Re-examining the widespread policy of stopping sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors during acute illness: A perspective based on the updated evidence

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are now seen as an integral part of therapy in type 2 diabetes to control not only blood glucose but to improve cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an uncommon but serious complication of type 2 diabetes, which has a high case fatality rate. The absolute risk of DKA in large, prospective randomized clinical trials in people with type 2 diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors has been low, although the relative risk is higher in those assigned to SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo. In those without diabetes but prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure or chronic kidney disease, the risk of DKA is similar to placebo. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of DKA have also been reported in cases of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recommended that SGLT2 inhibitors should be avoided in cases of serious illness and suggest they are not recommended for routine in-hospital use. However, recent data suggest potential beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of acute illness with COVID-19 with no increase in adverse events and low rates of DKA, which were non-severe. Given the low rates of DKA in cardiovascular outcome trials and in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, the potential for SGLT2 inhibitors not being re-initiated following discharge and their cardiovascular and kidney benefits, we believe the practice of routine 'sick day' guidance should be re-examined based on current evidence with a call for further research in this area. Furthermore, high-quality trials of initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people admitted to hospital with cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, and trials of continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people, with careful monitoring of DKA should be conducted. These should be further supplemented with large observational studies.

NAFLD in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Contributor or Comorbidity?

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and cardiovascular diseases are both highly prevalent conditions around the world, and emerging data have shown an association between them. This review found several longitudinal and cross-sectional studies showing that NAFLD was associated with coronary artery disease, cardiac remodeling, aortic valve remodeling, mitral annulus valve calcifications, diabetic cardiomyopathy, diastolic cardiac dysfunction, arrhythmias, and stroke. Although the specific underlying mechanisms are not clear, many hypotheses have been suggested, including that metabolic syndrome might act as an upstream metabolic defect, leading to end-organ manifestations in both the heart and liver. Management of NAFLD includes weight loss through lifestyle interventions or bariatric surgery, and pharmacological interventions, often targeting comorbidities. Although there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-specific therapies, several drug candidates have demonstrated effect in the improvement in fibrosis or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis resolution. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of those interventions on cardiovascular outcomes, the major cause of mortality in patients with NAFLD. In conclusion, a more comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and management of patients with NAFLD and cardiovascular diseases is needed to optimize clinical outcomes.

Dapagliflozin utilization following hospitalization for heart failure: real-world insights from EVOLUTION HF, a multinational, observational study

Background

Use of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) – such as renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors – is suboptimal, especially after hospitalization for HF (hHF). Dapagliflozin was the first sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor approved in patients with HFrEF. In the DAPA-HF study, dapagliflozin decreased the risk of hHF and mortality in patients with HFrEF (with or without type 2 diabetes) compared with placebo. Little is known about the real-world characteristics and treatment profiles of patients initiating dapagliflozin after hHF in clinical practice.

Purpose

EVOLUTION HF aims to describe characteristics and real-world treatment patterns in patients who initiated GDMTs following hHF. Using data available to date, we focused on dapagliflozin use in two countries (Japan and Sweden).

Methods

EVOLUTION HF is a multinational observational, longitudinal cohort study using claims and electronic health record databases, which included 514,869 patients with hHF during the study period. Adult patients who initiated dapagliflozin between December 2020 and September 2021 (Japan) or December 2021 (Sweden) were identified and included if they initiated dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily during hHF or within 12 months after a hHF discharge. Patient characteristics and treatment profile at index (initiation of dapagliflozin) are reported overall and by country.

Results

Overall, 7023 patients were included (3515 from Japan, 3508 from Sweden; Table 1); the mean age was 73±13 years and 70% were male. The median lengths of the hHF leading to dapagliflozin initiation were 16 (interquartile range [IQR] 9–26) days in Japan and 4 (IQR 2–7) days in Sweden. Overall prevalences of atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, diabetes and established cardiovascular disease were 50%, 23%, 34% and 57%, respectively. Of the 7023 patients who initiated dapagliflozin during hHF or within 12 months of hHF discharge, 45%, 62%, 75% and 87% of patients initiated dapagliflozin in hospital/within 7 days of discharge or within 1, 3 or 6 months of discharge, respectively. Japan had a higher proportion of patients who initiated dapagliflozin in hospital/within 7 days of hHF discharge compared with Sweden (64% vs 27%; Figure 1). At dapagliflozin initiation, 37% and 74% of patients in Japan and Sweden, respectively, had three or four other GDMTs.

Conclusions

Patients who initiated dapagliflozin following hHF often had comorbidities associated with increased risk of adverse cardiorenal outcomes. Timing of dapagliflozin initiation and use of other GDMTs at index varied between countries. A large proportion of patients initiated dapagliflozin more than 1 month after a hHF or in addition to three or four other GDMTs, indicating an opportunity for earlier dapagliflozin use in patients with HF.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): AstraZeneca

Neprilysin Inhibitors in Heart Failure: The Science, Mechanism of Action, Clinical Studies, and Unanswered Questions

This article provides a contemporary review and a new perspective on the role of neprilysin inhibition in heart failure (HF) in the context of recent clinical trials and addresses potential mechanisms and unanswered questions in certain HF patient populations. Neprilysin is an endopeptidase that cleaves a variety of peptides such as natriuretic peptides, bradykinin, adrenomedullin, substance P, angiotensin I and II, and endothelin. It has a broad role in cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and neurologic functions. The combined angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) has been developed with an intent to increase vasodilatory natriuretic peptides and prevent counterregulatory activation of the angiotensin system. ARNi therapy is very effective in reducing the risks of death and hospitalization for HF in patients with HF and New York Heart Association functional class II to III symptoms, but studies failed to show any benefits with ARNi when compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction or in patients following myocardial infarction with left ventricular dysfunction but without HF. These raise the questions about whether the enzymatic breakdown of natriuretic peptides may not be a very effective solution in advanced HF patients when there is downstream blunting of the response to natriuretic peptides or among post-myocardial infarction patients in the absence of HF when there may not be a need for increased natriuretic peptide availability. Furthermore, there is a need for additional studies to determine the long-term effects of ARNi on albuminuria, obesity, glycemic control and lipid profile, blood pressure, and cognitive function in patients with HF.

Outcomes and Resource Utilization in Patients Hospitalized with Gastrointestinal Bleeding Complicated by Types 1 and 2 Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Types 1 and 2 myocardial infarction (MI) may occur in the setting of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). There is a paucity of data pertinent to the contemporary prevalence and impact of types 1 and 2 MI following GIB. We examined clinical profiles and the prognostic impact of both MI types on outcomes of patients hospitalized with GIB.

METHODS

The 2018 Nationwide Readmission Database was queried for patients hospitalized for the primary diagnosis of GIB and had concomitant diagnoses of type 1 or type 2 MI. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and 30-day all-cause readmissions were compared among groups.

RESULTS

Of 381,867 primary GIB hospitalizations, 2902 (0.75%) had type 1 MI and 3963 (1.0%) had type 2 MI. GIB patients with type 1 and type 2 MI had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to their counterparts without MI (adjusted odds ratios [aOR]: 4.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.43-6.48; and aOR: 2.17, 95% CI 1.48-3.16, respectively). Both types 1 and 2 MI were associated with higher rates of discharge to a nursing facility (aOR of type 1 vs. no MI: 1.65, 95% CI 1.45-1.89, and aOR of type 2 vs no MI: 1.37, 95% CI 1.22-1.54), longer length of stay, higher hospital costs, and more 30-day all-cause readmissions (aOR of type 1 vs no MI: 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.38; aOR of type 2 vs no MI: 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30).

CONCLUSION

Types 1 and 2 MI are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and resource utilization among patients hospitalized with GIB in the United States.

How can we optimise health technology assessment and reimbursement decisions to accelerate access to new cardiovascular medicines?

Regulatory approvals of, and subsequent access to, innovative cardiovascular medications have declined. How much of this decline relates to the final step of gaining reimbursement for new treatments is unknown. Payers and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies look beyond efficacy and safety to assess whether a new drug improves patient outcomes, quality of life, or satisfaction at a cost that is affordable compared to existing treatments. HTA bodies work within a limited healthcare budget, and this is one of the reasons why only half of newly approved drugs are accepted for reimbursement, or receive restricted or "optimised" recommendations from HTA bodies. All stakeholders have the common goal of facilitating access to safe, effective, and affordable treatments to appropriate patients. An important strategy to expedite this is providing optimal data. This is demonstrably facilitated by early (and ongoing) discussions between all stakeholders. Many countries have formal programmes to provide collaborative regulatory and HTA advice to developers. Other strategies include aligning regulatory and HTA processes, increasing use of real-world evidence, formally defining the decision-making process, and educating stakeholders on the criteria for positive decision making. Industry should focus on developing treatments for unmet medical needs, seek early engagement with HTA and regulatory bodies, improve methodologies for optimal price setting, develop internal systems to collaborate with national and international stakeholders, and conduct post-approval studies. Patient involvement in all stages of development, including HTA, is critical to capture the lived experience and priorities of those whose lives will be impacted by new treatment approvals.

Outcomes of Hospitalizations With Septic Shock Complicated by Types 1 and 2 Myocardial Infarction

Septic shock is a life-threatening host response to infection and a significant contributor to cost burden in the United States. Furthermore, sepsis-related inflammation has been linked to myocardial infarction (MI). We sought to examine the association of type 1 and type 2 MI with outcomes in hospitalizations admitted with septic shock. The National Readmission Database 2018 was queried to identify hospitalizations with hospital discharge diagnoses of septic shock without MI, septic shock with type 1 MI, or septic shock with type 2 MI. Complex-sample multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to determine the association of these conditions with clinical outcomes. Of 354,528 hospitalizations with septic shock, 11,519 had type 1 MI (3.2%) and 13,970 had type 2 MI (3.9%). Compared with septic shock without MI, type 1 MI was associated with higher mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57 to 1.77), costs (adjusted parameter estimate $4,571, 95% CI 3,020 to 6,122), and discharge to facility (adjusted OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17). In contrast, septic shock with type 2 MI was associated with similar mortality and discharge to nursing facility and higher costs (adjusted parameter estimate 1,798, 95% CI 549 to 3,047). Septic shock hospitalizations with type 1 MI had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.60 to 1.90, p <0.001) compared with type 2 MI. In conclusion, type 1 MI is associated with higher mortality and resource utilization among septic shock hospitalizations. Furthermore, type 2 MI was associated with higher resource utilization.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

DCRM Multispecialty Practice Recommendations for the management of diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases

Type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF)-along with their associated risk factors-have overlapping etiologies, and two or more of these conditions frequently occur in the same patient. Many recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of agents originally developed to control T2D, ASCVD, or CKD risk factors, and these agents have transcended their primary indications to confer benefits across a range of conditions. This evolution in CVOT evidence calls for practice recommendations that are not constrained by a single discipline to help clinicians manage patients with complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. The ultimate goal for these recommendations is to be comprehensive yet succinct and easy to follow by the nonexpert-whether a specialist or a primary care clinician. To meet this need, we formed a volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM Practice Recommendations, a multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of the patient with complicated metabolic disease. The task force recommendations are based on strong evidence and incorporate practical guidance that is clinically relevant and simple to implement, with the aim of improving outcomes in patients with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 18 separate graphics covering lifestyle therapy, patient self-management education, technology for DCRM management, prediabetes, cognitive dysfunction, vaccinations, clinical tests, lipids, hypertension, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antihyperglycemic therapy, hypoglycemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), ASCVD, HF, CKD, and comorbid HF and CKD, as well as a graphical summary of medications used for DCRM.