coverage – which is described as a volume-to-value shift in health care – how are these new models affecting hospitalists?
Observers say penetration of these new models varies widely by locality but they haven’t had much direct impact on hospitalists’ practices – at least not yet. However, as hospitals and health systems find themselves needing to learn new ways to invest their resources differently in response to these trends, what matters to the hospital should be of great importance to the hospitalist group.
“I haven’t seen a lot of dramatic changes in how hospitalists engage with value-based purchasing,” Dr. White said. “If we know that someone is part of an ACO, the instinctual – and right – response is to treat them like any other patient. But we still need to be committed to not waste resources.”
Hospitalists are the best people to understand the intricacies of how the health care system works under value-based approaches, Dr. Huang said. “That’s why so many hospitalists have taken leadership positions in their hospitals. I think all of this translates to the practical, day-to-day work of hospitalists, reflected in our focus on readmissions and length of stay.”
Dr. Williams said the health care system still hasn’t turned the corner from fee-for-service to value-based purchasing. “It still represents a tiny fraction of the income of hospitalists. Hospitals still have to focus on the bottom line, as fee-for-service reimbursement for hospitalized patients continues to get squeezed, and ACOs aren’t exactly paying premium rates either. Ask almost any hospital CEO what drives their bottom line today and the answer is volume – along with optimizing productivity. Pretty much every place I look, the future does not look terribly rosy for hospitals.”
Ms. Himebaugh said she is bullish on hospital medicine, in the sense that it’s unlikely to go away anytime soon. “Hospitalists are needed and provide value. But I don’t think we have devised the right model yet. I’m not sure our current model is sustainable. We need to find new models we can afford that don’t require squeezing our providers.”
For more information about the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, contact SHM’s Practice Management Department at: [email protected] or call 800-843-3360. See also: https://www.hospitalmedicine.org/practice-management/shms-state-of-hospital-medicine/.
In a national health care environment undergoing unprecedented transformation, the specialty of hospital medicine appears to be an island of relative stability, a conclusion that is supported by the principal findings from SHM’s 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report.
The report of hospitalist group practice characteristics, as well as other key data defining the field’s current status, that the Society of Hospital Medicine puts out every 2 years reveals that overall salaries for hospitalist physicians are up by 3.8% since 2016. Although productivity, as measured by work relative value units (RVUs), remained largely flat over the same period, financial support per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician position to hospitalist groups from their hospitals and health systems is up significantly.
Total support per FTE averaged $176,657 in 2018, 12% higher than in 2016, noted Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM, of Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, which oversees the biennial survey. Compensation and productivity data were collected by the Medical Group Management Association and licensed by SHM for inclusion in its report.
These findings – particularly the flat productivity – raise questions about long-term sustainability, Ms. Flores said. “What is going on? Do hospital administrators still recognize the value hospitalists bring to the operations and the quality of their hospitals? Or is paying the subsidy just a cost of doing business – a necessity for most hospitals in a setting where demand for hospitalist positions remains high?”
Andrew White, MD, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee and director of the hospital medicine service at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, said basic market forces dictate that it is “pretty much inconceivable” to run a modern hospital of any size without hospitalists.
“Clearly, demand outstrips supply, which drives up salaries and support, whether CEOs feel that the hospitalist group is earning that support or not,” Dr. White said. “The unfilled hospitalist positions we identified speak to ongoing projected greater demand than supply. That said, hospitalists and group leaders can’t be complacent and must collaborate effectively with hospitals to provide highly valuable services.” Turnover of hospitalist positions was up slightly, he noted, at 7.4% in 2018, from 6.9% in 2016, reversing a trend of previous years.
But will these trends continue at a time when hospitals face continued pressure to cut costs, as the hospital medicine subsidy may represent one of their largest cost centers? Because the size of hospitalist groups continues to grow, hospitals’ total subsidy for hospital medicine is going up faster than the percentage increase in support per FTE.
How do hospitalists use the SoHM report?
Dr. White called the 2018 SoHM report the “most representative and balanced sample to date” of hospitalist group practices, with some of the highest quality data, thanks to more robust participation in the survey by pediatric groups and improved distribution among hospitalist management companies and academic programs.
“Not that past reports had major flaws, but this version is more authoritative, reflecting an intentional effort by our Practice Analysis Committee to bring in more participants from key groups,” he said.
The biennial report has been around long enough to achieve brand recognition in the field as the most authoritative source of information regarding hospitalist practice, he added. “We worked hard this year to balance the participants, with more of our responses than in the past coming from multi-hospital groups, whether 4 to 5 sites, or 20 to 30.”
Surveys were conducted online in January and February of 2018 in response to invitations mailed and emailed to targeted hospital medicine group leaders. A total of 569 groups completed the survey, representing 8,889 hospitalist FTEs, approximately 16% of the total hospitalist workforce. Responses were presented in several categories, including by size of program, region and employment model. Groups that care for adults only represented 87.9% of the surveys, while groups that care for children only were 6.7% and groups that care for both adults and children were 5.4%.
“This survey doesn’t tell us what should be best practice in hospital medicine,” Dr. White said, only what is actual current practice. He uses it in his own health system to not only contextualize and justify his group’s performance metrics for hospital administrators – relative to national and categorical averages – but also to see if the direction his group is following is consistent with what’s going on in the larger field.
“These data offer a very powerful resource regarding the trends in hospital medicine,” said Romil Chadha, MD, MPH, FACP, SFHM, associate division chief for operations in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky and UK Healthcare, Lexington. “It is my repository of data to go before my administrators for decisions that need to be made or to pilot new programs.”
Dr. Chadha also uses the data to help answer compensation, scheduling, and support questions from his group’s members.
Thomas McIlraith, MD, immediate past chairman of the hospital medicine department at Mercy Medical Group, Sacramento, Calif., said the report’s value is that it allows comparisons of salaries in different settings, and to see, for example, how night staffing is structured. “A lot of leaders I spoke to at SHM’s 2018 Leadership Academy in Vancouver were saying they didn’t feel up to parity with the national standards. You can use the report to look at the state of hospital medicine nationally and make comparisons,” he said.
Calls for more productivity
Roberta Himebaugh, MBA, SFHM, senior vice president of acute care services for the national hospitalist management company TeamHealth, and cochair of the SHM Practice Administrators Special Interest Group, said her company’s clients have traditionally asked for greater productivity from their hospitalist contracts as a way to decrease overall costs. Some markets are starting to see a change in that approach, she noted.
“Recently there’s been an increased focus on paying hospitalists to focus on quality rather than just productivity. Some of our clients are willing to pay for that, and we are trying to assign value to this non-billable time or adjust our productivity standards appropriately. I think hospitals definitely understand the value of non-billable services from hospitalists, but still will push us on the productivity targets,” Ms. Himebaugh said.
“I don’t believe hospital medicine can be sustainable long term on flat productivity or flat RVUs,” she added. “Yet the costs of burnout associated with pushing higher productivity are not sustainable, either.” So what are the answers? She said many inefficiencies are involved in responding to inquiries on the floor that could have been addressed another way, or waiting for the turnaround of diagnostic tests.
“Maybe we don’t need physicians to be in the hospital 24/7 if we have access to telehealth, or a partnership with the emergency department, or greater use of advanced care practice providers,” Ms. Himebaugh said. “Our hospitals are examining those options, and we have to look at how we can become more efficient and less costly. At TeamHealth, we are trying to staff for value – looking at patient flow patterns and adjusting our schedules accordingly. Is there a bolus of admissions tied to emergency department shift changes, or to certain days of the week? How can we move from the 12-hour shift that begins at 7 a.m. and ends at 7 p.m., and instead provide coverage for when the patients are there?”
Mark Williams, MD, MHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, said he appreciates the volume of data in the report but wishes for even more survey participants, which could make the breakouts for subgroups such as academic hospitalists more robust. Other current sources of hospitalist salary data include the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), which produces compensation reports to help medical schools and teaching hospitals with benchmarking, and the Faculty Practice Solution Center developed jointly by AAMC and Vizient to provide faculty practice plans with analytic tools. The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) is another valuable source of information, some of which was licensed for inclusion in the SoHM report.
“There is no source of absolute truth that hospitalists can point to,” Dr. Williams said. “I will present my data and my administrators will reply: ‘We have our own data.’ Our institution has consistently ranked first or second nationwide for the sickest patients. We take more Medicaid and dually eligible patients, who have a lot of social issues. They take a lot of time to manage medically and the RVUs don’t reflect that. And yet I’m still judged by my RVUs generated per hospitalist. Hospital administrators understandably want to get the most productivity, and they are looking for their own data for average productivity numbers.”
Ryan Brown, MD, specialty medical director for hospital medicine with Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., said that hospital medicine’s flat productivity trends would be difficult to sustain in the business world. But there aren’t easy or obvious ways to increase hospitalists’ productivity. The SoHM report also shows that as productivity increases, total compensation increases but at a lower rate, resulting in a gradual decrease in compensation per RVU.
Pressures to increase productivity can be a double-edged sword, Dr. Williams added. Demanding that doctors make more billable visits faster to generate more RVUs can be a recipe for burnout and turnover, with huge costs associated with recruiting replacements.
“If there was recent turnover of hospitalists at the hospital, with the need to find replacements, there may be institutional memory about that,” he said. “But where are hospitals spending their money? Bottom line, we still need to learn to cut our costs.”
How is hospitalist practice evolving?
In addition to payment and productivity data, the SoHM report provides a current picture of the evolving state of hospitalist group practices. A key thread is how the work hospitalists are doing, and the way they do it, is changing, with new information about comanagement roles, dedicated admitters, night coverage, geographic rounding, and the like.
Making greater use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs), may be one way to change the flat productivity trends, Dr. Brown said. With a cost per RVU that’s roughly half that of a doctor’s, NPs/PAs could contribute to the bottom line. But he sees surprisingly large variation in how hospitalist groups are using them. Typically, they are deployed at a ratio of four doctors to one NP/PA, but that ratio could be two to one or even one to one, he said.
Use of NPs/PAs by academic hospitalist groups is up, from 52.1% in 2016 to 75.7% in 2018. For adult-only groups, 76.8% had NPs/PAs, with higher rates in hospitals and health systems and lower rates in the West region. But a lot of groups are using these practitioners for nonproductive work, and some are failing to generate any billing income, Dr. Brown said.
“The rate at which NPs/PAs performed billable services was higher in physician-owned practices, resulting in a lower cost per RVU, suggesting that many practices may be underutilizing their NPs/PAs or not sharing the work.” Not every NP or PA wants to or is able to care for very complex patients, Dr. Brown said, “but you want a system where the NP and PA can work at the highest level permitted by state law.”
The predominant scheduling model of hospital medicine, 7 days on duty followed by 7 days off, has diminished somewhat in recent years. There appears to be some fluctuation and a gradual move away from 7 on/7 off toward some kind of variable approach, since the former may not be physically sustainable for the doctor over the long haul, Dr. Brown said. Some groups are experimenting with a combined approach.
“I think balancing workload with manpower has always been a challenge for our field. Maybe we should be working shorter shifts or fewer days and making sure our hospitalists aren’t ever sitting around idle,” he said. “And could we come in on nonclinical days to do administrative tasks? I think the solution is out there, but we haven’t created the algorithms to define that yet. If you could somehow use the data for volume, number of beds, nurse staffing, etc., by year and seasonally, you might be able to reliably predict census. This is about applying data hospitals already have in their electronic health records, but utilizing the data in ways that are more helpful.”
Dr. McIlraith added that a big driver of the future of hospital medicine will be the evolution of the EHR and the digitalization of health care, as hospitals learn how to leverage more of what’s in their EHRs. “The impact will grow for hospitalists through the creation and maturation of big data systems – and the learning that can be extracted from what’s contained in the electronic health record.”
Another important question for hospitalist groups is their model of backup scheduling, to make sure there is a replacement available if a scheduled doctor calls in sick or if demand is unexpectedly high.
“In today’s world, this is how we have traditionally managed unpredictability,” Dr. Brown said. “You don’t know when you will need it, but if you need it, you want it immediately. So how do you pay for it – only when the doctor comes in, or also an amount just for being on call?” Some groups pay for both, he said, others for neither.
“We are a group of 70 hospitalists, and if someone is sick you can’t just shut down the service,” said Dr. Chadha. “We are one of the few to use incentives for both, which could include a 1-week decrease in clinical shifts in exchange for 2 weeks of backup. We have times with 25% usage of backup number 1, and 10% usage of backup number 2,” he noted. “But the goal is for our hospitalists to have assurances that there is a backup system and that it works.”
The presence of nocturnists in hospitals continues to rise, with 76.1% of adults-only groups having nocturnists, 27.6% of children-only groups, and 68.2% of adults and children groups. Geographic or unit-based hospital assignments have grown to 36.4% of adult-only groups.
What are hospitalists’ other new roles?
“We have a large group of 50 doctors, with about 40 FTEs, and we are evolving from the traditional generalist role toward more subspecialty comanagement,” said Bryan Huang, MD, physician adviser and associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California–San Diego. “Our hospitalists are asking what it means to be an academic hospitalist as our teaching roles have shrunk.”
Dr. Huang recently took on a new role as physician adviser for his hospital in such areas as utilization review, patient flow, and length of stay. “I’m spearheading a work group to address quality issues – all of which involve collaboration with other professionals. We also developed an admitting role here for a hospitalist whose sole role for the day is to admit patients.” Nationally up to 51.2% of hospitalist groups utilize a dedicated daytime admitter.
The report found that hospital services for which hospitalists are more likely to be attendings than consultants include GI/liver, 78.4%; palliative care, 77.3%; neurology/stroke, 73.6%; oncology, 67.8%; cardiology, 56.9%; and critical care, 50.7%. Conditions where hospitalists are more likely to consult rather than admit and attend include neurosurgery, orthopedics, general surgery, cardiovascular surgery, and other surgical subspecialties.
Other hospital services routinely provided by adult-only hospitalists include care of patients in an ICU setting (62.7%); primary responsibility for observation units (54.6%); primary clinical responsibility for rapid response teams (48.8%); primary responsibility for code blue or cardiac arrest teams (43.8%); nighttime admissions or tuck-in services (33.9%); and medical procedures (31.5%). For pediatric hospital medicine groups, care of healthy newborns and medical procedures were among the most common services provided, while for hospitalists serving adults and children, rapid response teams, ICUs, and specialty units were most common.
New models of payment for health care
As the larger health care system is being transformed by new payment models and benefit structures, including accountable care organizations (ACOs), value-based purchasing, bundled payments, and other forms of population-based coverage – which is described as a volume-to-value shift in health care – how are these new models affecting hospitalists?
Observers say penetration of these new models varies widely by locality but they haven’t had much direct impact on hospitalists’ practices – at least not yet. However, as hospitals and health systems find themselves needing to learn new ways to invest their resources differently in response to these trends, what matters to the hospital should be of great importance to the hospitalist group.
“I haven’t seen a lot of dramatic changes in how hospitalists engage with value-based purchasing,” Dr. White said. “If we know that someone is part of an ACO, the instinctual – and right – response is to treat them like any other patient. But we still need to be committed to not waste resources.”
Hospitalists are the best people to understand the intricacies of how the health care system works under value-based approaches, Dr. Huang said. “That’s why so many hospitalists have taken leadership positions in their hospitals. I think all of this translates to the practical, day-to-day work of hospitalists, reflected in our focus on readmissions and length of stay.”
Dr. Williams said the health care system still hasn’t turned the corner from fee-for-service to value-based purchasing. “It still represents a tiny fraction of the income of hospitalists. Hospitals still have to focus on the bottom line, as fee-for-service reimbursement for hospitalized patients continues to get squeezed, and ACOs aren’t exactly paying premium rates either. Ask almost any hospital CEO what drives their bottom line today and the answer is volume – along with optimizing productivity. Pretty much every place I look, the future does not look terribly rosy for hospitals.”
Ms. Himebaugh said she is bullish on hospital medicine, in the sense that it’s unlikely to go away anytime soon. “Hospitalists are needed and provide value. But I don’t think we have devised the right model yet. I’m not sure our current model is sustainable. We need to find new models we can afford that don’t require squeezing our providers.”
For more information about the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, contact SHM’s Practice Management Department at: [email protected] or call 800-843-3360. See also: https://www.hospitalmedicine.org/practice-management/shms-state-of-hospital-medicine/.
Appropriate use criteria for imaging in nonvalvular heart disease released
The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and other groups have jointly released an appropriate use criteria (AUC) document regarding the use of imaging modalities in diagnosing nonvalvular (that is, structural) heart disease.
Imaging plays an important role in diagnosing both valvular and nonvalvular heart diseases, so the goal of the document was to help clinicians provide high-quality care by standardizing the decision-making process. To do so, a committee was formed to devise scenarios that reflected situations in real-world practice; these scenarios were considered within categories to prevent the list from being too exhaustive. The scenarios were then reviewed by a rating panel in terms of how appropriate certain modalities were in each situation. The panel members first evaluated the scenarios independently then face to face as a panel before giving their final scores (from 1 to 9) independently.
For example, for the indication of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, the panelists rated transthoracic echocardiography with or without 3-D and with contrast as needed as a 8, which means it’s an “appropriate test,” whereas they gave CT for the same indication a 3, which means “rarely appropriate.” For sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, they gave a 9 and a 6, respectively; this latter score indicates the test “may be appropriate.” These scenarios and the respective scores for any given test are organized into tables, such as initial evaluation or follow-up.
This AUC document “signals a shift from documents evaluating a single modality in various disease states to documents evaluating multiple imaging modalities and focusing on evidence and clinical experience within a given disease category,” the authors wrote. “We believe this approach better reflects clinical decision making in real-world scenarios and offers the diagnostic choices available to the clinician.”
The full document can be viewed in JACC.
The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and other groups have jointly released an appropriate use criteria (AUC) document regarding the use of imaging modalities in diagnosing nonvalvular (that is, structural) heart disease.
Imaging plays an important role in diagnosing both valvular and nonvalvular heart diseases, so the goal of the document was to help clinicians provide high-quality care by standardizing the decision-making process. To do so, a committee was formed to devise scenarios that reflected situations in real-world practice; these scenarios were considered within categories to prevent the list from being too exhaustive. The scenarios were then reviewed by a rating panel in terms of how appropriate certain modalities were in each situation. The panel members first evaluated the scenarios independently then face to face as a panel before giving their final scores (from 1 to 9) independently.
For example, for the indication of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, the panelists rated transthoracic echocardiography with or without 3-D and with contrast as needed as a 8, which means it’s an “appropriate test,” whereas they gave CT for the same indication a 3, which means “rarely appropriate.” For sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, they gave a 9 and a 6, respectively; this latter score indicates the test “may be appropriate.” These scenarios and the respective scores for any given test are organized into tables, such as initial evaluation or follow-up.
This AUC document “signals a shift from documents evaluating a single modality in various disease states to documents evaluating multiple imaging modalities and focusing on evidence and clinical experience within a given disease category,” the authors wrote. “We believe this approach better reflects clinical decision making in real-world scenarios and offers the diagnostic choices available to the clinician.”
The full document can be viewed in JACC.
The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and other groups have jointly released an appropriate use criteria (AUC) document regarding the use of imaging modalities in diagnosing nonvalvular (that is, structural) heart disease.
Imaging plays an important role in diagnosing both valvular and nonvalvular heart diseases, so the goal of the document was to help clinicians provide high-quality care by standardizing the decision-making process. To do so, a committee was formed to devise scenarios that reflected situations in real-world practice; these scenarios were considered within categories to prevent the list from being too exhaustive. The scenarios were then reviewed by a rating panel in terms of how appropriate certain modalities were in each situation. The panel members first evaluated the scenarios independently then face to face as a panel before giving their final scores (from 1 to 9) independently.
For example, for the indication of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, the panelists rated transthoracic echocardiography with or without 3-D and with contrast as needed as a 8, which means it’s an “appropriate test,” whereas they gave CT for the same indication a 3, which means “rarely appropriate.” For sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, they gave a 9 and a 6, respectively; this latter score indicates the test “may be appropriate.” These scenarios and the respective scores for any given test are organized into tables, such as initial evaluation or follow-up.
This AUC document “signals a shift from documents evaluating a single modality in various disease states to documents evaluating multiple imaging modalities and focusing on evidence and clinical experience within a given disease category,” the authors wrote. “We believe this approach better reflects clinical decision making in real-world scenarios and offers the diagnostic choices available to the clinician.”
The full document can be viewed in JACC.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
SHM announces National Hospitalist Day
Inaugural day of recognition to honor hospital medicine care team
The Society of Hospital Medicine is proud to announce the inaugural National Hospitalist Day, to be held on Thursday, March 7, 2019. Occurring the first Thursday in March annually, National Hospitalist Day will serve to celebrate the fastest-growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape.
National Hospitalist Day was recently approved by the National Day Calendar and was one of approximately 30 national days to be approved for the year out of an applicant pool of more than 18,000.
“As the only society dedicated to the specialty of hospital medicine, it is appropriate that SHM spearhead a national day to recognize the countless contributions of hospitalists to health care, from clinical, academic, and leadership perspectives and more,” said Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “We look forward to hospitalists across the nation contributing to the festivities and making this a tradition for years to come.”
In addition to celebrating hospitalists’ contributions to patient care, SHM will also be highlighting the diverse career paths of hospital medicine professionals, from frontline hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to practice administrators, C-suite executives, and academic hospitalists.
Highlights of SHM’s campaign include the following:
- Downloadable customizable posters and assets for hospitals and individuals’ offices to celebrate their hospital medicine team, available on SHM’s website, hospitalmedicine.org.
- A series of spotlights of hospitalists at all stages of their careers in The Hospitalist, SHM’s monthly newsmagazine.
- A social media campaign inviting hospitalists and their employers to share their success stories using the hashtag #HowWeHospitalist, including banner graphics, profile photo overlays, and more.
- A social media contest to determine the most creative ways of celebrating use of the hashtag.
- A Twitter chat for hospitalists to celebrate virtually with their colleagues and peers from around the world.
“Hospitalists innovate, lead, and push the boundaries of clinical care and deserve to be recognized for their transformative contributions to health care,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief operating officer of SHM. “We hope this is the beginning of a long-standing tradition in honoring hospitalists and the noteworthy work they do.”
For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/hospitalistday.
Mr. Radler is marketing communications manager at the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Inaugural day of recognition to honor hospital medicine care team
Inaugural day of recognition to honor hospital medicine care team
The Society of Hospital Medicine is proud to announce the inaugural National Hospitalist Day, to be held on Thursday, March 7, 2019. Occurring the first Thursday in March annually, National Hospitalist Day will serve to celebrate the fastest-growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape.
National Hospitalist Day was recently approved by the National Day Calendar and was one of approximately 30 national days to be approved for the year out of an applicant pool of more than 18,000.
“As the only society dedicated to the specialty of hospital medicine, it is appropriate that SHM spearhead a national day to recognize the countless contributions of hospitalists to health care, from clinical, academic, and leadership perspectives and more,” said Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “We look forward to hospitalists across the nation contributing to the festivities and making this a tradition for years to come.”
In addition to celebrating hospitalists’ contributions to patient care, SHM will also be highlighting the diverse career paths of hospital medicine professionals, from frontline hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to practice administrators, C-suite executives, and academic hospitalists.
Highlights of SHM’s campaign include the following:
- Downloadable customizable posters and assets for hospitals and individuals’ offices to celebrate their hospital medicine team, available on SHM’s website, hospitalmedicine.org.
- A series of spotlights of hospitalists at all stages of their careers in The Hospitalist, SHM’s monthly newsmagazine.
- A social media campaign inviting hospitalists and their employers to share their success stories using the hashtag #HowWeHospitalist, including banner graphics, profile photo overlays, and more.
- A social media contest to determine the most creative ways of celebrating use of the hashtag.
- A Twitter chat for hospitalists to celebrate virtually with their colleagues and peers from around the world.
“Hospitalists innovate, lead, and push the boundaries of clinical care and deserve to be recognized for their transformative contributions to health care,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief operating officer of SHM. “We hope this is the beginning of a long-standing tradition in honoring hospitalists and the noteworthy work they do.”
For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/hospitalistday.
Mr. Radler is marketing communications manager at the Society of Hospital Medicine.
The Society of Hospital Medicine is proud to announce the inaugural National Hospitalist Day, to be held on Thursday, March 7, 2019. Occurring the first Thursday in March annually, National Hospitalist Day will serve to celebrate the fastest-growing specialty in modern medicine and hospitalists’ enduring contributions to the evolving health care landscape.
National Hospitalist Day was recently approved by the National Day Calendar and was one of approximately 30 national days to be approved for the year out of an applicant pool of more than 18,000.
“As the only society dedicated to the specialty of hospital medicine, it is appropriate that SHM spearhead a national day to recognize the countless contributions of hospitalists to health care, from clinical, academic, and leadership perspectives and more,” said Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “We look forward to hospitalists across the nation contributing to the festivities and making this a tradition for years to come.”
In addition to celebrating hospitalists’ contributions to patient care, SHM will also be highlighting the diverse career paths of hospital medicine professionals, from frontline hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to practice administrators, C-suite executives, and academic hospitalists.
Highlights of SHM’s campaign include the following:
- Downloadable customizable posters and assets for hospitals and individuals’ offices to celebrate their hospital medicine team, available on SHM’s website, hospitalmedicine.org.
- A series of spotlights of hospitalists at all stages of their careers in The Hospitalist, SHM’s monthly newsmagazine.
- A social media campaign inviting hospitalists and their employers to share their success stories using the hashtag #HowWeHospitalist, including banner graphics, profile photo overlays, and more.
- A social media contest to determine the most creative ways of celebrating use of the hashtag.
- A Twitter chat for hospitalists to celebrate virtually with their colleagues and peers from around the world.
“Hospitalists innovate, lead, and push the boundaries of clinical care and deserve to be recognized for their transformative contributions to health care,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief operating officer of SHM. “We hope this is the beginning of a long-standing tradition in honoring hospitalists and the noteworthy work they do.”
For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/hospitalistday.
Mr. Radler is marketing communications manager at the Society of Hospital Medicine.
New diabetes drugs solidify their cardiovascular and renal benefits
CHICAGO – When the first results from a large trial that showed profound and unexpected benefits for preventing heart failure hospitalizations associated with use of the antihyperglycemic sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin came out – a little over 3 years ago – the general reaction from clinicians was some variant of “Could this be real?”
Since then, as results from some five other large, international trials have come out showing both similar benefits from two other drugs in the same SGLT2 inhibitor class, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, as well as results showing clear cardiovascular disease benefits from three drugs in a second class of antihyperglycemics, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the general consensus among cardiologists became: “The cardiovascular and renal benefits are real. How can we now best use these drugs to help patients?”
This change increasingly forces cardiologists, as well as the primary care physicians who often manage patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, to become more comfortable prescribing these two classes of antihyperglycemic drugs. During a talk at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, Eugene Braunwald, MD, arguably the top thought leader in cardiology, coined a new name for the medical subspecialty that he foresees navigating this overlap between diabetes care and cardiovascular disease prevention: diabetocardiology (although a more euphonic alternative might be cardiodiabetology, while the more comprehensive name could be cardionephrodiabetology).
“I was certainly surprised” by the first report in 2015 from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28), said Dr. Braunwald, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. A lot of his colleagues were surprised and said, “It’s just one trial.”
“Now we have three trials,” with the addition of the CANVAS trial for canagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 10. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812389) for dapagliflozin reported at the AHA meeting in November.
“We are in the midst of two pandemics: heart failure and type 2 diabetes. As cardiologists, we have to learn how to deal with this,” said Dr. Braunwald, and the evidence now clearly shows that these drugs can help with that.
As another speaker at the meeting, Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure specialist, observed in a separate talk at the meeting, “Heart failure is one of the most common, if not the most common complication, of patients with diabetes.” This tight link between heart failure and diabetes helps make cardiovascular mortality “the number one cause of death” in patients with diabetes, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson.
“Thanks to the cardiovascular outcome trials, we now have a much broader and deeper appreciation of heart failure and renal disease as integral components of the cardiovascular-renal spectrum in people with diabetes,” said Subodh Verma, MD, a professor at the University of Toronto and cardiac surgeon at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Braunwald spelled out in his talk some of the interrelationships of diabetes, heart failure, and renal dysfunction that together produce a downward-spiraling vicious circle for patients, a pathophysiological process that clinicians can now short-circuit by treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor.
Cardiovascular outcome trials show the way
In the context of antihyperglycemic drugs, the “cardiovascular outcome trials” refers to a series of large trials mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to assess the cardiovascular disease effects of new agents coming onto the U.S. market to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). By the time Dr. Verma spoke at the AHA meeting, he could cite reported results from 12 of these trials: 5 different drugs in the GLP-1 RA class, 4 drugs in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, and 3 drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class. Dr. Verma summed what the findings have shown.
The four tested DDP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin) consistently showed neutrality for the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular disease events (MACE), constituted by cardiovascular disease death, MI, or stroke.
The five tested GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide) showed a mixed pattern of MACE results that seemed to be linked with the subclass the drug fell into. The two exedin-4–based drugs, exenatide and lixisenatide, each showed a statistically neutral effect for MACE, as well as collectively in a combined analysis. In contrast, three human GLP-1–based drugs, albiglutide, liraglutide, and semaglutide, each showed a consistent, statistically-significant MACE reduction in their respective outcome trials, and collectively they showed a highly significant 18% reduction in MACE, compared with placebo, Dr. Verma said. Further, recent analysis by Dr. Verma that used data from liraglutide treatment in the LEADER trial showed the MACE benefit occurred only among enrolled patients treated with liraglutide who had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients enrolled in the trial with only multiple risk factors (in addition to having T2DM) but without established ASCVD showed no significant benefit from liraglutide treatment for the MACE endpoint, compared with control patients.
Recently a press-release announcement of results from a sixth GLP-1 RA, dulaglutide, in the REWIND trial of MACE outcomes suggested that a drug in this class could have broader effect. The majority, 69%, of the 9,901 patients with T2DM enrolled in REWIND had risk factors but not established ASCVD at enrollment. A Nov. 5, 2018, statement from the company developing this drug, Lilly, reported that the study overall produced a statistically significant reduction in MACE, although it provided no additional details. As the released noted, this made REWIND the first trial to show a MACE benefit from a drug in the GLP-1 RA class in patients without established ASCVD.
The MACE outcome results from the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials showed a similar pattern as liraglutide: In patients with established ASCVD, the drugs individually each produced a MACE reduction, although dapagliflozin just missed having a statistically significant reduction. Collectively, the three drugs showed a statistically significant, 14% relative risk reduction for MACE, compared with control patients. But among patients with multiple risk factors only, but without established ASCVD, included in two of the three trials (CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58), the results showed both individually and collectively a neutral MACE effect.
But unlike the other antihyperglycemic drugs tested in the cardiovascular outcome trials, the SGLT2 inhibitors have shown two additional, highly important secondary outcomes: a consistent reduction in hospitalization for heart failure and a consistent reduction in renal-disease progression.
A meta-analysis of the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials published coincident with the release of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 results showed that, for the outcome of either cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, the SGLT2 inhibitors collectively showed a significant 29% relative decrease in this incidence among patients with a history of heart failure, and a significant 21% relative decrease among patients without history of heart failure (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32590-X). Among the subset of patients with established ASCVD, treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor across all three trials showed a significant 16% relative risk reduction, and in the subset with multiple risk factors but no established ASCVD, the two SGLT2 inhibitors collectively produced a 16% relative cut in cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization with a P value of .06. Finally, the Lancet meta-analysis showed that, for a combined endpoint that reflected renal worsening, the SGLT2 inhibitors showed a significant relative reduction of about 45% in both the subgroup of patients with established ASCVD and in the subgroup of those with just risk factors.
“This is a big step forward for patients with multiple risk factors and diabetes but without ASCVD, that both renal disease and hospitalization for heart failure are sensitive” to the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Verma noted. “We see renal protection and reduction of heart failure hospitalization across both primary and secondary prevention patients, with no need to distinguish them based on ASCVD.” In contrast, he noted, the MACE benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitors seems limited to patients with ASCVD. The day before making this point in a talk during the meeting, Dr. Verma had published the same message in a commentary (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32824-1).
Although the “nomenclature of primary versus secondary prevention is appropriate for atherosclerotic outcomes, it is likely to be inappropriate for a person with type 2 diabetes who is at risk of hospitalization for heart failure and renal disease,” Dr. Verma wrote with his associates in the commentary.
What it means for clinicians
The upshot of all of these cardiovascular outcome trial results that came out over the past 3 years has been a new appreciation of how antihyperglycemic drugs can have cardiovascular and renal benefits that transcend their effects on glycemia. The evidence has put the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on track to challenge, and potentially displace, metformin as the top drug to prescribe for patients with T2DM.
Clinicians should realize that they should prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors and selected GLP-1 RAs “as early as metformin in patients with established ASCVD,” said Dr. Verma. “For patients with recalcitrant atherosclerotic disease and a history of MI and ischemia, I’d primarily treat with a GLP-1 RA. In a patient with left ventricular dysfunction or evidence of heart failure, I’d use an SGLT2 inhibitor. But it’s not a fight between these two. You could treat a patients with type 2 diabetes with both classes,” although the practicality of this approach is limited by the high cost of these drugs.
The SGLT2 inhibitors “should now be considered as first-line therapy after metformin in most people with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of whether or not they have established atherosclerotic vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” he and his associates wrote in their recent commentary.
“What I struggle with the most is how we prioritize and individualize secondary-prevention therapies based on risk for ischemia and heart failure. Some therapies [the SGLT2 inhibitors] are predominantly for heart failure prevention, and some [the GLP-1 RAs] are primarily for ischemia. How do we choose when a patient cannot afford to take both? Does a combination of a SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA offer the greatest CVD benefit? We need to test this in a trial. And will metformin be displaced as first-line treatment?” Dr. Verma asked.
“The day will probably come when, for maximal protection, you treat with both classes. But right now we’re forced to choose because of the cost,” said John McMurray, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow, in a talk during the meeting.
As to specifically which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe, “they all look pretty much the same” in the newly published meta-analysis, Dr. McMurray said, although he noted that safety differences among agents in the class remain possible.
“For patients similar to those studied in the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials, clinicians should use one of these drugs to reduce the risk for incident heart failure, irrespective of their effect on MACE,” said Dr. Butler. Reducing the risk for incident heart failure and of progressive renal dysfunction are two new goals for antihyperglycemic therapy that now overlay the long-standing goals of controlling glycemia and reducing cardiovascular disease risk and the more recent goals of cutting cardiovascular disease mortality and cutting the risk for a MACE event.
A current limitation for practice is that the none of the three drug companies that market the tested SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has sought regulatory approval for an indication of reducing the risk for heart failure hospitalization. Despite that, “these drugs should be used for renal protection and reducing heart failure hospitalizations,” Dr. Butler said. “We need to start thinking about this and not get lost thinking about only their MACE effect because, when you focus on MACE, there is a competition between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RA. If we think of GLP-1 RAs as drugs to prevent MACE, and SGLT2 inhibitors as drugs that primarily prevent heart failure and renal dysfunction, then there is no competition. Perhaps combined treatment is where we need to go,” he said in an interview.
But the enthusiasm that experts like Dr. Butler, Dr. McMurray, and Dr. Verma have for wider use of both classes of drugs in appropriate patients is not necessarily matched right now among many community physicians. Cardiologist David J. Becker, MD, is an example of the clinicians who appreciate the growing evidence that supports wider use of these antihyperglycemic drugs but remain uneasy about applying this evidence in their practice.
Dr. Becker, associate director of the Preventive and Integrative Heart Health Program of the Temple Heart and Vascular Institute in Philadelphia, writes a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer on medical care. In a December 2018 piece, he said “like most cardiologists, I ‘don’t do diabetes’ – because it’s not my expertise. The new drugs, however, mean I need to learn more” about treating these patients. “The problem: There are so many of these medications that they present a bewildering choice for patients and doctors.”
Dr. Becker cited several barriers he sees for himself and his nonendocrinologist colleagues to prescribe these drugs – and for patients to take them:
- High cost, with prices that run close to $20/day for each medication.
- A thicket of names and choices that “lead to confusion and paralysis,” which has been exacerbated by “advertising wars” among competing drug companies.
- Cardiologists and primary care physicians usually defer to endocrinologists to prescribe these drugs, but most patients with T2DM aren’t seen by endocrinologists. The result: “Few doctors prescribe them.”
The cardiovascular disease benefits of these drugs have not been adequately promoted. Until that changes, “cardiologists like me will not realize their importance,” Dr. Becker concluded.
While christening the new diabetocardiology subspecialty, Dr. Braunwald placed the onus for managing this emerging facet of diabetes largely outside the scope of endocrinology.
“We can’t call in a consultant every time we have a patient with diabetes; it would bankrupt the system,” he said. Training of cardiologists now needs to include several months of treating patients with diabetes, Dr. Braunwald advised, just like 30 or so years ago when cardiologists like himself had to become more familiar with blood clotting to better manage thrombotic disease.
Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Cardurion, Myokardia, and Sanofi; an advisor to Endcardia; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiishi Sankyo, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant or advisor to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Verma has received honoraria and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, and Valeant. Dr. McMurray has received research funding from 12 companies. Dr. Becker had no disclosures.
CHICAGO – When the first results from a large trial that showed profound and unexpected benefits for preventing heart failure hospitalizations associated with use of the antihyperglycemic sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin came out – a little over 3 years ago – the general reaction from clinicians was some variant of “Could this be real?”
Since then, as results from some five other large, international trials have come out showing both similar benefits from two other drugs in the same SGLT2 inhibitor class, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, as well as results showing clear cardiovascular disease benefits from three drugs in a second class of antihyperglycemics, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the general consensus among cardiologists became: “The cardiovascular and renal benefits are real. How can we now best use these drugs to help patients?”
This change increasingly forces cardiologists, as well as the primary care physicians who often manage patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, to become more comfortable prescribing these two classes of antihyperglycemic drugs. During a talk at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, Eugene Braunwald, MD, arguably the top thought leader in cardiology, coined a new name for the medical subspecialty that he foresees navigating this overlap between diabetes care and cardiovascular disease prevention: diabetocardiology (although a more euphonic alternative might be cardiodiabetology, while the more comprehensive name could be cardionephrodiabetology).
“I was certainly surprised” by the first report in 2015 from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28), said Dr. Braunwald, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. A lot of his colleagues were surprised and said, “It’s just one trial.”
“Now we have three trials,” with the addition of the CANVAS trial for canagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 10. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812389) for dapagliflozin reported at the AHA meeting in November.
“We are in the midst of two pandemics: heart failure and type 2 diabetes. As cardiologists, we have to learn how to deal with this,” said Dr. Braunwald, and the evidence now clearly shows that these drugs can help with that.
As another speaker at the meeting, Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure specialist, observed in a separate talk at the meeting, “Heart failure is one of the most common, if not the most common complication, of patients with diabetes.” This tight link between heart failure and diabetes helps make cardiovascular mortality “the number one cause of death” in patients with diabetes, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson.
“Thanks to the cardiovascular outcome trials, we now have a much broader and deeper appreciation of heart failure and renal disease as integral components of the cardiovascular-renal spectrum in people with diabetes,” said Subodh Verma, MD, a professor at the University of Toronto and cardiac surgeon at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Braunwald spelled out in his talk some of the interrelationships of diabetes, heart failure, and renal dysfunction that together produce a downward-spiraling vicious circle for patients, a pathophysiological process that clinicians can now short-circuit by treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor.
Cardiovascular outcome trials show the way
In the context of antihyperglycemic drugs, the “cardiovascular outcome trials” refers to a series of large trials mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to assess the cardiovascular disease effects of new agents coming onto the U.S. market to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). By the time Dr. Verma spoke at the AHA meeting, he could cite reported results from 12 of these trials: 5 different drugs in the GLP-1 RA class, 4 drugs in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, and 3 drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class. Dr. Verma summed what the findings have shown.
The four tested DDP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin) consistently showed neutrality for the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular disease events (MACE), constituted by cardiovascular disease death, MI, or stroke.
The five tested GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide) showed a mixed pattern of MACE results that seemed to be linked with the subclass the drug fell into. The two exedin-4–based drugs, exenatide and lixisenatide, each showed a statistically neutral effect for MACE, as well as collectively in a combined analysis. In contrast, three human GLP-1–based drugs, albiglutide, liraglutide, and semaglutide, each showed a consistent, statistically-significant MACE reduction in their respective outcome trials, and collectively they showed a highly significant 18% reduction in MACE, compared with placebo, Dr. Verma said. Further, recent analysis by Dr. Verma that used data from liraglutide treatment in the LEADER trial showed the MACE benefit occurred only among enrolled patients treated with liraglutide who had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients enrolled in the trial with only multiple risk factors (in addition to having T2DM) but without established ASCVD showed no significant benefit from liraglutide treatment for the MACE endpoint, compared with control patients.
Recently a press-release announcement of results from a sixth GLP-1 RA, dulaglutide, in the REWIND trial of MACE outcomes suggested that a drug in this class could have broader effect. The majority, 69%, of the 9,901 patients with T2DM enrolled in REWIND had risk factors but not established ASCVD at enrollment. A Nov. 5, 2018, statement from the company developing this drug, Lilly, reported that the study overall produced a statistically significant reduction in MACE, although it provided no additional details. As the released noted, this made REWIND the first trial to show a MACE benefit from a drug in the GLP-1 RA class in patients without established ASCVD.
The MACE outcome results from the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials showed a similar pattern as liraglutide: In patients with established ASCVD, the drugs individually each produced a MACE reduction, although dapagliflozin just missed having a statistically significant reduction. Collectively, the three drugs showed a statistically significant, 14% relative risk reduction for MACE, compared with control patients. But among patients with multiple risk factors only, but without established ASCVD, included in two of the three trials (CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58), the results showed both individually and collectively a neutral MACE effect.
But unlike the other antihyperglycemic drugs tested in the cardiovascular outcome trials, the SGLT2 inhibitors have shown two additional, highly important secondary outcomes: a consistent reduction in hospitalization for heart failure and a consistent reduction in renal-disease progression.
A meta-analysis of the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials published coincident with the release of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 results showed that, for the outcome of either cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, the SGLT2 inhibitors collectively showed a significant 29% relative decrease in this incidence among patients with a history of heart failure, and a significant 21% relative decrease among patients without history of heart failure (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32590-X). Among the subset of patients with established ASCVD, treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor across all three trials showed a significant 16% relative risk reduction, and in the subset with multiple risk factors but no established ASCVD, the two SGLT2 inhibitors collectively produced a 16% relative cut in cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization with a P value of .06. Finally, the Lancet meta-analysis showed that, for a combined endpoint that reflected renal worsening, the SGLT2 inhibitors showed a significant relative reduction of about 45% in both the subgroup of patients with established ASCVD and in the subgroup of those with just risk factors.
“This is a big step forward for patients with multiple risk factors and diabetes but without ASCVD, that both renal disease and hospitalization for heart failure are sensitive” to the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Verma noted. “We see renal protection and reduction of heart failure hospitalization across both primary and secondary prevention patients, with no need to distinguish them based on ASCVD.” In contrast, he noted, the MACE benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitors seems limited to patients with ASCVD. The day before making this point in a talk during the meeting, Dr. Verma had published the same message in a commentary (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32824-1).
Although the “nomenclature of primary versus secondary prevention is appropriate for atherosclerotic outcomes, it is likely to be inappropriate for a person with type 2 diabetes who is at risk of hospitalization for heart failure and renal disease,” Dr. Verma wrote with his associates in the commentary.
What it means for clinicians
The upshot of all of these cardiovascular outcome trial results that came out over the past 3 years has been a new appreciation of how antihyperglycemic drugs can have cardiovascular and renal benefits that transcend their effects on glycemia. The evidence has put the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on track to challenge, and potentially displace, metformin as the top drug to prescribe for patients with T2DM.
Clinicians should realize that they should prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors and selected GLP-1 RAs “as early as metformin in patients with established ASCVD,” said Dr. Verma. “For patients with recalcitrant atherosclerotic disease and a history of MI and ischemia, I’d primarily treat with a GLP-1 RA. In a patient with left ventricular dysfunction or evidence of heart failure, I’d use an SGLT2 inhibitor. But it’s not a fight between these two. You could treat a patients with type 2 diabetes with both classes,” although the practicality of this approach is limited by the high cost of these drugs.
The SGLT2 inhibitors “should now be considered as first-line therapy after metformin in most people with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of whether or not they have established atherosclerotic vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” he and his associates wrote in their recent commentary.
“What I struggle with the most is how we prioritize and individualize secondary-prevention therapies based on risk for ischemia and heart failure. Some therapies [the SGLT2 inhibitors] are predominantly for heart failure prevention, and some [the GLP-1 RAs] are primarily for ischemia. How do we choose when a patient cannot afford to take both? Does a combination of a SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA offer the greatest CVD benefit? We need to test this in a trial. And will metformin be displaced as first-line treatment?” Dr. Verma asked.
“The day will probably come when, for maximal protection, you treat with both classes. But right now we’re forced to choose because of the cost,” said John McMurray, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow, in a talk during the meeting.
As to specifically which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe, “they all look pretty much the same” in the newly published meta-analysis, Dr. McMurray said, although he noted that safety differences among agents in the class remain possible.
“For patients similar to those studied in the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials, clinicians should use one of these drugs to reduce the risk for incident heart failure, irrespective of their effect on MACE,” said Dr. Butler. Reducing the risk for incident heart failure and of progressive renal dysfunction are two new goals for antihyperglycemic therapy that now overlay the long-standing goals of controlling glycemia and reducing cardiovascular disease risk and the more recent goals of cutting cardiovascular disease mortality and cutting the risk for a MACE event.
A current limitation for practice is that the none of the three drug companies that market the tested SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has sought regulatory approval for an indication of reducing the risk for heart failure hospitalization. Despite that, “these drugs should be used for renal protection and reducing heart failure hospitalizations,” Dr. Butler said. “We need to start thinking about this and not get lost thinking about only their MACE effect because, when you focus on MACE, there is a competition between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RA. If we think of GLP-1 RAs as drugs to prevent MACE, and SGLT2 inhibitors as drugs that primarily prevent heart failure and renal dysfunction, then there is no competition. Perhaps combined treatment is where we need to go,” he said in an interview.
But the enthusiasm that experts like Dr. Butler, Dr. McMurray, and Dr. Verma have for wider use of both classes of drugs in appropriate patients is not necessarily matched right now among many community physicians. Cardiologist David J. Becker, MD, is an example of the clinicians who appreciate the growing evidence that supports wider use of these antihyperglycemic drugs but remain uneasy about applying this evidence in their practice.
Dr. Becker, associate director of the Preventive and Integrative Heart Health Program of the Temple Heart and Vascular Institute in Philadelphia, writes a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer on medical care. In a December 2018 piece, he said “like most cardiologists, I ‘don’t do diabetes’ – because it’s not my expertise. The new drugs, however, mean I need to learn more” about treating these patients. “The problem: There are so many of these medications that they present a bewildering choice for patients and doctors.”
Dr. Becker cited several barriers he sees for himself and his nonendocrinologist colleagues to prescribe these drugs – and for patients to take them:
- High cost, with prices that run close to $20/day for each medication.
- A thicket of names and choices that “lead to confusion and paralysis,” which has been exacerbated by “advertising wars” among competing drug companies.
- Cardiologists and primary care physicians usually defer to endocrinologists to prescribe these drugs, but most patients with T2DM aren’t seen by endocrinologists. The result: “Few doctors prescribe them.”
The cardiovascular disease benefits of these drugs have not been adequately promoted. Until that changes, “cardiologists like me will not realize their importance,” Dr. Becker concluded.
While christening the new diabetocardiology subspecialty, Dr. Braunwald placed the onus for managing this emerging facet of diabetes largely outside the scope of endocrinology.
“We can’t call in a consultant every time we have a patient with diabetes; it would bankrupt the system,” he said. Training of cardiologists now needs to include several months of treating patients with diabetes, Dr. Braunwald advised, just like 30 or so years ago when cardiologists like himself had to become more familiar with blood clotting to better manage thrombotic disease.
Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Cardurion, Myokardia, and Sanofi; an advisor to Endcardia; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiishi Sankyo, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant or advisor to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Verma has received honoraria and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, and Valeant. Dr. McMurray has received research funding from 12 companies. Dr. Becker had no disclosures.
CHICAGO – When the first results from a large trial that showed profound and unexpected benefits for preventing heart failure hospitalizations associated with use of the antihyperglycemic sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin came out – a little over 3 years ago – the general reaction from clinicians was some variant of “Could this be real?”
Since then, as results from some five other large, international trials have come out showing both similar benefits from two other drugs in the same SGLT2 inhibitor class, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, as well as results showing clear cardiovascular disease benefits from three drugs in a second class of antihyperglycemics, the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), the general consensus among cardiologists became: “The cardiovascular and renal benefits are real. How can we now best use these drugs to help patients?”
This change increasingly forces cardiologists, as well as the primary care physicians who often manage patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, to become more comfortable prescribing these two classes of antihyperglycemic drugs. During a talk at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, Eugene Braunwald, MD, arguably the top thought leader in cardiology, coined a new name for the medical subspecialty that he foresees navigating this overlap between diabetes care and cardiovascular disease prevention: diabetocardiology (although a more euphonic alternative might be cardiodiabetology, while the more comprehensive name could be cardionephrodiabetology).
“I was certainly surprised” by the first report in 2015 from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28), said Dr. Braunwald, who is professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. A lot of his colleagues were surprised and said, “It’s just one trial.”
“Now we have three trials,” with the addition of the CANVAS trial for canagliflozin (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377[7]:644-57) and the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 10. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1812389) for dapagliflozin reported at the AHA meeting in November.
“We are in the midst of two pandemics: heart failure and type 2 diabetes. As cardiologists, we have to learn how to deal with this,” said Dr. Braunwald, and the evidence now clearly shows that these drugs can help with that.
As another speaker at the meeting, Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure specialist, observed in a separate talk at the meeting, “Heart failure is one of the most common, if not the most common complication, of patients with diabetes.” This tight link between heart failure and diabetes helps make cardiovascular mortality “the number one cause of death” in patients with diabetes, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of medicine at the University of Mississippi in Jackson.
“Thanks to the cardiovascular outcome trials, we now have a much broader and deeper appreciation of heart failure and renal disease as integral components of the cardiovascular-renal spectrum in people with diabetes,” said Subodh Verma, MD, a professor at the University of Toronto and cardiac surgeon at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Braunwald spelled out in his talk some of the interrelationships of diabetes, heart failure, and renal dysfunction that together produce a downward-spiraling vicious circle for patients, a pathophysiological process that clinicians can now short-circuit by treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor.
Cardiovascular outcome trials show the way
In the context of antihyperglycemic drugs, the “cardiovascular outcome trials” refers to a series of large trials mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2008 to assess the cardiovascular disease effects of new agents coming onto the U.S. market to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). By the time Dr. Verma spoke at the AHA meeting, he could cite reported results from 12 of these trials: 5 different drugs in the GLP-1 RA class, 4 drugs in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, and 3 drugs from the SGLT2 inhibitor class. Dr. Verma summed what the findings have shown.
The four tested DDP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin) consistently showed neutrality for the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular disease events (MACE), constituted by cardiovascular disease death, MI, or stroke.
The five tested GLP-1 RAs (albiglutide, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, and semaglutide) showed a mixed pattern of MACE results that seemed to be linked with the subclass the drug fell into. The two exedin-4–based drugs, exenatide and lixisenatide, each showed a statistically neutral effect for MACE, as well as collectively in a combined analysis. In contrast, three human GLP-1–based drugs, albiglutide, liraglutide, and semaglutide, each showed a consistent, statistically-significant MACE reduction in their respective outcome trials, and collectively they showed a highly significant 18% reduction in MACE, compared with placebo, Dr. Verma said. Further, recent analysis by Dr. Verma that used data from liraglutide treatment in the LEADER trial showed the MACE benefit occurred only among enrolled patients treated with liraglutide who had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients enrolled in the trial with only multiple risk factors (in addition to having T2DM) but without established ASCVD showed no significant benefit from liraglutide treatment for the MACE endpoint, compared with control patients.
Recently a press-release announcement of results from a sixth GLP-1 RA, dulaglutide, in the REWIND trial of MACE outcomes suggested that a drug in this class could have broader effect. The majority, 69%, of the 9,901 patients with T2DM enrolled in REWIND had risk factors but not established ASCVD at enrollment. A Nov. 5, 2018, statement from the company developing this drug, Lilly, reported that the study overall produced a statistically significant reduction in MACE, although it provided no additional details. As the released noted, this made REWIND the first trial to show a MACE benefit from a drug in the GLP-1 RA class in patients without established ASCVD.
The MACE outcome results from the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials showed a similar pattern as liraglutide: In patients with established ASCVD, the drugs individually each produced a MACE reduction, although dapagliflozin just missed having a statistically significant reduction. Collectively, the three drugs showed a statistically significant, 14% relative risk reduction for MACE, compared with control patients. But among patients with multiple risk factors only, but without established ASCVD, included in two of the three trials (CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58), the results showed both individually and collectively a neutral MACE effect.
But unlike the other antihyperglycemic drugs tested in the cardiovascular outcome trials, the SGLT2 inhibitors have shown two additional, highly important secondary outcomes: a consistent reduction in hospitalization for heart failure and a consistent reduction in renal-disease progression.
A meta-analysis of the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials published coincident with the release of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 results showed that, for the outcome of either cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, the SGLT2 inhibitors collectively showed a significant 29% relative decrease in this incidence among patients with a history of heart failure, and a significant 21% relative decrease among patients without history of heart failure (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32590-X). Among the subset of patients with established ASCVD, treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor across all three trials showed a significant 16% relative risk reduction, and in the subset with multiple risk factors but no established ASCVD, the two SGLT2 inhibitors collectively produced a 16% relative cut in cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization with a P value of .06. Finally, the Lancet meta-analysis showed that, for a combined endpoint that reflected renal worsening, the SGLT2 inhibitors showed a significant relative reduction of about 45% in both the subgroup of patients with established ASCVD and in the subgroup of those with just risk factors.
“This is a big step forward for patients with multiple risk factors and diabetes but without ASCVD, that both renal disease and hospitalization for heart failure are sensitive” to the SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Verma noted. “We see renal protection and reduction of heart failure hospitalization across both primary and secondary prevention patients, with no need to distinguish them based on ASCVD.” In contrast, he noted, the MACE benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitors seems limited to patients with ASCVD. The day before making this point in a talk during the meeting, Dr. Verma had published the same message in a commentary (Lancet. 2018 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32824-1).
Although the “nomenclature of primary versus secondary prevention is appropriate for atherosclerotic outcomes, it is likely to be inappropriate for a person with type 2 diabetes who is at risk of hospitalization for heart failure and renal disease,” Dr. Verma wrote with his associates in the commentary.
What it means for clinicians
The upshot of all of these cardiovascular outcome trial results that came out over the past 3 years has been a new appreciation of how antihyperglycemic drugs can have cardiovascular and renal benefits that transcend their effects on glycemia. The evidence has put the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on track to challenge, and potentially displace, metformin as the top drug to prescribe for patients with T2DM.
Clinicians should realize that they should prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors and selected GLP-1 RAs “as early as metformin in patients with established ASCVD,” said Dr. Verma. “For patients with recalcitrant atherosclerotic disease and a history of MI and ischemia, I’d primarily treat with a GLP-1 RA. In a patient with left ventricular dysfunction or evidence of heart failure, I’d use an SGLT2 inhibitor. But it’s not a fight between these two. You could treat a patients with type 2 diabetes with both classes,” although the practicality of this approach is limited by the high cost of these drugs.
The SGLT2 inhibitors “should now be considered as first-line therapy after metformin in most people with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of whether or not they have established atherosclerotic vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure,” he and his associates wrote in their recent commentary.
“What I struggle with the most is how we prioritize and individualize secondary-prevention therapies based on risk for ischemia and heart failure. Some therapies [the SGLT2 inhibitors] are predominantly for heart failure prevention, and some [the GLP-1 RAs] are primarily for ischemia. How do we choose when a patient cannot afford to take both? Does a combination of a SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-1 RA offer the greatest CVD benefit? We need to test this in a trial. And will metformin be displaced as first-line treatment?” Dr. Verma asked.
“The day will probably come when, for maximal protection, you treat with both classes. But right now we’re forced to choose because of the cost,” said John McMurray, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow, in a talk during the meeting.
As to specifically which SGLT2 inhibitor to prescribe, “they all look pretty much the same” in the newly published meta-analysis, Dr. McMurray said, although he noted that safety differences among agents in the class remain possible.
“For patients similar to those studied in the three SGLT2 inhibitor trials, clinicians should use one of these drugs to reduce the risk for incident heart failure, irrespective of their effect on MACE,” said Dr. Butler. Reducing the risk for incident heart failure and of progressive renal dysfunction are two new goals for antihyperglycemic therapy that now overlay the long-standing goals of controlling glycemia and reducing cardiovascular disease risk and the more recent goals of cutting cardiovascular disease mortality and cutting the risk for a MACE event.
A current limitation for practice is that the none of the three drug companies that market the tested SGLT2 inhibitor drugs has sought regulatory approval for an indication of reducing the risk for heart failure hospitalization. Despite that, “these drugs should be used for renal protection and reducing heart failure hospitalizations,” Dr. Butler said. “We need to start thinking about this and not get lost thinking about only their MACE effect because, when you focus on MACE, there is a competition between the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RA. If we think of GLP-1 RAs as drugs to prevent MACE, and SGLT2 inhibitors as drugs that primarily prevent heart failure and renal dysfunction, then there is no competition. Perhaps combined treatment is where we need to go,” he said in an interview.
But the enthusiasm that experts like Dr. Butler, Dr. McMurray, and Dr. Verma have for wider use of both classes of drugs in appropriate patients is not necessarily matched right now among many community physicians. Cardiologist David J. Becker, MD, is an example of the clinicians who appreciate the growing evidence that supports wider use of these antihyperglycemic drugs but remain uneasy about applying this evidence in their practice.
Dr. Becker, associate director of the Preventive and Integrative Heart Health Program of the Temple Heart and Vascular Institute in Philadelphia, writes a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer on medical care. In a December 2018 piece, he said “like most cardiologists, I ‘don’t do diabetes’ – because it’s not my expertise. The new drugs, however, mean I need to learn more” about treating these patients. “The problem: There are so many of these medications that they present a bewildering choice for patients and doctors.”
Dr. Becker cited several barriers he sees for himself and his nonendocrinologist colleagues to prescribe these drugs – and for patients to take them:
- High cost, with prices that run close to $20/day for each medication.
- A thicket of names and choices that “lead to confusion and paralysis,” which has been exacerbated by “advertising wars” among competing drug companies.
- Cardiologists and primary care physicians usually defer to endocrinologists to prescribe these drugs, but most patients with T2DM aren’t seen by endocrinologists. The result: “Few doctors prescribe them.”
The cardiovascular disease benefits of these drugs have not been adequately promoted. Until that changes, “cardiologists like me will not realize their importance,” Dr. Becker concluded.
While christening the new diabetocardiology subspecialty, Dr. Braunwald placed the onus for managing this emerging facet of diabetes largely outside the scope of endocrinology.
“We can’t call in a consultant every time we have a patient with diabetes; it would bankrupt the system,” he said. Training of cardiologists now needs to include several months of treating patients with diabetes, Dr. Braunwald advised, just like 30 or so years ago when cardiologists like himself had to become more familiar with blood clotting to better manage thrombotic disease.
Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Cardurion, Myokardia, and Sanofi; an advisor to Endcardia; and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiishi Sankyo, and Novartis. Dr. Butler has been a consultant or advisor to AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Verma has received honoraria and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, and Valeant. Dr. McMurray has received research funding from 12 companies. Dr. Becker had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS