Heart Failure

Nearly 60% of Medicaid-covered adults with concurrent diabetes and heart failure did not receive guideline-concordant postdischarge care within 7-10 days of leaving the hospital, according to a large Alabama study. Moreover, affected Black and Hispanic/other Alabamians were less likely than were their White counterparts to receive recommended postdischarge care.

In comparison with White participants, Black and Hispanic adults were less likely to have any postdischarge ambulatory care visits after HF hospitalization or had a delayed visit, according to researchers led by Yulia Khodneva, MD, PhD, an internist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “This is likely a reflection of a structural racism and implicit bias against racial and ethnic minorities that persists in the U.S. health care system,” she and her colleagues wrote.

The findings point to the need for strategies to improve access to postdischarge care for lower-income HF patients.

Among U.S. states, Alabama is the sixth-poorest, the third in diabetes prevalence (14%), and has the highest rates of heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality, the authors noted.

Study details

The cohort included 9,857 adults with diabetes and first hospitalizations for heart failure who were covered by Alabama Medicaid during 2010-2019. The investigators analyzed patients’ claims for ambulatory care (any, primary, cardiology, or endocrinology) within 60 days of discharge.

The mean age of participants was 53.7 years; 47.3% were Black; 41.8% non-Hispanic White; and 10.9% Hispanic/other, with other including those identifying as non-White Hispanic, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian. About two-thirds (65.4%) of participants were women.

Analysis revealed low rates of follow-up care after hospital discharge; 26.7% had an ambulatory visit within 0-7 days, 15.2% within 8-14 days, 31.3% within 15-60 days, and 26.8% had no follow-up visit at all. Of those having a follow-up visit, 71% saw a primary care physician and 12% saw a cardiologist.

In contrast, a much higher proportion of heart failure patients in a Swedish registry – 63% – received ambulatory follow-up in cardiology.
 

Ethnic/gender/age disparities

Black and Hispanic/other adults were less likely to have any postdischarge ambulatory visit (P <.0001) or had the visit delayed by 1.8 days (P = .0006) and 2.8 days (P = .0016), respectively. They were less likely to see a primary care physician than were non-Hispanic White adults: adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.00) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98), respectively.

Men and those with longer-standing heart failure were less likely to be seen in primary care, while the presence of multiple comorbidities was associated with a higher likelihood of a postdischarge primary care visit. Men were more likely to be seen by a cardiologist, while older discharged patients were less likely to be seen by an endocrinologist within 60 days. There was a U-shaped relationship between the timing of the first postdischarge ambulatory visit and all-cause mortality among adults with diabetes and heart failure. Higher rates of 60-day all-cause mortality were observed both in those who had seen a provider within 0-7 days after discharge and in those who had not seen any provider during the 60-day study period compared with those having an ambulatory care visit within 7-14 or 15-60 days. “The group with early follow-up (0-7 days) likely represents a sicker population of patients with heart failure with more comorbidity burden and higher overall health care use, including readmissions, as was demonstrated in our analysis,” Dr. Khodneva and associates wrote. “Interventions that improve access to postdischarge ambulatory care for low-income patients with diabetes and heart failure and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities may be warranted,” they added.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the University of Alabama at Birmingham Diabetes Research Center. Dr. Khodneva reported funding from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the Forge Ahead Center as well as from the NIDDK, the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Coauthor Emily Levitan, ScD, reported research funding from Amgen and has served on Amgen advisory boards. She has also served as a scientific consultant for a research project funded by Novartis.

Nearly 60% of Medicaid-covered adults with concurrent diabetes and heart failure did not receive guideline-concordant postdischarge care within 7-10 days of leaving the hospital, according to a large Alabama study. Moreover, affected Black and Hispanic/other Alabamians were less likely than were their White counterparts to receive recommended postdischarge care.

In comparison with White participants, Black and Hispanic adults were less likely to have any postdischarge ambulatory care visits after HF hospitalization or had a delayed visit, according to researchers led by Yulia Khodneva, MD, PhD, an internist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “This is likely a reflection of a structural racism and implicit bias against racial and ethnic minorities that persists in the U.S. health care system,” she and her colleagues wrote.

The findings point to the need for strategies to improve access to postdischarge care for lower-income HF patients.

Among U.S. states, Alabama is the sixth-poorest, the third in diabetes prevalence (14%), and has the highest rates of heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality, the authors noted.

Study details

The cohort included 9,857 adults with diabetes and first hospitalizations for heart failure who were covered by Alabama Medicaid during 2010-2019. The investigators analyzed patients’ claims for ambulatory care (any, primary, cardiology, or endocrinology) within 60 days of discharge.

The mean age of participants was 53.7 years; 47.3% were Black; 41.8% non-Hispanic White; and 10.9% Hispanic/other, with other including those identifying as non-White Hispanic, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian. About two-thirds (65.4%) of participants were women.

Analysis revealed low rates of follow-up care after hospital discharge; 26.7% had an ambulatory visit within 0-7 days, 15.2% within 8-14 days, 31.3% within 15-60 days, and 26.8% had no follow-up visit at all. Of those having a follow-up visit, 71% saw a primary care physician and 12% saw a cardiologist.

In contrast, a much higher proportion of heart failure patients in a Swedish registry – 63% – received ambulatory follow-up in cardiology.
 

Ethnic/gender/age disparities

Black and Hispanic/other adults were less likely to have any postdischarge ambulatory visit (P <.0001) or had the visit delayed by 1.8 days (P = .0006) and 2.8 days (P = .0016), respectively. They were less likely to see a primary care physician than were non-Hispanic White adults: adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.00) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98), respectively.

Men and those with longer-standing heart failure were less likely to be seen in primary care, while the presence of multiple comorbidities was associated with a higher likelihood of a postdischarge primary care visit. Men were more likely to be seen by a cardiologist, while older discharged patients were less likely to be seen by an endocrinologist within 60 days. There was a U-shaped relationship between the timing of the first postdischarge ambulatory visit and all-cause mortality among adults with diabetes and heart failure. Higher rates of 60-day all-cause mortality were observed both in those who had seen a provider within 0-7 days after discharge and in those who had not seen any provider during the 60-day study period compared with those having an ambulatory care visit within 7-14 or 15-60 days. “The group with early follow-up (0-7 days) likely represents a sicker population of patients with heart failure with more comorbidity burden and higher overall health care use, including readmissions, as was demonstrated in our analysis,” Dr. Khodneva and associates wrote. “Interventions that improve access to postdischarge ambulatory care for low-income patients with diabetes and heart failure and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities may be warranted,” they added.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the University of Alabama at Birmingham Diabetes Research Center. Dr. Khodneva reported funding from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the Forge Ahead Center as well as from the NIDDK, the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Coauthor Emily Levitan, ScD, reported research funding from Amgen and has served on Amgen advisory boards. She has also served as a scientific consultant for a research project funded by Novartis.

Nearly 60% of Medicaid-covered adults with concurrent diabetes and heart failure did not receive guideline-concordant postdischarge care within 7-10 days of leaving the hospital, according to a large Alabama study. Moreover, affected Black and Hispanic/other Alabamians were less likely than were their White counterparts to receive recommended postdischarge care.

In comparison with White participants, Black and Hispanic adults were less likely to have any postdischarge ambulatory care visits after HF hospitalization or had a delayed visit, according to researchers led by Yulia Khodneva, MD, PhD, an internist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “This is likely a reflection of a structural racism and implicit bias against racial and ethnic minorities that persists in the U.S. health care system,” she and her colleagues wrote.

The findings point to the need for strategies to improve access to postdischarge care for lower-income HF patients.

Among U.S. states, Alabama is the sixth-poorest, the third in diabetes prevalence (14%), and has the highest rates of heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality, the authors noted.

Study details

The cohort included 9,857 adults with diabetes and first hospitalizations for heart failure who were covered by Alabama Medicaid during 2010-2019. The investigators analyzed patients’ claims for ambulatory care (any, primary, cardiology, or endocrinology) within 60 days of discharge.

The mean age of participants was 53.7 years; 47.3% were Black; 41.8% non-Hispanic White; and 10.9% Hispanic/other, with other including those identifying as non-White Hispanic, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Asian. About two-thirds (65.4%) of participants were women.

Analysis revealed low rates of follow-up care after hospital discharge; 26.7% had an ambulatory visit within 0-7 days, 15.2% within 8-14 days, 31.3% within 15-60 days, and 26.8% had no follow-up visit at all. Of those having a follow-up visit, 71% saw a primary care physician and 12% saw a cardiologist.

In contrast, a much higher proportion of heart failure patients in a Swedish registry – 63% – received ambulatory follow-up in cardiology.
 

Ethnic/gender/age disparities

Black and Hispanic/other adults were less likely to have any postdischarge ambulatory visit (P <.0001) or had the visit delayed by 1.8 days (P = .0006) and 2.8 days (P = .0016), respectively. They were less likely to see a primary care physician than were non-Hispanic White adults: adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.00) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98), respectively.

Men and those with longer-standing heart failure were less likely to be seen in primary care, while the presence of multiple comorbidities was associated with a higher likelihood of a postdischarge primary care visit. Men were more likely to be seen by a cardiologist, while older discharged patients were less likely to be seen by an endocrinologist within 60 days. There was a U-shaped relationship between the timing of the first postdischarge ambulatory visit and all-cause mortality among adults with diabetes and heart failure. Higher rates of 60-day all-cause mortality were observed both in those who had seen a provider within 0-7 days after discharge and in those who had not seen any provider during the 60-day study period compared with those having an ambulatory care visit within 7-14 or 15-60 days. “The group with early follow-up (0-7 days) likely represents a sicker population of patients with heart failure with more comorbidity burden and higher overall health care use, including readmissions, as was demonstrated in our analysis,” Dr. Khodneva and associates wrote. “Interventions that improve access to postdischarge ambulatory care for low-income patients with diabetes and heart failure and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities may be warranted,” they added.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the University of Alabama at Birmingham Diabetes Research Center. Dr. Khodneva reported funding from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the Forge Ahead Center as well as from the NIDDK, the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Coauthor Emily Levitan, ScD, reported research funding from Amgen and has served on Amgen advisory boards. She has also served as a scientific consultant for a research project funded by Novartis.

A system of personalized alerts via an electronic health record (EHR) network failed to boost discharge prescriptions for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in a randomized trial conducted at several centers in the same health care system.

The results of the PROMPT-AHF trial, which assigned such patients to have or not have the GDMT-promoting physician nudges as part of their in-hospital management, were “not entirely surprising,” Tariq Ahmad, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

“We have created an environment in the hospital that makes care quite fractured for patients with heart failure,” he said. “They are cared for by many different clinicians, which leads to well-known behaviors such as diffusion of responsibility.”

Moreover, many clinicians focus on stabilizing patients “rather than starting them on a comprehensive set of medications, which most think should be done after discharge,” Dr. Ahmad added.

“Importantly, there has been a logarithmic increase in alerts while patients are hospitalized that has caused clinician burnout and is leading to even very important alerts being ignored.”

Likely as a result, the trial saw no significant difference between the alert and no-alert groups in how often the number of GDMT prescriptions rose by at least one drug class, whether beta blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened for 34% of patients in both groups, reported Dr. Ahmad at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions

Nor was there a difference in the secondary endpoint of increased number of GDMT meds or escalated dosage of prescribed GDMT drugs.
 

GDMT ‘uncommon’ in AHF

In an earlier trial in outpatients with chronic HF, conducted by many of the same researchers, use of a targeted EHR-based alert system was associated with significantly higher rates of GDMT prescriptions 30 days after discharge, compared with usual care, Dr. Ahmad observed in his presentation.

Because GDMT is similarly “uncommon” among patients hospitalized with acute HF, the team designed the current trial, a test of the hypothesis that a similar system of nudges would lead to higher rates of prescriptions of the four core GDMT drug classes.

The study enrolled 920 adults with acute HF, an EF of 40% or lower (their median was 28%), and NT-proBNP levels higher than 500 pg/mL. The patients received IV diuretics for the first 24 in-hospital hours and were not taking medications from any of the four core HF drug classes. Their mean age was 74, 36% were women, and 25% were Black.

Physicians of patients who were randomly assigned to the intervention received the alerts as they entered information that involved ejection fraction, blood pressure, potassium levels, heart rate, glomerular filtration rate, and meds they were currently or should be taking, “along with an order set that made ordering those medications very easy,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“There was absolutely no evidence that the alert made any difference. There were zero patients on all four classes of GDMT at baseline, and at the time of discharge, only 11.2% of patients were on all four pillars – essentially, one in nine patients,” Dr. Ahmad said. Nor were there any subgroup differences in age, sex, race, ejection fraction, type of health insurance, or whether care was provided by a cardiologist or noncardiologist physician.

The study was limited by having been conducted within a single health care network using only the Epic EHR system. The alerts did not go exclusively to cardiologists, and patient preferences were not considered in the analysis. Also, the study’s alerts represented only some of the many that were received by the clinicians during the course of the trial.
 

Better incentives needed

“We believe this shows that refinement of the nudges is needed, as well as changes to clinician incentives to overcome barriers to implementation of GDMT during hospitalizations for AHF,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Responding to a postpresentation question on whether the postdischarge phase might be a more effective time to intervene with nudges, Dr. Ahmad observed that many clinicians who care for patients in the hospital assume that someone else will have the patient receive appropriate meds after discharge. “But we know that things that are started in the hospital tend to stick better.

“I do think that a lot of the clinicians were thinking, ‘I’m just going to get this patient out and someone in the outside will get them on GDMT,’ ” he said.

In the United States there are many incentives to reduce hospital length of stay and to expedite discharge so more beds are available for incoming patients, Dr. Ahmad observed. “I think it’s a combination of these kinds of perverse incentives that are not allowing us to get patients on appropriate GDMT during hospitalization.”

Furthermore, Dr. Ahmad told this news organization, “additions to the EHR should be evaluated in an evidence-based manner. However, the opposite has occurred, with an unregulated data tsunami crushing clinicians, which has been bad both for the clinicians and for patients.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ahmad discloses receiving research funding from and consulting for AstraZeneca; and receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Three other coauthors are employees of AstraZeneca.

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

A system of personalized alerts via an electronic health record (EHR) network failed to boost discharge prescriptions for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in a randomized trial conducted at several centers in the same health care system.

The results of the PROMPT-AHF trial, which assigned such patients to have or not have the GDMT-promoting physician nudges as part of their in-hospital management, were “not entirely surprising,” Tariq Ahmad, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

“We have created an environment in the hospital that makes care quite fractured for patients with heart failure,” he said. “They are cared for by many different clinicians, which leads to well-known behaviors such as diffusion of responsibility.”

Moreover, many clinicians focus on stabilizing patients “rather than starting them on a comprehensive set of medications, which most think should be done after discharge,” Dr. Ahmad added.

“Importantly, there has been a logarithmic increase in alerts while patients are hospitalized that has caused clinician burnout and is leading to even very important alerts being ignored.”

Likely as a result, the trial saw no significant difference between the alert and no-alert groups in how often the number of GDMT prescriptions rose by at least one drug class, whether beta blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened for 34% of patients in both groups, reported Dr. Ahmad at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions

Nor was there a difference in the secondary endpoint of increased number of GDMT meds or escalated dosage of prescribed GDMT drugs.
 

GDMT ‘uncommon’ in AHF

In an earlier trial in outpatients with chronic HF, conducted by many of the same researchers, use of a targeted EHR-based alert system was associated with significantly higher rates of GDMT prescriptions 30 days after discharge, compared with usual care, Dr. Ahmad observed in his presentation.

Because GDMT is similarly “uncommon” among patients hospitalized with acute HF, the team designed the current trial, a test of the hypothesis that a similar system of nudges would lead to higher rates of prescriptions of the four core GDMT drug classes.

The study enrolled 920 adults with acute HF, an EF of 40% or lower (their median was 28%), and NT-proBNP levels higher than 500 pg/mL. The patients received IV diuretics for the first 24 in-hospital hours and were not taking medications from any of the four core HF drug classes. Their mean age was 74, 36% were women, and 25% were Black.

Physicians of patients who were randomly assigned to the intervention received the alerts as they entered information that involved ejection fraction, blood pressure, potassium levels, heart rate, glomerular filtration rate, and meds they were currently or should be taking, “along with an order set that made ordering those medications very easy,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“There was absolutely no evidence that the alert made any difference. There were zero patients on all four classes of GDMT at baseline, and at the time of discharge, only 11.2% of patients were on all four pillars – essentially, one in nine patients,” Dr. Ahmad said. Nor were there any subgroup differences in age, sex, race, ejection fraction, type of health insurance, or whether care was provided by a cardiologist or noncardiologist physician.

The study was limited by having been conducted within a single health care network using only the Epic EHR system. The alerts did not go exclusively to cardiologists, and patient preferences were not considered in the analysis. Also, the study’s alerts represented only some of the many that were received by the clinicians during the course of the trial.
 

Better incentives needed

“We believe this shows that refinement of the nudges is needed, as well as changes to clinician incentives to overcome barriers to implementation of GDMT during hospitalizations for AHF,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Responding to a postpresentation question on whether the postdischarge phase might be a more effective time to intervene with nudges, Dr. Ahmad observed that many clinicians who care for patients in the hospital assume that someone else will have the patient receive appropriate meds after discharge. “But we know that things that are started in the hospital tend to stick better.

“I do think that a lot of the clinicians were thinking, ‘I’m just going to get this patient out and someone in the outside will get them on GDMT,’ ” he said.

In the United States there are many incentives to reduce hospital length of stay and to expedite discharge so more beds are available for incoming patients, Dr. Ahmad observed. “I think it’s a combination of these kinds of perverse incentives that are not allowing us to get patients on appropriate GDMT during hospitalization.”

Furthermore, Dr. Ahmad told this news organization, “additions to the EHR should be evaluated in an evidence-based manner. However, the opposite has occurred, with an unregulated data tsunami crushing clinicians, which has been bad both for the clinicians and for patients.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ahmad discloses receiving research funding from and consulting for AstraZeneca; and receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Three other coauthors are employees of AstraZeneca.

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

A system of personalized alerts via an electronic health record (EHR) network failed to boost discharge prescriptions for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in a randomized trial conducted at several centers in the same health care system.

The results of the PROMPT-AHF trial, which assigned such patients to have or not have the GDMT-promoting physician nudges as part of their in-hospital management, were “not entirely surprising,” Tariq Ahmad, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

“We have created an environment in the hospital that makes care quite fractured for patients with heart failure,” he said. “They are cared for by many different clinicians, which leads to well-known behaviors such as diffusion of responsibility.”

Moreover, many clinicians focus on stabilizing patients “rather than starting them on a comprehensive set of medications, which most think should be done after discharge,” Dr. Ahmad added.

“Importantly, there has been a logarithmic increase in alerts while patients are hospitalized that has caused clinician burnout and is leading to even very important alerts being ignored.”

Likely as a result, the trial saw no significant difference between the alert and no-alert groups in how often the number of GDMT prescriptions rose by at least one drug class, whether beta blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened for 34% of patients in both groups, reported Dr. Ahmad at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions

Nor was there a difference in the secondary endpoint of increased number of GDMT meds or escalated dosage of prescribed GDMT drugs.
 

GDMT ‘uncommon’ in AHF

In an earlier trial in outpatients with chronic HF, conducted by many of the same researchers, use of a targeted EHR-based alert system was associated with significantly higher rates of GDMT prescriptions 30 days after discharge, compared with usual care, Dr. Ahmad observed in his presentation.

Because GDMT is similarly “uncommon” among patients hospitalized with acute HF, the team designed the current trial, a test of the hypothesis that a similar system of nudges would lead to higher rates of prescriptions of the four core GDMT drug classes.

The study enrolled 920 adults with acute HF, an EF of 40% or lower (their median was 28%), and NT-proBNP levels higher than 500 pg/mL. The patients received IV diuretics for the first 24 in-hospital hours and were not taking medications from any of the four core HF drug classes. Their mean age was 74, 36% were women, and 25% were Black.

Physicians of patients who were randomly assigned to the intervention received the alerts as they entered information that involved ejection fraction, blood pressure, potassium levels, heart rate, glomerular filtration rate, and meds they were currently or should be taking, “along with an order set that made ordering those medications very easy,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“There was absolutely no evidence that the alert made any difference. There were zero patients on all four classes of GDMT at baseline, and at the time of discharge, only 11.2% of patients were on all four pillars – essentially, one in nine patients,” Dr. Ahmad said. Nor were there any subgroup differences in age, sex, race, ejection fraction, type of health insurance, or whether care was provided by a cardiologist or noncardiologist physician.

The study was limited by having been conducted within a single health care network using only the Epic EHR system. The alerts did not go exclusively to cardiologists, and patient preferences were not considered in the analysis. Also, the study’s alerts represented only some of the many that were received by the clinicians during the course of the trial.
 

Better incentives needed

“We believe this shows that refinement of the nudges is needed, as well as changes to clinician incentives to overcome barriers to implementation of GDMT during hospitalizations for AHF,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Responding to a postpresentation question on whether the postdischarge phase might be a more effective time to intervene with nudges, Dr. Ahmad observed that many clinicians who care for patients in the hospital assume that someone else will have the patient receive appropriate meds after discharge. “But we know that things that are started in the hospital tend to stick better.

“I do think that a lot of the clinicians were thinking, ‘I’m just going to get this patient out and someone in the outside will get them on GDMT,’ ” he said.

In the United States there are many incentives to reduce hospital length of stay and to expedite discharge so more beds are available for incoming patients, Dr. Ahmad observed. “I think it’s a combination of these kinds of perverse incentives that are not allowing us to get patients on appropriate GDMT during hospitalization.”

Furthermore, Dr. Ahmad told this news organization, “additions to the EHR should be evaluated in an evidence-based manner. However, the opposite has occurred, with an unregulated data tsunami crushing clinicians, which has been bad both for the clinicians and for patients.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ahmad discloses receiving research funding from and consulting for AstraZeneca; and receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Three other coauthors are employees of AstraZeneca.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for ferric carboxymaltose injection (Injectafer, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent) to include treatment of iron deficiency in adults with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure (HF).

“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.

Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.

The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.

In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.  

No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.

According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for ferric carboxymaltose injection (Injectafer, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent) to include treatment of iron deficiency in adults with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure (HF).

“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.

Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.

The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.

In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.  

No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.

According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for ferric carboxymaltose injection (Injectafer, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent) to include treatment of iron deficiency in adults with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure (HF).

“This new indication for Injectafer marks the first and only FDA approval of an intravenous iron replacement therapy for adult patients with heart failure,” Ravi Tayi, MD, MPH, chief medical officer at American Regent, said in a news release.

Ferric carboxymaltose injection is also indicated for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in adults and children as young as 1 year of age who have either intolerance or an unsatisfactory response to oral iron, and in adult patients who have nondialysis dependent chronic kidney disease.

The new indication in HF was supported by data from the CONFIRM-HF randomized controlled trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ferric carboxymaltose injection in adults with chronic HF and iron deficiency.

In the study, results showed that treatment with ferric carboxymaltose injection significantly improved exercise capacity compared with placebo in iron-deficient patients with HF.  

No new safety signals emerged. The most common treatment emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, hypertension, injection site reactions, hypophosphatemia, and dizziness.

According to the company, ferric carboxymaltose injection has been studied in more than 40 clinical trials that included over 8,800 patients worldwide and has been approved in 86 countries.

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel agent that inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 as well as SGLT2, has received marketing approval from the Food and Drug Administration for reducing the risk for cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent heart failure visits in patients with heart failure, and also for preventing these same events in patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and other cardiovascular disease risk factors.

This puts sotagliflozin in direct competition with two SGLT2 inhibitors, dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance), that already have indications for preventing heart failure hospitalizations in patients with heart failure as well as approvals for type 2 diabetes and preservation of renal function.

Officials at Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed and will market sotagliflozin under the trade name Inpefa, said in a press release that they expect U.S. sales of the agent to begin before the end of June 2023. The release also highlighted that the approval broadly covered use in patients with heart failure across the full range of both reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fractions.

Lexicon officials also said that the company will focus on marketing sotagliflozin for preventing near-term rehospitalizations of patients discharged after an episode of acute heart failure decompensation.

They base this niche target for sotagliflozin on results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial, which randomized 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure and showed a significant 33% reduction in the rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure, compared with control patients during a median 9 months of follow-up. Nearly half of the enrolled patients received their first dose while still hospitalized, while the other half received their first dose a median of 2 days after hospital discharge. The drug appeared safe.
 

Cutting heart failure rehospitalizations in half

An exploratory post hoc analysis of SOLOIST-WHF showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of rehospitalizations roughly in half after both 30 and 90 days compared with control patients, according to an abstract presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the AHA that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The only SGLT2 inhibitor tested so far when initiated in patients during hospitalization for heart failure is empagliflozin, in the EMPULSE trial, which randomized 530 patients. EMPULSE also showed that starting an SGLT2 inhibitor in this setting was safe and resulted in significant clinical benefit, the study’s primary endpoint, defined as a composite of death from any cause, number of heart failure events, and time to first heart failure event, or a 5-point or greater difference in change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score at 90 days.

In the DELIVER trial, which tested dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, roughly 10% of patients started study treatment during or within 30 days of heart failure hospitalization, and in this subgroup, dapagliflozin appeared as effective as it was in the other 90% of patients who did not start the drug during an acute or subacute phase.

Despite the SOLOIST-WHF evidence for sotagliflozin’s safety and efficacy in this economically important clinical setting, some experts say the drug faces an uphill path as it contends for market share against two solidly established, albeit dramatically underused, SGLT2 inhibitors. (Recent data document that 20% or fewer of U.S. patients eligible for treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor receive it, such as a review of 49,000 patients hospitalized during 2021-2022 with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.)

Others foresee a clear role for sotagliflozin, particularly because of additional facets of the drug’s performance in trials that they perceive give it an edge over dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. This includes evidence that sotagliflozin treatment uniquely (within the SGLT2 inhibitor class) cuts the rate of strokes and myocardial infarctions, as well as evidence of its apparent ability to lower hemoglobin A1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes and with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m², a property likely linked to inhibition of SGLT1 in the gut that dampens intestinal glucose absorption.
 

Sotagliflozin uptake ‘will be a challenge’

“It will be a challenge” for sotagliflozin uptake, given the head start that both dapagliflozin and empagliflozin have had as well-documented agents for patients with heart failure, commented Javed Butler, MD, a heart failure clinician and trialist who is president of the Baylor Scott & White Research Institute in Dallas.

Given the position dapagliflozin and empagliflozin currently have in U.S. heart failure management – with the SGLT2 inhibitor class called out in guidelines as foundational for treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and likely soon for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction as well – “I can’t imagine [sotagliflozin] will be considered a preferred option,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.

Another expert was even more dismissive of sotagliflozin’s role.

“There is no persuasive evidence that sotagliflozin has any advantages, compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, for the treatment of heart failure,” said Milton Packer, MD, a heart failure specialist and trialist at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas. “I do not see why U.S. physicians might pivot from established SGLT2 inhibitors to sotagliflozin,” unless it was priced “at a very meaningful discount to available SGLT2 inhibitors.”

At the time it announced the FDA’s approval, Lexicon did not provide details on how it would price sotagliflozin. Existing retail prices for dapagliflozin and empagliflozin run about $550-$600/month, a price point that has contributed to slow U.S. uptake of the drug class. But experts anticipate a dramatic shake-up of the U.S. market for SGLT2 inhibitors with expected introduction of a generic SGLT2 inhibitor formulation by 2025, a development that could further dampen sotagliflozin’s prospects.

Other experts are more optimistic about the new agent’s uptake, perhaps none more than Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, who led both pivotal trials that provide the bulk of sotagliflozin’s evidence package.

copyright CYIM

In addition to SOLOIST-WHF, Dr. Bhatt also headed the SCORED trial, with 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and risks for cardiovascular disease randomized to sotagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median of 16 months. The primary result showed that sotagliflozin treatment cut the combined rate of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure by a significant 26% relative to control patients.
 

A clear MACE benefit

“The data from SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED look at least as good as the data for the SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure, and what appears to be different are the rates for MI and stroke in SCORED,” said Dr. Bhatt, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York.

“I believe the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE] were reduced [in SCORED], and this is different from the SGLT2 inhibitors,” he said in an interview.

In 2022, Dr. Bhatt reported results from a prespecified secondary analysis of SCORED that showed that treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of MACE by a significant 21%-26%, compared with placebo. This finding was, in part, driven by the first data to show a substantial benefit from an SGLT inhibitor on stroke rates.

And while SCORED did not report a significant benefit for slowing progression of CKD, subsequent post hoc analyses have suggested this advantage also in as-yet-unpublished findings, Dr. Bhatt added.

But he said he doubted nephrologists will see it as a first-line agent for slowing CKD progression – an indication already held by dapagliflozin, pending for empagliflozin, and also in place for a third SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana) – because sotagliflozin lacks clear significant and prespecified evidence for this effect.

Dr. Bhatt also acknowledged the limitation of sotagliflozin compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors as an agent for glucose control, again because of no evidence for this effect from a prospective analysis and no pending indication for type 2 diabetes treatment. But the SCORED data showed a clear A1c benefit, even in patients with severely reduced renal function.
 

Mostly for cardiologists? ‘Compelling’ reductions in MIs and strokes

That may mean sotagliflozin “won’t get much use by endocrinologists nor by primary care physicians,” commented Carol L. Wysham, MD, an endocrinologist with MultiCare in Spokane, Wash.

Sotagliflozin “will be a cardiology drug,” and will “have a hard time” competing with the SGLT2 inhibitors, she predicted.

Dr. Bhatt agreed that sotagliflozin “will be perceived as a drug for cardiologists to prescribe. I don’t see endocrinologists, nephrologists, and primary care physicians reaching for this drug if it has a heart failure label.” But, he added, “my hope is that the company files for additional indications. It deserves an indication for glycemic control.”

The evidence for a heart failure benefit from sotagliflozin is “valid and compelling,” and “having this option is great,” commented Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist, vice president of research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo. But, he added, “it will be a reasonably tall task for sotagliflozin to come from behind and be disruptive in a space where there are already two well-established SGLT2 inhibitors” approved for preventing heart failure hospitalizations, “with a lot of data to back them up,”

The feature that sets sotagliflozin apart from the approved SGLT2 inhibitors is the “really compelling decrease” it produced in rates of MIs and strokes “that we simply do not see with SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

He also cited results from SCORED that suggest “a meaningful reduction in A1c” when indirectly compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, especially in patients with more severe CKD. The lack of a dedicated A1c-lowering trial or an approved type 2 diabetes indication “will not be a problem for cardiologists,” he predicted, but also agreed that it is less likely to be used by primary care physicians in low-risk patients.

“I can see myself prescribing sotagliflozin,” said Dr. Kosiborod, a SCORED coinvestigator, especially for patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, heart failure, CKD, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These patients may get “more bang for the buck” because of a reduced risk for MI and stroke, making sotagliflozin “a solid consideration in these patients if the economic factors align.”

Like others, Dr. Kosiborod cited the big impact pricing will have, especially if, as expected, a generic SGLT2 inhibitor soon comes onto the U.S. market. “Access and affordability are very important.”

SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were sponsored initially by Sanofi and later by Lexicon after Sanofi pulled out of sotagliflozin development. Dr. Butler has been a consultant for Lexicon as well as for AstraZeneca (which markets Farxiga), Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly (which jointly market Jardiance), and Janssen (which markets Invokana), as well as for numerous other companies. Dr. Packer has been a consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies. Dr. Bhatt was lead investigator for SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED and has been an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen and numerous other companies. Dr. Wysham has been an adviser, speaker, and consultant for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, an adviser for Abbott, and a speaker for Insulet. Dr. Kosiborod was a member of the SCORED Steering Committee and has been a consultant for Lexicon, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and numerous other companies.

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

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A new review article highlights approaches for mechanical circulatory support in patients with high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Mechanical support has become an important treatment option for refractory shock resulting from acute right ventricular failure (RVF).

Pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic significance is widely underdiagnosed, and the mortality rate can be as high as 30%, but new therapeutic developments offer promise. “Over the past few years, a renewed interest in mechanical circulatory support (MCS; both percutaneous and surgical) for acute RVF has emerged, increasing viable treatment options for high-risk acute PE,” wrote the authors of the review, which was published online in Interventional Cardiology Clinics.

Poor outcomes are often driven by RVF, which is tricky to diagnose and manage, and it stems from a sudden increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) following PE. “The mechanism for increased PVR in acute PE is multifactorial, including direct blood flow impedance, local hypoxia-induced vasoconstriction, and platelet/thrombin-induced release of vasoactive peptides. The cascade of events that then leads to RVF includes decreased RV stoke volume, increased RV wall tension, and RV dilation,” the authors wrote.

The authors noted that diuretics help to correct changes to RV geometry and can improve left ventricle filling, which improves hemodynamics. Diuretics can be used in patients who are hypotensive and volume overloaded, but vasopressors should be employed to support blood pressure.

When using mechanical ventilation, strategies such as low tidal volumes, minimization of positive end expiratory pressure, and prevention of hypoxemia and acidemia should be employed to prevent an increase of pulmonary vascular resistance, which can worsen RV failure.

Pulmonary vasodilators aren’t recommended for acute PE, but inhaled pulmonary vasodilators may be considered in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Surgically implanted right ventricle assistance device are generally not used for acute RV failure in high-risk PE, unless the patient has not improved after medical management.
 

Percutaneous devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices can be used for patients experiencing refractory shock. The review highlighted three such devices, including the Impella RP, tandem-heart right ventricular assist devices (TH-RVAD) or Protek Duo, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but they are not without limitations. “Challenges to using these devices in patients with acute PE include clot dislodgement, vascular complications, infections, device migration, and fracture of individual elements,” the authors wrote.

The Impella RP is easy to deploy and bypasses the RV, but it can’t provide blood oxygenation and may cause bleeding or hemolysis. TH-RVAD oxygenates the blood and bypasses the RV, but suffers from a large sheath size. VA-ECMO oxygenates the blood but may cause bleeding.

There are important differences among the mechanical support devices, according to Jonathan Ludmir, MD, who was asked to comment. “In reality, if someone has a large pulmonary embolism burden, to put in the Impella RP or the Protek Duo would be a little bit risky, because you’d be sometimes putting the device right where the clot is. At least what we do in our institution, when someone is in extremis despite using [intravenous] medications like vasopressors or inotropes, VA-ECMO is kind of the go to. This is both the quickest and probably most effective way to support the patient. I say the quickest because this is a procedure you can do at the bedside.”
 

Benefits of PERT

One message that the review only briefly mentions, but Dr. Ludmir believes is key, is employing a pulmonary embolism response team. “That’s been looked at extensively, and it’s a really key part of any decision-making. If someone presents to the emergency room or someone inside the hospital has an acute pulmonary embolism, you have a team of people that can respond and help assess the next step. Typically, that involves a cardiologist or an interventional cardiologist, a hematologist, vascular surgeon, often a cardiac surgeon, so it’s a whole slew of people. Based on the patient assessment they can quickly decide, can this patient just be okay with a blood thinner like heparin? Does this patient need something more aggressive, like a thrombectomy? Or is this a serious case where you involve the shock team or the ECMO team, and you have to stabilize the patient on mechanical circulatory support, so you can accomplish what you need to do to get rid of the pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Corrigan Minehan Heart Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

“Every case is individualized, hence the importance of having a team of a variety of different backgrounds and thoughts to approach it. And I think that’s kind of like the key takeaway. Yes, you have to be familiar with all the therapies, but at the end of the day, not every patient is going to fit into the algorithm for how you approach pulmonary embolism,” said Dr. Ludmir.

Dr. Ludmir has no relevant conflicts of interest.

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with an ejection fraction (EF) greater than 40% who were stabilized after recent worsening or de novo heart failure (HF) had a greater reduction in natriuretic peptides and less worsening renal function, but a higher rate of hypotension over 8 weeks with sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) versus valsartan (Diovan) in the PARAGLIDE-HF trial.

A subgroup analysis showed evidence of a larger treatment effect among those with an EF of 60% or less, said Robert Mentz, MD, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Mentz presented the findings at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) scientific sessions. The study was also published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Next steps will involve further assessment of the cardiovascular and renal benefits, as well as further exploration of the symptomatic hypotension that we observed,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

Meanwhile, he said, “clinicians should be aware of these new data – specifically, the incremental reduction in natriuretic peptide level, compared with valsartan, and potential benefits on cardiovascular and renal events,” particularly in those with an EF greater than 40% to 60% or less.
 

Larger benefit for EF > 40% to < 60%

PARAGLIDE-HF was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with 466 patients with EF greater than 40% enrolled within 30 days of a worsening HF event. The median age was 71 years, 52% were women, and 22% were Black.

The trial was a follow-up to PARAGON-HF, which had shown that, in patients with an EF of at least 45%, sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for HF or death from cardiovascular causes, compared with valsartan.

The primary endpoint for PARAGLIDE was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline through weeks 4 and 8, as in the PIONEER-HF trial. That trial showed that among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF with reduced EF (< 40%), the angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) led to a greater reduction in NT-proBNP concentration than the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Similarly, for PARAGLIDE, the time-averaged reduction in NT-proBNP was greater with sacubitril-valsartan, with a change ratio of 0.85 (15% greater reduction).

A secondary hierarchical outcome for PARAGLIDE, using the win ratio, consisted of time to cardiovascular death, number and timing of HF hospitalizations, number and timing of urgent HF visits, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8.

The hierarchical outcome favored sacubitril-valsartan, but was not significant (unmatched win ratio, 1.19).

As noted, sacubitril-valsartan reduced worsening renal function, compared with valsartan (odds ratio, 0.61), but increased symptomatic hypotension (OR, 1.73).

“We will work to better characterize the hypotension events that were observed to help identify those patients at greater risk and to provide further clarity around the timing and implications of these events,” Dr. Mentz said in an interview.

The team hypothesized that such events may be prevented by optimizing volume status and background therapies commonly used to treat hypertension in these patients.

“For instance,” Dr. Mentz suggested, “calcium channel blockers like amlodipine could be dose reduced or discontinued in patients with lower baseline blood pressures to better support sacubitril/valsartan initiation and titration.”

He highlighted the subgroup analysis showing evidence of a larger treatment effect in study patients with an EF of 60% or less for the NT-proBNP change (0.78) and the hierarchical outcome (win ratio, 1.46). 

“These data may influence future guidance for sacubitril-valsartan in HF with EF greater than 40%, regardless of HF chronicity [acute or chronic vs. de novo] and treatment setting [hospital vs. clinic],” Dr. Mentz concluded.
 

Data ‘far from conclusive’

In a comment, Sean Pinney, MD, chief of cardiology at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said that the study results “help expand the current evidence base supporting the use of an ARNI in patients” with an EF greater than 40% up to 60%, and “provide confidence that ARNIs help to lower natriuretic peptides.

“It comes as little surprise that not everyone was able to tolerate these medications due to intolerable side effects like dizziness or hypotension,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, “hopefully, these trial data help strengthen clinicians’ resolve to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan to a growing population of vulnerable patients.”

In a related editorial, Hector O. Ventura, MD, of the Ochsner Clinical School–University of Queensland, New Orleans, and colleagues express several concerns about the study.

Although the trial achieved significance for the primary endpoint, the margin of benefit was less than expected and the magnitude of the NT-proBNP reduction may not have been enough to reach the threshold for clinical benefit, they wrote.

Diuretic dosing in the two groups was not reported, and between-group differences may have contributed to both the differential NT-proBNP reduction and the rates of hypotension.

Furthermore, the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher proportion of missing NT-proBNP data, which may have biased the results.

“In aggregate,” they wrote, “while the study suggests some evidence of a beneficial trend of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF and a recent episode of worsening HF, the data are far from conclusive.”

“Clinicians who elect to use sacubitril-valsartan in this population should be mindful of the risk for hypotension and select patients carefully, while providing close ambulatory follow up to ensure stability and adherence,” they noted.

“This important trial provides some wins that support selective use of sacubitril-valsartan in HFpEF [as well as] observed losses, which too may help to define better implementation strategies in appropriately selected patients,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mentz and other coauthors have received fees from Novartis. Dr. Pinney, Dr. Ventura, and the other editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the copper chelator trientine reduced NT-proBNP levels up to 8 weeks by restoring normal intracellular copper.

In models of HF, intracellular copper depletion is associated with myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, and thus an increased risk for cardiac remodeling, James Januzzi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, told attendees at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

Although trientine has been used for over 40 years to treat Wilson disease – a rare inherited disease characterized by copper overload – “paradoxically, it acts as a copper chaperone and can restore intracellular copper concentrations at low doses,” Dr. Januzzi explained during his presentation of the TRACER-HF results.

Although the dose-ranging study found that at 300 mg twice daily trientine effectively reduced NT-proBNP levels at 4 and 8 weeks, by 12 weeks, the effect had disappeared.

Nevertheless, Dr. Januzzi told the meeting attendees that the same dose was “most consistently” associated with most favorable Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS) changes, as well as improvements in left ventricular (LV) function and 6-minute walk distance.
 

‘Challenging is an understatement’

Asked why the improvement in NT-proBNP levels was no longer evident at week 12, Dr. Januzzi acknowledged, “We just don’t know.” However, the team speculates that the disrupted nature of the study might play a role.

The phase 2, placebo-controlled trial started recruiting at 27 sites in North America in 2019. When the pandemic hit in 2020, enrollment was suspended, then pivoted to China in 2021. A total of 190 participants were ultimately enrolled.

However, 91% of participants in China were finishing their follow-up in late 2022, when the country was hit by a COVID-19 surge, which might have affected the 12-week outcomes – though this is speculation for now.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 57 years; about 80% were men; 91% were Asian; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%; and most (77%) were New York Heart Association class II. All were stable on optimal drug therapy, including chronic loop diuretics.

All had elevated NT-proBNP: ≥ 400 pg/mL without atrial fibrillation or flutter, or ≥ 1200 pg/mL with atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Participants were randomized to placebo or twice-daily trientine doses of 50 mg, 150 mg, or 300 mg.

The primary endpoint was the proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to 12 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included the effect of trientine compared with placebo on mechanistic outcomes such as change in cardiac remodeling indices, 6-minute walk distance, and the KCCQ-OSS.

As noted, the greatest reduction in NT-proBNP at 4 and 8 weeks was in the 300-mg group, with a geometric mean ratio of 0.82 at week 4 vs. 1.03 for placebo; 0.92 for 50 mg; and 0.83 for 150 mg; and 0.79 at week 8 vs 1.02 for placebo; 0.85 for 50 mg; and 0.91 for 150 mg.

LV volumes improved at all doses, though by the most at 50 mg (–11.7 mL).

The change in 6-minute walk distance was greatest at the 300-mg dose at 42 meters.

The responder analysis showed that 300 mg was most consistently associated with most of the favorable KCCQ changes.

From a safety standpoint, trientine was well tolerated without any adverse outcomes. Notably, Dr. Januzzi told meeting attendees, blood pressure and heart rate were not affected by the addition of trientine to background medical care.

In addition, a post hoc interaction was identified between treatment response and a baseline LVEF ≤ 30%, data that, for now, are “compelling but hypothesis-generating,” he said. Data on secondary endpoints specifically for that group “are forthcoming.”
 

Looking ahead

Dr. Januzzi said in an interview that the team is now finalizing the main report “and will turn our attention to the interaction analyses suggesting exaggerated benefit in those with lower LVEF.

“We are examining all possible options for this novel therapy, which may include progressing to phase 3,” he said.

Challenges going forward include the need to understand which patients are most appropriate for the drug. “Given that it does not affect blood pressure or heart rate, it is an attractive consideration for any patient on guideline-directed medical therapy, but we need to have more clarity about the mechanism of benefit and understanding about the subgroup interactions that we have detected.

“Even in a well-managed population of patients with heart failure, there may still be room for therapies with benefit,” he concluded.

Danyaal Moin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York and a specialist in advanced heart failure and transplantation, commented on these findings for this article.

“It is always exciting to consider new pathways to treat patients with systolic dysfunction, given the residual risk even for patients on contemporary quadruple therapy for HFrEF,” he said. “However, certain challenges with this phase 2 study will need to be addressed in an eventual phase 3 clinical trial.

“The study sample was predominately recruited in China and is not necessarily representative of a heart failure population in many clinical practices,” he said.

“It would be important that future studies with trientine-HCL assess endpoints such as heart failure hospitalizations and mortality that would help elucidate where this therapy would stand relative to current established heart failure therapies.”

Longer follow-up is needed and, he noted, “while it appears the investigators will ultimately favor the 300-mg dosage, it is interesting that left ventricular volume indices changed most favorably with the 50-mg dose of the therapy.” 

The study was sponsored by Innolife Pharmaceuticals and coordinated by the Baim Institute for Clinical Research in Boston. Dr. Januzzi has received grant support from Innolife. Dr. Moin declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel antibody, NI006 (Neurimmune), was safe for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in a phase 1 trial and appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart, a new study suggests.

Currently, the only drug approved to treat ATTR is tafamidis, which improves survival and reduces hospitalizations, but does not reverse disease symptoms, the authors noted.

NI006 is a recombinant human anti-ATTR antibody given by infusion that was developed to trigger removal of ATTR by the body’s phagocytic immune cells.

Use of the drug was not associated with serious drug-related adverse events, though mild and moderate adverse events did occur.

Median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T levels also seemed to be reduced over the study period.

Given the success of the antibody in this initial 40-patient trial, a larger phase-3 placebo-controlled trial is planned and expected to launch in the second half of 2023, said lead author Pablo Garcia-Pavia, MD, of Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro and the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Institute, Madrid.

However, “The design of appropriate phase-3 trials to demonstrate efficacy of drugs for ATTR-CM is becoming more complicated and challenging,” he said.

“Increased awareness of the disease and advances in cardiac imaging techniques have led to recognition of a larger number of patients with ATTR-CM who have a different clinical profile and a different prognosis than the patients who were diagnosed in previous years and were enrolled in the initial trials of stabilizers,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia added.

“Moreover, the availability of tafamidis, and hopefully soon other medications to treat ATTR-CM has complicated the design of new clinical trials because of the heterogenicity of treatments that patients might receive,” he said. “Therefore, it is critical to plan the design very well.”

Dr. Garcia-Pavia presented the findings on NI006 at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No serious adverse events

For the phase-1, double-blind, multicenter study, the investigators randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) 40 patients (median age, 72 years; 98% men) with wild-type or variant ATTR cardiomyopathy and chronic heart failure to receive IV infusions of either NI006, at one of six doses ranging from 0.3 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo every 4 weeks for 4 months.

After the four infusions, participants were enrolled in an open-label extension phase in which they received eight NI006 infusions with stepwise increases in the dose.

Participants had a confirmed diagnosis of ATTR-CM; left ventricular wall thickness of at least 14 mm; left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%; New York Heart Association class I, II, or III; estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²; and an NT-proBNP level of 600 to 6,000 pg/mL.

Most (36) were receiving tafamidis, with a median treatment duration of 7 months; other ATTR-specific drugs were not permitted. Patients randomly assigned to receive NI006 seemed to have more advanced disease compared with those assigned to placebo.

Adherence to the trial protocol was high: Thirty-four patients received the four scheduled infusions during the ascending-dose phase, and 34 of 35 patients who completed this phase subsequently enrolled in the open-label extension.

No apparent drug-related serious adverse events were reported. However, during the ascending-dose phase, 38 patients had at least one adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate; of the 191 total events, 124 were grade 1 and 60 were grade 2 (most commonly heart failure and arrhythmias). Three patients had cytokine release syndrome; all three completed treatment through the extension phase.

Musculoskeletal events increased with ascending doses of NI006, which led two patients to withdraw from the trial.

At doses of at least 10 mg/kg, cardiac tracer uptake on scintigraphy and extracellular volume on cardiac MRI, both of which are imaging-based surrogate markers of cardiac amyloid load, appeared to be reduced over 12 months.

Because NI006 stimulates the patient’s own immune system to eliminate cardiac amyloid fibrils, one session chair at the meeting wondered whether NI006 represented the “rise of immunology in cardiology,” and whether biologics might follow.

Another questioned how removing amyloid might affect cardiac function. The echocardiographic findings gathered so far don’t indicate dysfunction, “but this is a small trial, and we need more data,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia said.
 

Tempered excitement

In a comment, Ronald Witteles, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and founder/codirector of the Stanford Amyloid Center, said that “antibody-based amyloid removal strategies are not currently clinically available and represent a fundamentally different mechanism to treat the disease from what we currently have.

“While the data are encouraging and will generate excitement for later-phase studies, we’re talking about small numbers of patients and nothing definitive should be drawn from this data,” said Dr. Witteles, deputy editor of JACC: CardioOncology.

“The biggest caveat is that similar approaches of antibody removal of amyloid deposits for other forms of amyloidosis — most notably AL amyloidosis (amyloid light chain or primary amyloidosis) – have failed in late-phase trials. Although there is reason to believe that ATTR amyloidosis may be more amenable to improvements with amyloid fibril removal than AL amyloidosis, the unimpressive results in other forms of amyloidosis still do temper the excitement to a degree.”

Like Dr. Garcia-Pavia, Dr. Witteles said, “Ultimately, we are going to need to see a phase 3 clinical trial which shows that NI006 – on top of standard-of-care treatment – improves hard outcomes in the disease. As treatment options likely expand in the coming years, that is likely to be a harder and harder bar to reach.”

Furthermore, although the safety profile was favorable overall, it “wasn’t entirely clean,” given cytokine release syndrome in three patients, a lowering of platelet counts in a couple of patients, and musculoskeletal side effects that triggered two to withdraw from the study. “Unless that changes,” he said, “that will be a barrier for some patients.”

Overall, he noted, “With the vast majority of patients being able to be diagnosed noninvasively, and with treatment options now available, we have seen a true explosion in the number of patients being diagnosed.

“But we also know that the large majority ... are still not getting diagnosed or are having huge delays in diagnosis. As such, the biggest thing we can do for patients with the disease is to continue to educate people about it,” Dr. Witteles concluded.

The study was funded by Neurimmune. Dr. Garcia-Pavia disclosed ties to Alexion, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Attralus, BridgeBio, General Electric, Intellia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Witteles reported ties to Alexion, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, BridgeBio, Intellia, Ionis, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.

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

A novel antibody, NI006 (Neurimmune), was safe for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in a phase 1 trial and appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart, a new study suggests.

Currently, the only drug approved to treat ATTR is tafamidis, which improves survival and reduces hospitalizations, but does not reverse disease symptoms, the authors noted.

NI006 is a recombinant human anti-ATTR antibody given by infusion that was developed to trigger removal of ATTR by the body’s phagocytic immune cells.

Use of the drug was not associated with serious drug-related adverse events, though mild and moderate adverse events did occur.

Median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T levels also seemed to be reduced over the study period.

Given the success of the antibody in this initial 40-patient trial, a larger phase-3 placebo-controlled trial is planned and expected to launch in the second half of 2023, said lead author Pablo Garcia-Pavia, MD, of Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro and the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Institute, Madrid.

However, “The design of appropriate phase-3 trials to demonstrate efficacy of drugs for ATTR-CM is becoming more complicated and challenging,” he said.

“Increased awareness of the disease and advances in cardiac imaging techniques have led to recognition of a larger number of patients with ATTR-CM who have a different clinical profile and a different prognosis than the patients who were diagnosed in previous years and were enrolled in the initial trials of stabilizers,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia added.

“Moreover, the availability of tafamidis, and hopefully soon other medications to treat ATTR-CM has complicated the design of new clinical trials because of the heterogenicity of treatments that patients might receive,” he said. “Therefore, it is critical to plan the design very well.”

Dr. Garcia-Pavia presented the findings on NI006 at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No serious adverse events

For the phase-1, double-blind, multicenter study, the investigators randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) 40 patients (median age, 72 years; 98% men) with wild-type or variant ATTR cardiomyopathy and chronic heart failure to receive IV infusions of either NI006, at one of six doses ranging from 0.3 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo every 4 weeks for 4 months.

After the four infusions, participants were enrolled in an open-label extension phase in which they received eight NI006 infusions with stepwise increases in the dose.

Participants had a confirmed diagnosis of ATTR-CM; left ventricular wall thickness of at least 14 mm; left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%; New York Heart Association class I, II, or III; estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²; and an NT-proBNP level of 600 to 6,000 pg/mL.

Most (36) were receiving tafamidis, with a median treatment duration of 7 months; other ATTR-specific drugs were not permitted. Patients randomly assigned to receive NI006 seemed to have more advanced disease compared with those assigned to placebo.

Adherence to the trial protocol was high: Thirty-four patients received the four scheduled infusions during the ascending-dose phase, and 34 of 35 patients who completed this phase subsequently enrolled in the open-label extension.

No apparent drug-related serious adverse events were reported. However, during the ascending-dose phase, 38 patients had at least one adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate; of the 191 total events, 124 were grade 1 and 60 were grade 2 (most commonly heart failure and arrhythmias). Three patients had cytokine release syndrome; all three completed treatment through the extension phase.

Musculoskeletal events increased with ascending doses of NI006, which led two patients to withdraw from the trial.

At doses of at least 10 mg/kg, cardiac tracer uptake on scintigraphy and extracellular volume on cardiac MRI, both of which are imaging-based surrogate markers of cardiac amyloid load, appeared to be reduced over 12 months.

Because NI006 stimulates the patient’s own immune system to eliminate cardiac amyloid fibrils, one session chair at the meeting wondered whether NI006 represented the “rise of immunology in cardiology,” and whether biologics might follow.

Another questioned how removing amyloid might affect cardiac function. The echocardiographic findings gathered so far don’t indicate dysfunction, “but this is a small trial, and we need more data,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia said.
 

Tempered excitement

In a comment, Ronald Witteles, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and founder/codirector of the Stanford Amyloid Center, said that “antibody-based amyloid removal strategies are not currently clinically available and represent a fundamentally different mechanism to treat the disease from what we currently have.

“While the data are encouraging and will generate excitement for later-phase studies, we’re talking about small numbers of patients and nothing definitive should be drawn from this data,” said Dr. Witteles, deputy editor of JACC: CardioOncology.

“The biggest caveat is that similar approaches of antibody removal of amyloid deposits for other forms of amyloidosis — most notably AL amyloidosis (amyloid light chain or primary amyloidosis) – have failed in late-phase trials. Although there is reason to believe that ATTR amyloidosis may be more amenable to improvements with amyloid fibril removal than AL amyloidosis, the unimpressive results in other forms of amyloidosis still do temper the excitement to a degree.”

Like Dr. Garcia-Pavia, Dr. Witteles said, “Ultimately, we are going to need to see a phase 3 clinical trial which shows that NI006 – on top of standard-of-care treatment – improves hard outcomes in the disease. As treatment options likely expand in the coming years, that is likely to be a harder and harder bar to reach.”

Furthermore, although the safety profile was favorable overall, it “wasn’t entirely clean,” given cytokine release syndrome in three patients, a lowering of platelet counts in a couple of patients, and musculoskeletal side effects that triggered two to withdraw from the study. “Unless that changes,” he said, “that will be a barrier for some patients.”

Overall, he noted, “With the vast majority of patients being able to be diagnosed noninvasively, and with treatment options now available, we have seen a true explosion in the number of patients being diagnosed.

“But we also know that the large majority ... are still not getting diagnosed or are having huge delays in diagnosis. As such, the biggest thing we can do for patients with the disease is to continue to educate people about it,” Dr. Witteles concluded.

The study was funded by Neurimmune. Dr. Garcia-Pavia disclosed ties to Alexion, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Attralus, BridgeBio, General Electric, Intellia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Witteles reported ties to Alexion, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, BridgeBio, Intellia, Ionis, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.

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

A novel antibody, NI006 (Neurimmune), was safe for the treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in a phase 1 trial and appeared to reduce the amount of amyloid protein deposited in the heart, a new study suggests.

Currently, the only drug approved to treat ATTR is tafamidis, which improves survival and reduces hospitalizations, but does not reverse disease symptoms, the authors noted.

NI006 is a recombinant human anti-ATTR antibody given by infusion that was developed to trigger removal of ATTR by the body’s phagocytic immune cells.

Use of the drug was not associated with serious drug-related adverse events, though mild and moderate adverse events did occur.

Median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T levels also seemed to be reduced over the study period.

Given the success of the antibody in this initial 40-patient trial, a larger phase-3 placebo-controlled trial is planned and expected to launch in the second half of 2023, said lead author Pablo Garcia-Pavia, MD, of Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro and the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Institute, Madrid.

However, “The design of appropriate phase-3 trials to demonstrate efficacy of drugs for ATTR-CM is becoming more complicated and challenging,” he said.

“Increased awareness of the disease and advances in cardiac imaging techniques have led to recognition of a larger number of patients with ATTR-CM who have a different clinical profile and a different prognosis than the patients who were diagnosed in previous years and were enrolled in the initial trials of stabilizers,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia added.

“Moreover, the availability of tafamidis, and hopefully soon other medications to treat ATTR-CM has complicated the design of new clinical trials because of the heterogenicity of treatments that patients might receive,” he said. “Therefore, it is critical to plan the design very well.”

Dr. Garcia-Pavia presented the findings on NI006 at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions. The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

No serious adverse events

For the phase-1, double-blind, multicenter study, the investigators randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) 40 patients (median age, 72 years; 98% men) with wild-type or variant ATTR cardiomyopathy and chronic heart failure to receive IV infusions of either NI006, at one of six doses ranging from 0.3 mg/kg to 60 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo every 4 weeks for 4 months.

After the four infusions, participants were enrolled in an open-label extension phase in which they received eight NI006 infusions with stepwise increases in the dose.

Participants had a confirmed diagnosis of ATTR-CM; left ventricular wall thickness of at least 14 mm; left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%; New York Heart Association class I, II, or III; estimated glomerular filtration rate of more than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m²; and an NT-proBNP level of 600 to 6,000 pg/mL.

Most (36) were receiving tafamidis, with a median treatment duration of 7 months; other ATTR-specific drugs were not permitted. Patients randomly assigned to receive NI006 seemed to have more advanced disease compared with those assigned to placebo.

Adherence to the trial protocol was high: Thirty-four patients received the four scheduled infusions during the ascending-dose phase, and 34 of 35 patients who completed this phase subsequently enrolled in the open-label extension.

No apparent drug-related serious adverse events were reported. However, during the ascending-dose phase, 38 patients had at least one adverse event, most of which were mild or moderate; of the 191 total events, 124 were grade 1 and 60 were grade 2 (most commonly heart failure and arrhythmias). Three patients had cytokine release syndrome; all three completed treatment through the extension phase.

Musculoskeletal events increased with ascending doses of NI006, which led two patients to withdraw from the trial.

At doses of at least 10 mg/kg, cardiac tracer uptake on scintigraphy and extracellular volume on cardiac MRI, both of which are imaging-based surrogate markers of cardiac amyloid load, appeared to be reduced over 12 months.

Because NI006 stimulates the patient’s own immune system to eliminate cardiac amyloid fibrils, one session chair at the meeting wondered whether NI006 represented the “rise of immunology in cardiology,” and whether biologics might follow.

Another questioned how removing amyloid might affect cardiac function. The echocardiographic findings gathered so far don’t indicate dysfunction, “but this is a small trial, and we need more data,” Dr. Garcia-Pavia said.
 

Tempered excitement

In a comment, Ronald Witteles, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University, and founder/codirector of the Stanford Amyloid Center, said that “antibody-based amyloid removal strategies are not currently clinically available and represent a fundamentally different mechanism to treat the disease from what we currently have.

“While the data are encouraging and will generate excitement for later-phase studies, we’re talking about small numbers of patients and nothing definitive should be drawn from this data,” said Dr. Witteles, deputy editor of JACC: CardioOncology.

“The biggest caveat is that similar approaches of antibody removal of amyloid deposits for other forms of amyloidosis — most notably AL amyloidosis (amyloid light chain or primary amyloidosis) – have failed in late-phase trials. Although there is reason to believe that ATTR amyloidosis may be more amenable to improvements with amyloid fibril removal than AL amyloidosis, the unimpressive results in other forms of amyloidosis still do temper the excitement to a degree.”

Like Dr. Garcia-Pavia, Dr. Witteles said, “Ultimately, we are going to need to see a phase 3 clinical trial which shows that NI006 – on top of standard-of-care treatment – improves hard outcomes in the disease. As treatment options likely expand in the coming years, that is likely to be a harder and harder bar to reach.”

Furthermore, although the safety profile was favorable overall, it “wasn’t entirely clean,” given cytokine release syndrome in three patients, a lowering of platelet counts in a couple of patients, and musculoskeletal side effects that triggered two to withdraw from the study. “Unless that changes,” he said, “that will be a barrier for some patients.”

Overall, he noted, “With the vast majority of patients being able to be diagnosed noninvasively, and with treatment options now available, we have seen a true explosion in the number of patients being diagnosed.

“But we also know that the large majority ... are still not getting diagnosed or are having huge delays in diagnosis. As such, the biggest thing we can do for patients with the disease is to continue to educate people about it,” Dr. Witteles concluded.

The study was funded by Neurimmune. Dr. Garcia-Pavia disclosed ties to Alexion, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Attralus, BridgeBio, General Electric, Intellia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer. Dr. Witteles reported ties to Alexion, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, BridgeBio, Intellia, Ionis, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer.

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

New mechanisms underlying Takotsubo syndrome, often dubbed “broken heart syndrome,” are suggested from hemodynamic studies, which could lead to new treatment strategies for the condition.

Takotsubo syndrome is a form of acute heart failure that mimics acute coronary syndromes, with troponin elevation and symptoms including chest pain and dyspnea, but without a culprit lesion on coronary angiography.

However, echocardiography shows the heart to be massively enlarged. The condition was named by Japanese researchers as the shape of the left ventricle resembles the Takotsubo fishing pot used to trap octopi.

The condition affects mainly older women and accounts for about 6% of female patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome symptoms. In around two-thirds of cases there is a triggering stress event which can be physical, such as an acute disease, or emotional, such as an argument or the sudden death of someone close, hence the term “broken heart syndrome.” The emotional stress triggering the syndrome can also be positive such as a birthday party or the birth of a grandchild.

“The mechanisms involved in Takotsubo syndrome are unknown. Because there is often a stress trigger it is believed that sympathetic activation causes a surge of catecholamine release, but that is not fully understood,” lead author of the current study, Thomas Stiermaier, MD, University Heart Center Lübeck (Germany), explained in an interview.

“We wanted to look more closely at the hemodynamic effects in the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome to see if we could identify novel mechanisms contributing to the condition,” he added.

The aptly named Optimized Characterization of Takotsubo Syndrome by Obtaining Pressure Volume Loops (OCTOPUS) study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

For the study, the researchers used a conductance catheter inserted into the left ventricle of the heart to analyze pressure-volume relationships in 24 consecutive patients with Takotsubo syndrome and a control population of 20 participants without cardiovascular disease.

These pressure-volume loops are “the gold standard for direct, real-time assessment of systolic and diastolic cardiac function independent of loading conditions,” and “provide in-depth information regarding ventricular-arterial coupling and cardiac energetics and efficiency,” the authors wrote.

“These parameters comprise a considerable amount of information on cardiac performance and help to advance our understanding of cardiac physiology and its pathophysiological role in various conditions,” they noted, adding that this is believed to be the first comprehensive hemodynamic analysis in patients with Takotsubo syndrome using such invasive tracing of pressure-volume loops.

Results showed that Takotsubo syndrome is associated with a severely impaired cardiac contractility and a shortened systolic period. In response, the heart compensates by increasing left ventricular end diastolic volume to preserve the stroke volume.

Diastolic function is characterized by prolonged active relaxation but unaltered passive elastic properties. The analysis of myocardial energetics revealed an inefficient system with increased potential and decreased kinetic energy (stroke work).

“These are new and important findings,” Dr. Stiermaier said, adding that these hemodynamic changes give clues as to the underlying mechanisms at play in Takotsubo syndrome, as well as possible treatment strategies that could be investigated.  

“Taking all this information together, we believe that it is likely that decreased phosphorylation of myofilament proteins – which may be caused by some kind of disturbance in calcium metabolism – may partially account for the impaired contractility and shortened systolic period seen in Takotsubo syndrome,” he commented.

The researchers suggested that Takotsubo syndrome may therefore be treated with medications such as omecamtiv (a drug that increases systolic duration) or the calcium sensitizer levosimendan, which improves contractility, possibly in combination with beta-blockers to protect against the intense adrenergic activation.

They noted that several studies have reported the use of levosimendan in Takotsubo syndrome and have suggested positive effects by accelerating recovery of ventricular function. But they added that prospective data are lacking, and, to their knowledge, omecamtiv has not been tested in Takotsubo syndrome.

“We need to clearly identify the mechanism involved in these changes at the cellular level, and then test these medications to see if they can help prevent or reverse the hemodynamic changes seen in Takotsubo syndrome,” Dr. Stiermaier said.

He explained that the contractile abnormalities in Takotsubo syndrome are transient and generally normalize after a few weeks or months, but while systolic function may appear normal in the long term there are other more subtle changes that can persist, and these patients have an increased rate of cardiovascular events, compared with the healthy population over the long term.

However, because Takotsubo syndrome patients generally have a high rate of other comorbidities, it is not known whether their increased event rate is caused by the syndrome or by these other comorbidities.

While some patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a mild disease course and a good prognosis, others have more complications, with around 10%-15% going on to develop severe disease with cardiogenic shock or pleural effusion, Dr. Stiermaier noted.

“These patients have a bad prognosis. Our aim is to try to identify the patients who are at high risk of these complications and treat them early to prevent cardiogenic shock and pleural effusion from developing,” he said. “We are hopeful that by identifying the hemodynamic changes occurring in Takotsubo syndrome we can figure out the mechanisms involved and give medications in the acute setting to prevent the complications that can arise down the road.”
 

Mechanisms ‘appealing but speculative’

In an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 May;81[20]:1992-5), Jorge Salamanca, MD, and Fernando Alfonso, MD, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, described this new study as “an important piece of research, providing a careful, systematic, and comprehensive set of sophisticated invasive hemodynamic data that shed new light on our understanding of this unique clinical entity.”

They said the researchers have provided “robust data on the acute hemodynamic behavior of the left ventricle in patients with Takotsubo syndrome that clearly advance the field but also raise new questions.”

But the editorialists cautioned that the hypotheses of the potential mechanisms linking a molecular basis for the metabolic dysregulation, resulting in increased potential energy coupled with a decreased kinetic energy, “are appealing but largely speculative.”

“Whether these hemodynamic findings could be the foundation and would support the use of novel and attractive drugs in Takotsubo syndrome, remains unsettled and can only be considered as hypothesis generating,” they wrote.

“Further studies are required to elucidate factors associated with a more severe hemodynamic derangement and to devise therapeutic strategies helping to rapidly restore an efficient left ventricular function in these challenging patients,” they concluded. 

The study authors and the editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New mechanisms underlying Takotsubo syndrome, often dubbed “broken heart syndrome,” are suggested from hemodynamic studies, which could lead to new treatment strategies for the condition.

Takotsubo syndrome is a form of acute heart failure that mimics acute coronary syndromes, with troponin elevation and symptoms including chest pain and dyspnea, but without a culprit lesion on coronary angiography.

However, echocardiography shows the heart to be massively enlarged. The condition was named by Japanese researchers as the shape of the left ventricle resembles the Takotsubo fishing pot used to trap octopi.

The condition affects mainly older women and accounts for about 6% of female patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome symptoms. In around two-thirds of cases there is a triggering stress event which can be physical, such as an acute disease, or emotional, such as an argument or the sudden death of someone close, hence the term “broken heart syndrome.” The emotional stress triggering the syndrome can also be positive such as a birthday party or the birth of a grandchild.

“The mechanisms involved in Takotsubo syndrome are unknown. Because there is often a stress trigger it is believed that sympathetic activation causes a surge of catecholamine release, but that is not fully understood,” lead author of the current study, Thomas Stiermaier, MD, University Heart Center Lübeck (Germany), explained in an interview.

“We wanted to look more closely at the hemodynamic effects in the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome to see if we could identify novel mechanisms contributing to the condition,” he added.

The aptly named Optimized Characterization of Takotsubo Syndrome by Obtaining Pressure Volume Loops (OCTOPUS) study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

For the study, the researchers used a conductance catheter inserted into the left ventricle of the heart to analyze pressure-volume relationships in 24 consecutive patients with Takotsubo syndrome and a control population of 20 participants without cardiovascular disease.

These pressure-volume loops are “the gold standard for direct, real-time assessment of systolic and diastolic cardiac function independent of loading conditions,” and “provide in-depth information regarding ventricular-arterial coupling and cardiac energetics and efficiency,” the authors wrote.

“These parameters comprise a considerable amount of information on cardiac performance and help to advance our understanding of cardiac physiology and its pathophysiological role in various conditions,” they noted, adding that this is believed to be the first comprehensive hemodynamic analysis in patients with Takotsubo syndrome using such invasive tracing of pressure-volume loops.

Results showed that Takotsubo syndrome is associated with a severely impaired cardiac contractility and a shortened systolic period. In response, the heart compensates by increasing left ventricular end diastolic volume to preserve the stroke volume.

Diastolic function is characterized by prolonged active relaxation but unaltered passive elastic properties. The analysis of myocardial energetics revealed an inefficient system with increased potential and decreased kinetic energy (stroke work).

“These are new and important findings,” Dr. Stiermaier said, adding that these hemodynamic changes give clues as to the underlying mechanisms at play in Takotsubo syndrome, as well as possible treatment strategies that could be investigated.  

“Taking all this information together, we believe that it is likely that decreased phosphorylation of myofilament proteins – which may be caused by some kind of disturbance in calcium metabolism – may partially account for the impaired contractility and shortened systolic period seen in Takotsubo syndrome,” he commented.

The researchers suggested that Takotsubo syndrome may therefore be treated with medications such as omecamtiv (a drug that increases systolic duration) or the calcium sensitizer levosimendan, which improves contractility, possibly in combination with beta-blockers to protect against the intense adrenergic activation.

They noted that several studies have reported the use of levosimendan in Takotsubo syndrome and have suggested positive effects by accelerating recovery of ventricular function. But they added that prospective data are lacking, and, to their knowledge, omecamtiv has not been tested in Takotsubo syndrome.

“We need to clearly identify the mechanism involved in these changes at the cellular level, and then test these medications to see if they can help prevent or reverse the hemodynamic changes seen in Takotsubo syndrome,” Dr. Stiermaier said.

He explained that the contractile abnormalities in Takotsubo syndrome are transient and generally normalize after a few weeks or months, but while systolic function may appear normal in the long term there are other more subtle changes that can persist, and these patients have an increased rate of cardiovascular events, compared with the healthy population over the long term.

However, because Takotsubo syndrome patients generally have a high rate of other comorbidities, it is not known whether their increased event rate is caused by the syndrome or by these other comorbidities.

While some patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a mild disease course and a good prognosis, others have more complications, with around 10%-15% going on to develop severe disease with cardiogenic shock or pleural effusion, Dr. Stiermaier noted.

“These patients have a bad prognosis. Our aim is to try to identify the patients who are at high risk of these complications and treat them early to prevent cardiogenic shock and pleural effusion from developing,” he said. “We are hopeful that by identifying the hemodynamic changes occurring in Takotsubo syndrome we can figure out the mechanisms involved and give medications in the acute setting to prevent the complications that can arise down the road.”
 

Mechanisms ‘appealing but speculative’

In an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 May;81[20]:1992-5), Jorge Salamanca, MD, and Fernando Alfonso, MD, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, described this new study as “an important piece of research, providing a careful, systematic, and comprehensive set of sophisticated invasive hemodynamic data that shed new light on our understanding of this unique clinical entity.”

They said the researchers have provided “robust data on the acute hemodynamic behavior of the left ventricle in patients with Takotsubo syndrome that clearly advance the field but also raise new questions.”

But the editorialists cautioned that the hypotheses of the potential mechanisms linking a molecular basis for the metabolic dysregulation, resulting in increased potential energy coupled with a decreased kinetic energy, “are appealing but largely speculative.”

“Whether these hemodynamic findings could be the foundation and would support the use of novel and attractive drugs in Takotsubo syndrome, remains unsettled and can only be considered as hypothesis generating,” they wrote.

“Further studies are required to elucidate factors associated with a more severe hemodynamic derangement and to devise therapeutic strategies helping to rapidly restore an efficient left ventricular function in these challenging patients,” they concluded. 

The study authors and the editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New mechanisms underlying Takotsubo syndrome, often dubbed “broken heart syndrome,” are suggested from hemodynamic studies, which could lead to new treatment strategies for the condition.

Takotsubo syndrome is a form of acute heart failure that mimics acute coronary syndromes, with troponin elevation and symptoms including chest pain and dyspnea, but without a culprit lesion on coronary angiography.

However, echocardiography shows the heart to be massively enlarged. The condition was named by Japanese researchers as the shape of the left ventricle resembles the Takotsubo fishing pot used to trap octopi.

The condition affects mainly older women and accounts for about 6% of female patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome symptoms. In around two-thirds of cases there is a triggering stress event which can be physical, such as an acute disease, or emotional, such as an argument or the sudden death of someone close, hence the term “broken heart syndrome.” The emotional stress triggering the syndrome can also be positive such as a birthday party or the birth of a grandchild.

“The mechanisms involved in Takotsubo syndrome are unknown. Because there is often a stress trigger it is believed that sympathetic activation causes a surge of catecholamine release, but that is not fully understood,” lead author of the current study, Thomas Stiermaier, MD, University Heart Center Lübeck (Germany), explained in an interview.

“We wanted to look more closely at the hemodynamic effects in the hearts of patients with Takotsubo syndrome to see if we could identify novel mechanisms contributing to the condition,” he added.

The aptly named Optimized Characterization of Takotsubo Syndrome by Obtaining Pressure Volume Loops (OCTOPUS) study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

For the study, the researchers used a conductance catheter inserted into the left ventricle of the heart to analyze pressure-volume relationships in 24 consecutive patients with Takotsubo syndrome and a control population of 20 participants without cardiovascular disease.

These pressure-volume loops are “the gold standard for direct, real-time assessment of systolic and diastolic cardiac function independent of loading conditions,” and “provide in-depth information regarding ventricular-arterial coupling and cardiac energetics and efficiency,” the authors wrote.

“These parameters comprise a considerable amount of information on cardiac performance and help to advance our understanding of cardiac physiology and its pathophysiological role in various conditions,” they noted, adding that this is believed to be the first comprehensive hemodynamic analysis in patients with Takotsubo syndrome using such invasive tracing of pressure-volume loops.

Results showed that Takotsubo syndrome is associated with a severely impaired cardiac contractility and a shortened systolic period. In response, the heart compensates by increasing left ventricular end diastolic volume to preserve the stroke volume.

Diastolic function is characterized by prolonged active relaxation but unaltered passive elastic properties. The analysis of myocardial energetics revealed an inefficient system with increased potential and decreased kinetic energy (stroke work).

“These are new and important findings,” Dr. Stiermaier said, adding that these hemodynamic changes give clues as to the underlying mechanisms at play in Takotsubo syndrome, as well as possible treatment strategies that could be investigated.  

“Taking all this information together, we believe that it is likely that decreased phosphorylation of myofilament proteins – which may be caused by some kind of disturbance in calcium metabolism – may partially account for the impaired contractility and shortened systolic period seen in Takotsubo syndrome,” he commented.

The researchers suggested that Takotsubo syndrome may therefore be treated with medications such as omecamtiv (a drug that increases systolic duration) or the calcium sensitizer levosimendan, which improves contractility, possibly in combination with beta-blockers to protect against the intense adrenergic activation.

They noted that several studies have reported the use of levosimendan in Takotsubo syndrome and have suggested positive effects by accelerating recovery of ventricular function. But they added that prospective data are lacking, and, to their knowledge, omecamtiv has not been tested in Takotsubo syndrome.

“We need to clearly identify the mechanism involved in these changes at the cellular level, and then test these medications to see if they can help prevent or reverse the hemodynamic changes seen in Takotsubo syndrome,” Dr. Stiermaier said.

He explained that the contractile abnormalities in Takotsubo syndrome are transient and generally normalize after a few weeks or months, but while systolic function may appear normal in the long term there are other more subtle changes that can persist, and these patients have an increased rate of cardiovascular events, compared with the healthy population over the long term.

However, because Takotsubo syndrome patients generally have a high rate of other comorbidities, it is not known whether their increased event rate is caused by the syndrome or by these other comorbidities.

While some patients with Takotsubo syndrome have a mild disease course and a good prognosis, others have more complications, with around 10%-15% going on to develop severe disease with cardiogenic shock or pleural effusion, Dr. Stiermaier noted.

“These patients have a bad prognosis. Our aim is to try to identify the patients who are at high risk of these complications and treat them early to prevent cardiogenic shock and pleural effusion from developing,” he said. “We are hopeful that by identifying the hemodynamic changes occurring in Takotsubo syndrome we can figure out the mechanisms involved and give medications in the acute setting to prevent the complications that can arise down the road.”
 

Mechanisms ‘appealing but speculative’

In an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 May;81[20]:1992-5), Jorge Salamanca, MD, and Fernando Alfonso, MD, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, described this new study as “an important piece of research, providing a careful, systematic, and comprehensive set of sophisticated invasive hemodynamic data that shed new light on our understanding of this unique clinical entity.”

They said the researchers have provided “robust data on the acute hemodynamic behavior of the left ventricle in patients with Takotsubo syndrome that clearly advance the field but also raise new questions.”

But the editorialists cautioned that the hypotheses of the potential mechanisms linking a molecular basis for the metabolic dysregulation, resulting in increased potential energy coupled with a decreased kinetic energy, “are appealing but largely speculative.”

“Whether these hemodynamic findings could be the foundation and would support the use of novel and attractive drugs in Takotsubo syndrome, remains unsettled and can only be considered as hypothesis generating,” they wrote.

“Further studies are required to elucidate factors associated with a more severe hemodynamic derangement and to devise therapeutic strategies helping to rapidly restore an efficient left ventricular function in these challenging patients,” they concluded. 

The study authors and the editorialists reported no relevant financial relationships.

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