EMPEROR-Reduced: Empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without type 2 diabetes

Packer M, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. NEJM 2020;online

Bottom line:

  • Among patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (with or without type 2 diabetes), empagliflozin reduced the risk of a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization vs placebo (NNT 19) at 1.3 years.

  • These results are consistent with those of the DAPA-HF trial, and together these trials show that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce death from any cause (NNT 59) over 1.3-1.5 years.

  • Empagliflozin increased the risk of genital infections (i.e. yeast infections; NNH 91), which are generally self-limiting or resolve with over-the-counter treatment. Empagliflozin did not increase any other adverse effects in this trial.

Patients (n=3730 randomized from 7220 screened)

  • Inclusion criteria

    • Heart failure (NYHA 2-4) with reduced ejection fraction (≤40% or less)

    • Receiving background guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) & cardiac device therapy as indicated

    • Elevated NT-proBNP with threshold dependent on heart rhythm & LVEF

      • Normal sinus rhythm (AF)

        • LVEF ≤30%: ≥600 pg/mL (≥1200 pg/mL)

        • LVEF 31-35%: ≥1000 pg/mL (≥2000 pg/mL)

        • LVEF 36-40%: ≥2500 pg/mL (≥5000 pg/mL)

  • Key exclusion criteria

    • eGFR <20

    • Symptomatic hypotension or SBP <100 mm Hg

    • BMI ≥45

    • Heart transplant recipient, listed for heart transplant, LVAD in situ

    • Infiltrative or accumulation cardiomyopathy, muscular dystrophy, HoCM, or cardiomyopathy with reversible causes (e.g. Takotsubo, tachyarrhythmia-related)

  • Baseline

    • Age 67, 24% female, 70% white & 18% Asian

    • NYHA 2 (75%), 3 (24%), 4 (0.5%)

    • Mean LVEF 27% (~73% ≤30%)

    • Ischemic cardiomyopathy 52%, HF hospitalization in last year 31%, AF 37%, diabetes 50%

    • HFrEF medications: ACEI/ARB 70%, ARNI 19%, BB 95%, MRA 71% (% achieving target doses not described)

    • Devices: ICD 31%, CRT 12%

    • SBP 122, HR 71

Interventions: Empagliflozin vs placebo

  • Intervention: Empagliflozin 10 mg PO once daily (fixed dose)

  • Control: Matching placebo

  • Co-intervention in both groups: Background HFrEF GDMT

Outcomes @ median 16 months

Efficacy

  • Primary outcome (CV death or HF hospitalization): Empagliflozin 19.4% vs placebo 24.7%

    • Hazard ratio (HR) 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.86)

    • NNT 19 over 16 months (or NNT~25/year)

  • Death from any cause: 13.4% vs 14.2% (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77-1.10)

  • KCCQ-Clinical Summary Score change at 1 year: +5.8 vs +4.1 (difference 1.7, 95% CI +0.5 to +3.0)

    • KCCQ-CSS is out of 100, minimal clinically important difference ≥5)

  • HF hospitalization: 13.2% vs 18.3% (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81)

  • Composite renal outcome (chronic dialysis, renal transplant, sustained eGFR reduction ≥40%)

  • Mean change in eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m^2)/year: -0.55 vs -2.28, difference 1.73 (1.10-2.37)

  • Quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire measured at month 3, 8, 12 & end-of-study):

Safety

  • Genital infections: 1.7% vs 0.6% (p=.005)

    • Complicated in 0.3% in both groups

  • No difference:

    • Stopped study drug prematurely: Empagliflozin 16,3% vs placebo 18.0%

    • Symptomatic hypotension: 5.7% vs 5.5%

    • SBP change: -0.7 mm Hg (-1.8 to +0.4)

    • Volume depletion: 10.6% vs 9.9%

    • Ketoacidosis: 0 in both groups

    • UTI: 4.9% vs 4.5%

    • Hypoglyemic event: 1.4% vs 1.5%

    • Lower limb amputation: 0.7% vs 0.5%

Internal validity: Low risk of bias

  • Allocation concealment by use of an interactive-response system (low risk of allocation bias)

  • Blinding of participants & clinicians with use of matching placebo (low risk of performance & detection bias)

  • Use of ITT analysis with 1.1% lost to follow-up (low risk of attrition bias)

Other considerations

  • Practical tip: Empagliflozin is currently available in 10-mg and 25-mg tablets. The 10 mg/d dose used in EMPEROR-Reduced was based on the lack of difference between 10 mg/d and 25 mg/d in the EMPA-REG trial. The 25-mg tablets can be split in half, and the patient can be instructed to take half a 25-mg tablet (=12.5 mg) once a day. This simple intervention would cut the cost of this therapy by half (e.g. reducing the cost to ~$500/year in Canada).

  • Results of a meta-analysis (without systematic review) of the 2 large HFrEF SGLT2i trials, EMPEROR-Reduced & DAPA-HF, showed no heterogeneity in efficacy outcomes between these trials. These replicate findings confirm the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in HFrEF, strongly suggest a class effect, and also show no heterogeneity in the effect on death from any cause.

SGLT2i HF mortality.png
  • Most exclusions at screening were due to patients not meeting the trial’s fairly strct NT-proBNP criteria (n=3314; 74.6% of those excluded)

    • However, this does not impact generalizability, as results are consistent with DAPA-HF, which had more lenient NT-proBNP criteria (>900 if AF/atrial flutter, >400 if HF hospitalization within 1 year, otherwise >600)

VICTORIA - Vericiguat in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Armstrong PW, et al. Vericiguat in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. NEJM 2020

Bottom line: In patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, vericiguat compared with placebo:

  • decreased the risk of HF hospitalization from 30% to approximately 27% over a median ~11 months

  • did not reduce deaths

  • increased the incidence of anemia (by 2%)

Participants (n=5050)

  • Included:

    • Heart failure (NYHA functional class 2-4)

    • Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <45%

    • Elevated natriuretic peptides within 30 days before randomization

      • Sinus rhythm: NT-proBNP >1000 or BNP >300

      • Atrial fibrillation: NT-proBNP >1600 or BNP >500

    • HF hospitalization within 6 months (could be randomized during HF hospitalization) OR received IV diuretics without hospitalization within 3 months

  • Key exclusion

    • Concurrent medications: Long-acting nitrates, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (eg sildenafil), or riociguat

    • Receiving IV inotropes; received IV treatment within last 24 hours; LVAD in situ or anticipated; pre- or post-heart transplant

    • Cardiac comorbidities:

      • ACS or coronary revascularization within 2 months

      • Tachycardia-related cardiomyopathy or uncontrolled tachyarrhythmia

      • Primary valvular disease or within 3 months after valve surgery

      • Acute myocarditis, amyloidosis, sarcoidosis, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy

      • HCM

      • Symptomatic carotid stenosis, TIA or stroke within 2 months

    • Non-cardiac comorbidities: Home O2 for severe pulmonary disease; interstitial lung disease; severe liver disease

    • SBP <100 mm Hg or symptomatic hypotension

    • eGFR-MDRD <15 mL/min/1.73m^2

  • 6857 screened -> 5050 randomized from September 2016 to December 2018

    • Of 1807 excluded: 1978 due to NT-proBNP or BNP below inclusion criteria, 265 unstable, 191 declined consent

  • Baseline

    • Age 67, male 76%, white 64%/Asian 22%, North America 11%

    • HF duration 4.8 years

    • HF hospitalization within 3 months 67%

    • NYHA 2 (59%), 3 (40%), 4 (1%)

    • LVEF 29% (<40% in 86%)

    • NT-proBNP median ~2800

    • Comorbidities: AF 45%, CAD 58%, diabetes 47%, HTN 79%

    • SBP 121 mm Hg, HR 73 bpm

    • Hemoglobin 134 g/L, eGFR 61 (15-30: 10%)

    • HF therapies: ACEI/ARB 73%, ARNI 15%, beta-blocker 93%, MRA 70% - triple therapy 60%, ICD 28%, CRT 15%

Intervention: Vericiguat

  • Starting dose: 2.5 mg once daily (taken with food)

    • Then 2 weeks later, uptitrated to 5 mg once daily

    • Then 2 weeks later, uptitrated to 10 mg once daily (target dose)

  • Median achieved dose: 9.2 mg/d (90% receiving 10 mg/d)

  • Dose modification criteria

    • SBP >=100 mm Hg & not on target dose: Increase dose

    • SBP 90-99: Maintain current dose

    • SBP <90

      • Asymptomatic: Decrease dose 1 level (if 2.5 mg, hold)

      • Symptomatic: Hold regardless of dose

  • Adherence: 94% of patients took >80% of doses

Comparator: Matching placebo

Outcomes @ median 10.8 months

  • Primary outcome (CV death or HF hospitalization): Vericiguat 35.5%, placebo 38.5%

    • Hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.98

    • Consistent across all subgroups, except baseline NT-proBNP (possible harm/lack of benefit with baseline NT-proBNP >5300)

  • Death from any cause: 20.3% vs 21.2% (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.07)

  • HF hospitalization: 27.4% vs 29.6% (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00)

  • Adverse effects

    • Anemia: 7.6% vs 5.7% (p<0.01)

    • Symptomatic hypotension: 9.1% vs 7.9% (p=0.12)

    • Syncope: 4.0% vs 3.5% (p=0.3)

Internal validity: Low risk of bias overall

  • Allocation bias: Low risk

    • Randomization & allocation concealment via interactive voice/web response system

  • Performance bias: Low risk

    • Matching placebo for blinding of participants

  • Detection bias: Low risk

    • Outcomes adjudicated by committee unaware of group assignment

  • Attrition bias: Low risk

    • Analyzed intention-to-treat (ITT) population

    • 0.3% lost-to-follow-up with no difference between groups

Other considerations

  • Generalizability

    • Enrolled a very high-risk HFrEF population since inclusion required both very recent HF hospitalization + elevated NT-proBNP/BNP

      • Other HFrEF RCTs have traditionally selected higher-risk patients by requiring either recent HF hospitalization OR elevated NT-proBNP/BNP (e.g. DAPA-HF or PARADIGM-HF for the latter)

      • Furthermore, cutoff for natriuretic peptides higher than prior trials (NT-proBNP in sinus rhythm >400-600 in DAPA-HF & PARADIGM-HF)

    • As a result of this higher-risk population, the absolute risk of HF hospitalization/death (& therefore absolute benefit from adding another therapy) is greater

  • Comparison to other recent therapies

    • In this trial, vericiguat was added to standard HFrEF triple therapy

    • Trials of other therapies, including dapgliflozin & ivabradine have followed this similar add-on approach, whereas sacubitril-valsartan replaced the ACEI/ARB component

    • Although HFrEF therapies generally work by complementary mechanisms & likely have additive benefit, not all patients will be able to afford or tolerate the combination of all of these medications. Therefore, clinicians will need to help patients find a balance between efficacy & safety/cost/polypharmacy

      • In the absence of head-to-head comparisons from RCTs, indirect comparison using relative risk reduction (which can be combined with estimate of the patient’s prognosis) can be helpful to estimate the benefit of the different options

Indirect comparison of relative efficacy of different HFrEF pharmacotherapeutic options

Indirect comparison of relative efficacy of different HFrEF pharmacotherapeutic options

AFIRE - Antithrombotics for AF + stable CAD

Yasuda S, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation with stable coronary disease. NEJM 2019;381:1103-13.

Bottom Line:

  • Among Japanese patients with AF warranting OAC & stable CAD, using OAC monotherapy reduced the risk of dying (3% fewer) & having a major bleed (2% fewer) without increasing thrombotic risk compared with OAC plus an antiplatelet at 2 years.

  • These results are likely generalizable to non-Japanese patients & to other DOACs using approved doses.

Participants (n=2246 randomized, n=2215 analyzed)

  • Setting: Japan, enrolled 2015-2017

  • Included

    • Age >20 y

    • AF with CHADS2 score 1-6

    • Stable CAD (prior PCI or CABG >1 y ago, coronary stenosis 50%+ on angiography)

  • Key exclusion

    • Prior stent thrombosis

    • Active tumor

    • Poorly-controlled HTN

  • Baseline

    • Age 74 y, female 21%

    • AF: Paroxysmal 53%, persistent 15%, permanent 32%

    • CHADS2=2, CHA2DS2-VASc=4, HASBLED=2 (medians)

    • Previous stroke 15%, MI 35%, PCI 71% (drug-eluting stent 65-70%, mostly everolimus-eluting)

    • Current smoker 13%, diabetes 42%

    • CrCl <50 mL/min 34%

Intervention: Oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy

  • Rivaroxaban 15 mg/d if CrCl 50+ (standard dose in Japan)

    • If CrCl 15-49: 10 mg/d (equivalent to 15 mg/d in non-Japanese)

    • 3.5% used antiplatelet

Control: OAC + antiplatelet

  • Rivaroxaban (as above) + antiplatelet (ASA or P2Y12 inhibitor at clinician’s discretion)

  • Antiplatelet used: ASA 70%, P2Y12 inhibitor 27%, other 2%, none <1%

Outcomes @ median 24 months

  • Primary outcome (death, stroke, systemic embolism, MI, unstable angina requiring PCI/CABG):

    • OAC 8.0% vs OAC+antiplatelet 10.9% (ARR 2.9%, NNT 35)

    • Hazard ratio (HR) 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.95)

  • Death: 3.7% vs 6.6% (HR 0.55, 0.38-0.81; ARR 2.9%, NNT 35)

  • Ischemic stroke: 1.9% vs 2.5%

  • MI: 1.2% vs 0.7%

  • Major bleed (ISTH definition): 3.2% vs 5.2% (HR 0.59, 0.39-0.89; ARR 2%, NNT 50)

    • Hemorrhagic stroke: 0.4% vs 1.2% (HR 0.30, 0.10-0.92)

Internal Validity: Low risk of bias overall

  • Allocation bias: Low risk

    • Randomization using computer-generated minimization algorithm

    • Allocation concealed via web-based response system

  • Performance bias: Unclear risk

    • Open-label (patients & clinicians aware of allocated intervention)

    • Potential for crossover, differential management of antithrombotics & other cardiovascular risk factor modification

  • Detection bias: Low risk

    • Difference in outcomes driven by mortality; hard outcome with little opportunity to “game”

    • Outcomes assessed by blinded adjudication committee

  • Attrition bias: Low risk

    • Analyzed modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population & per-protocol (for non-inferiority)

    • Loss-to-follow-up: OAC monotherapy 2.5%, OAC+antiplatelet 1.8%

  • Other biases: Low risk

    • Stopped early for safety (higher risk of death in comparator group)

Other Considerations

  • Non-inferiority trial

    • Non-inferiority margin HR<1.46

    • Non-inferiority (and superiority) of OAC monotherapy met in both mITT & per-protocol analyses

  • Lower dose of rivaroxaban than used in North America

    • The approved “full dose” of rivaroxaban for stroke prophylaxis in AF in Japan is 15 mg/d (rather than 20 mg/d outside Asia) based on the J-ROCKET AF trial, as well as supporting pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data

    • The 20 mg/d dose should be used among non-Asians. It is unclear what dose we should use in non-Japanese Asians & South Asians.

POPular Genetics: Using pharmacogenomics to guide antiplatelet management

Claassens DMF, et al. A genotype-guided strategy for oral P2Y12 inhibitors in primary PCI. NEJM 2019;381:1621-31.

Bottom line: Among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, CYP2C19 genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection (leading to targeted de-escalation to clopidogrel in 2/3 of patients) reduced the risk of minor bleeding by ~3% without increase thrombotic events over 1 year.

Patients (n=2751 randomized, n=2488 analyzed)

  • Included:

    • STEMI treated with primary PCI with stent

  • Excluded

    • Severe HTN (>180/110 mm Hg)

    • Cardiogenic shock (SBP ≤80 mm Hg for >30 min)

    • Active malignancy causing increased bleed risk (investigator’s opinion)

    • Dialysis-dependent CKD

  • Baseline

    • Age 61, female 25%

    • Prior coronary stent 8%, prior MI 7-8%

    • Prior bleed 2%

    • Current smoker 46%, HTN 42%, diabetes 11%, CrCl <60 9%

    • Treated vessel: LAD 43%, RCA 42%, bifurcation lesion ~20%

    • Drug-eluting stent in 94%

    • Total stent length 28 mm

Intervention: CYP2C19 genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor de-escalation x12 months

  • Assay: TaqMan StepOnePlus assay (central lab) or Spartan RX (point-of-care test) ASAP after randomization

  • Tested for CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*3 loss-of-function alleles

  • Genotype:

    • Extensive metabolizer (good clopidogrel response; *1/*1): 67%

    • Intermediate metabolizer (*1/*2 or *1/*3): 29%

    • Poor metabolizer (*2/*2, *2/*3 or *3/*3): 2-3%

    • Not done: 1.4%

  • Strategy:

    • If any *2 or *3: Ticagrelor or prasugrel

    • Neither (extensive metabolizer): Clopidogrel

  • Selected: Clopidogrel (61%), ticagrelor (38%), prasugrel (1%)

Comparator: Standard P2Y12 inhibitor selection x12 months

  • Selected: ticagrelor (91%), clopidogrel (7%), prasugrel (2%)

Internal Validity: Low risk of allocation & attrition bias; unclear risk of performance & detection bias

  • Computer-generated block randomization

  • Internet-based allocation

  • Open-label (patients, clinicians aware of allocation after randomization)

  • Blinded adjudication committee

  • Intention-to-treat (ITT) & per-protocol analyses (ITT for superiority, ITT+PP for non-inferiority)

  • 3 patients lost to follow-up

Outcomes @ 12 months

  • Composite

    • Definition: Death/MI/definite stent thrombosis/stroke/major bleeding (PLATO definition)

    • Genotype-guided: 5.1% vs control 5.9%

    • Hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.62-1.21)

    • Absolute difference: -0.7% (-2.0% to 0.7%), meeting study’s non-inferiority criteria

  • Death: 1.5% in both groups (HR 1.00, 0.53-1.89)

  • MI: 1.5% vs 2.1% (HR 0.73, 0.41-1.32)

  • Definite stent thrombosis: 0.2% in both groups (HR 0.67, 0.11-4.01)

  • Stroke: 0.6% vs 0.9% (HR 0.73, 0.29-1.82)

  • Major or minor bleed: 9.8% vs 12.5% (HR 0.78, 0.61-0.98)

    • Major bleed: 2.3% in both groups (HR 0.97, 0.58-1.63)

    • Minor bleed: 7.6% vs 10.5% (HR 0.72, 0.55-0.94)

  • Dyspnea: Not compared between groups

Other Considerations

  • Comparator changed from clopidogrel to ticagrelor/prasugrel part-way through the trial; patients enrolled before this amendment excluded from analyses

  • Non-inferiority trial

    • Non-inferiority margin set as a 2% absolute risk increase for both primary outcomes (not well justified, large)

  • Unlike PHARMCLO, POPular Genetics did not test for CYP2C19*17 (ultra-fast metabolizer; increased clopidogrel efficacy), or ABCB 13435

Other Studies

  • Other studied de-escalation strategies include empiric de-escalation to clopidogrel after 1 month of potent P2Y12 inhibition, as well as platelet function testing-guided de-escalation

  • PHARMCLO

    • Patients: 888 ACS patients in Europe

      • Baseline:

        • Age 71, female 32%

        • STEMI 27%, NSTEMI 68%, UA 2%, no ACS 3%

        • Prior PCI 19%, prior MI 21%

        • Current smoker 22%, HTN 74%, diabetes 26%, CKD 9%

        • 96% underwent coronary angiography: 62% got PCI, 11% CABG

        • Treated vessel: LAD 54%, RCA 47%

        • Genotype (intervention group)

          • ABCB1 3435 mutation: 47%

          • CYP2C19*2 29%, *2/*2 4%

          • CYP2C19*17 31%, *17/*17 8%

    • Intervention: Genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection (immediately on ACS diagnosis) x12 months

      • Assay: ST Q3 (point-of-care test that takes ~70 min for result)

      • Tested for ABCB13435, CYP2C19*2, and CYP2C19*17 (increased clopidogrel efficacy)

      • Selected: Clopidogrel 43%, ticagrelor 43%, prasugrel 8%

    • Control: Standard P2Y12 inhibitor selection x12 months

      • Selected: Clopidogrel 51%, ticagrelor 33%, prasugrel 8%

    • Outcomes:

      • Composite (CV death, MI, stroke, major bleed (BARC 3-5): 15.9% vs 25.9% (HR 0.58, 0.43-0.78)

      • CV death/MI/stroke: 12.9% vs 21.4% (HR 0.57, 0.41-0.80)

      • Major bleed: 4.2% vs 6.8% (HR 0.62, 0.35-1.11)

    • Caveats:

      • Stopped prematurely 1/4 of the way through by ethics committee as genotyping assay not previously certified; therefore, the observed benefit of genotype-guided intervention is likely a large overestimate