Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but additional data are needed about its ...effect on inpatient and outpatient heart failure events.
We randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II through IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of >40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to usual therapy, for a median of 26 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points.
Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergency or urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (432 versus 546 patients empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.77 95% CI, 0.67-0.87;
<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 18 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (hazard ratio, 0.71 95% CI, 0.52-0.96;
=0.028) and the total number of all hospitalizations that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug (hazard ratio, 0.73 95% CI, 0.55-0.97;
=0.033). Compared with patients in the placebo group, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported outpatient intensification of diuretics (482 versus 610; hazard ratio, 0.76 95% CI, 0.67-0.86;
<0.0001), and patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 50% more likely to have a better New York Heart Association functional class, with significant effects at 12 weeks that were maintained for at least 2 years. The benefit on total heart failure hospitalizations was similar in patients with an ejection fraction of >40% to <50% and 50% to <60%, but was attenuated at higher ejection fractions.
In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin produced a meaningful, early, and sustained reduction in the risk and severity of a broad range of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.
This trial compared the efficacy and safety of oral dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, versus subcutaneous enoxaparin for extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip ...arthroplasty. A total of 2,055 patients were randomised to 28-35 days treatment with oral dabigatran, 220 mg once-daily, starting with a half-dose 1-4 hours after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily, starting the evening before surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of total venous thromboembolism VTE (venographic or symptomatic) and death from all-causes. The main secondary composite outcome was major VTE (proximal deep-vein thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism) plus VTE-related death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. In total, 2,013 were treated, of whom 1,577 operated patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 7.7% of the dabigatran group versus 8.8% of the enoxaparin group, risk difference (RD) -1.1% (95%CI -3.8 to 1.6%); p<0.0001 for the pre-specified non-inferiority margin. Major VTE plus VTE-related death occurred in 2.2% of the dabigatran group versus 4.2% of the enoxaparin group, RD -1.9% (-3.6% to -0.2%); p=0.03. Major bleeding occurred in 1.4% of the dabigatran group and 0.9% of the enoxaparin group (p=0.40). The incidence of adverse events, including liver enzyme elevations and cardiac events, during treatment was similar between the groups. Extended prophylaxis with oral dabigatran 220 mg once-daily was as effective as subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once-daily in reducing the risk of VTE after total hip arthroplasty, and superior to enoxaparin for reducing the risk of major VTE. The risk of bleeding and safety profiles were similar.
The direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran has a predictable anticoagulant effect and may be an alternative therapy to warfarin for patients who have acute venous thromboembolism.
In a randomized, ...double-blind, noninferiority trial involving patients with acute venous thromboembolism who were initially given parenteral anticoagulation therapy for a median of 9 days (interquartile range, 8 to 11), we compared oral dabigatran, administered at a dose of 150 mg twice daily, with warfarin that was dose-adjusted to achieve an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0. The primary outcome was the 6-month incidence of recurrent symptomatic, objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism and related deaths. Safety end points included bleeding events, acute coronary syndromes, other adverse events, and results of liver-function tests.
A total of 30 of the 1274 patients randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (2.4%), as compared with 27 of the 1265 patients randomly assigned to warfarin (2.1%), had recurrent venous thromboembolism; the difference in risk was 0.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval CI, -0.8 to 1.5; P<0.001 for the prespecified noninferiority margin). The hazard ratio with dabigatran was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.84). Major bleeding episodes occurred in 20 patients assigned to dabigatran (1.6%) and in 24 patients assigned to warfarin (1.9%) (hazard ratio with dabigatran, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.48), and episodes of any bleeding were observed in 205 patients assigned to dabigatran (16.1%) and 277 patients assigned to warfarin (21.9%; hazard ratio with dabigatran, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85). The numbers of deaths, acute coronary syndromes, and abnormal liver-function tests were similar in the two groups. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 9.0% of patients assigned to dabigatran and in 6.8% of patients assigned to warfarin (P=0.05).
For the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism, a fixed dose of dabigatran is as effective as warfarin, has a safety profile that is similar to that of warfarin, and does not require laboratory monitoring. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00291330.)
Dabigatran is approved for stroke risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Data from diverse clinical practice settings will help establish whether the risk:benefit ...ratio seen in clinical trials is comparable with routine clinical care. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran and warfarin in clinical practice. We undertook a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort study (N=12,793 per group; mean age 74) comparing treatment with dabigatran or warfarin in the US Department of Defense claims database, October 2009 to July 2013. Treatment-naïve patients with first prescription claim for dabigatran (either FDA-approved dose) or warfarin between October 2010 and July 2012 (index) and a diagnosis of NVAF during the 12 months before index date were included. Primary outcomes were stroke and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, major gastrointestinal (GI), urogenital or other bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Time-to-event was investigated using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Outcomes comparisons were made utilising Cox-proportional hazards models of PSM groups. Dabigatran users experienced fewer strokes (adjusted hazard ratio 95 % confidence intervals 0.73 0.55-0.97), major intracranial (0.49 0.30-0.79), urogenital (0.36 0.18-0.74) and other (0.38 0.22-0.66) bleeding, MI (0.65 0.45-0.95) and deaths (0.64 0.55-0.74) than the warfarin group. Major bleeding (0.87 0.74-1.03) and major GI bleeding (1.13 0.94-1.37) was similar between groups and major lower GI bleeding events were more frequent (1.30 1.04-1.62) with dabigatran. In conclusion, compared with warfarin, dabigatran treatment was associated with a lower risk of stroke and most outcomes measured, but increased incidence of major lower GI bleeding.
The relationship between the benefits of empagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) has not been reported.
The ...authors sought to evaluate the relationship between NT-proBNP and empagliflozin effects in EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction).
Patients with HFrEF were randomly assigned to placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg daily. NT-proBNP was measured at baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 52 weeks, and 100 weeks. Patients were divided into quartiles of baseline NT-proBNP.
Incidence rates for each study outcome were 4- to 6-fold higher among those in the highest versus lowest NT-proBNP quartiles (≥3,480 vs <1,115 pg/mL). Study participants with higher NT-proBNP had 2- to 3-fold total hospitalizations higher than the lowest NT-proBNP quartile. Empagliflozin reduced risk for major cardiorenal events without heterogeneity across NT-proBNP quartiles (primary endpoint P
= 0.94; renal composite endpoint P
= 0.71). Empagliflozin treatment significantly reduced NT-proBNP at all timepoints examined; by 52 weeks, the adjusted mean difference from placebo was 13% (P < 0.001). An NT-proBNP in the lowest quartile (<1,115 pg/mL) 12 weeks after randomization was associated with lower risk for subsequent cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization regardless of baseline concentration. Treatment with empagliflozin resulted in 27% higher adjusted odds of an NT-proBNP concentration of <1,115 pg/mL by 12 weeks compared with placebo (P = 0.01).
In EMPEROR-Reduced, higher baseline NT-proBNP concentrations were associated with greater risk for adverse heart failure or renal outcomes, but empagliflozin reduced risk regardless of baseline NT-proBNP concentration. The NT-proBNP concentration after treatment with empagliflozin better informs subsequent prognosis than pretreatment concentrations. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction EMPEROR-Reduced; NCT03057977).
ABSTRACT
Aims
EMPEROR‐Preserved is an ongoing trial evaluating the effect of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This report describes the baseline ...characteristics of the EMPEROR‐Preserved cohort and compares them with patients enrolled in prior HFpEF trials.
Methods and results
EMPEROR‐Preserved is a phase III randomized, international, double‐blind, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled trial in which 5988 symptomatic HFpEF patients left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been enrolled. Patients were required to have elevated N‐terminal pro B‐type
natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) concentrations (i.e. >300 pg/mL in patients without and >900 pg/mL in patients with atrial fibrillation) along with evidence of structural changes in the heart or documented history of heart failure hospitalization. Among patients enrolled from various regions (45% Europe, 11% Asia, 25% Latin America, 12% North America), the mean age was 72 ± 9 years, 45% were women. Almost all patients had New York Heart Association class II or III symptoms (99.6%), and 23% had prior heart failure hospitalization within 12 months. Thirty‐three percent of the patients had baseline LVEF of 41–50%. The mean LVEF (54 ± 9%) was slightly lower while the median NT‐proBNP 974 (499–1731) pg/mL was higher compared with previous HFpEF trials. Presence of comorbidities such as diabetes (49%) and chronic kidney disease (50%) were common. The majority of the patients were on angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (80%) and beta‐blockers (86%), and 37% of patients were on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.
Conclusion
When compared with prior trials in HFpEF, the EMPEROR‐Preserved cohort has a somewhat higher burden of comorbidities, lower LVEF, higher median NT‐proBNP and greater use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists at baseline. Results of the EMPEROR‐Preserved trial will be available in 2021.
Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) in the EMPEROR‐Preserved trial. ACEi, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ARNI, angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CV, cardiovascular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MRA, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; NT‐proBNP, N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus.
There is limited published information on outcome adjudication in heart failure (HF).
The authors sought to compare investigator reports (IRs) to a Clinical Events Committee (CEC) and the impact of ...SCTI (Standardized Clinical Trial Initiative) criteria.
In the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, the authors compared IRs to the CEC for concordance; treatment effect on primary composite outcome events; and the components first event hospitalization primarily for HF or cardiovascular mortality (CVM), prognosis after hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), total HHFs, and trial duration with and without SCTI criteria.
The CEC confirmed 76.3% of IR events for the primary outcome (CVM: 89.1%; HHF: 73.7%). The HR for treatment effect did not differ between adjudication methods for the primary outcome (IR: 0.75 95% CI: 0.66-0.85; CEC: 0.75 95% CI: 0.65-0.86), its components, or total HHFs. The prognosis after first HHF for all-cause mortality and CVM also did not differ between IR or CEC. Interestingly, IR primary HHF with different CEC primary cause had the highest subsequent fatal event rate. Full SCTI criteria were present in 90% of CEC HHFs—with a similar treatment effect to non-SCTI. The IR primary event reached the protocol target number (841) 3 months earlier than CEC (4 months with full SCTI criteria).
Investigator adjudication is an alternative to a CEC with similar accuracy and faster event accumulation. The use of granular (SCTI) criteria did not improve trial performance. Finally, our data suggest that consideration be given to broadening the HHF definition to include “for or with” worsening disease. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction EMPEROR-Reduced; NCT03057977)
Display omitted
Summary Background After hip replacement surgery, prophylaxis following discharge from hospital is recommended to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism. Our aim was to assess the oral, direct ...thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate for such prophylaxis. Methods In this double-blind study, we randomised 3494 patients undergoing total hip replacement to treatment for 28–35 days with dabigatran etexilate 220 mg (n=1157) or 150 mg (1174) once daily, starting with a half-dose 1–4 h after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily (1162), starting the evening before surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of total venous thromboembolism (venographic or symptomatic) and death from all causes during treatment. On the basis of the absolute difference in rates of venous thromboembolism with enoxaparin versus placebo, the non-inferiority margin for the difference in rates of thromboembolism was defined as 7·7%. Efficacy analyses were done by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00168818. Findings Median treatment duration was 33 days. 880 patients in the dabigatran etexilate 220 mg group, 874 in the dabigatran etexilate 150 mg group, and 897 in the enoxaparin group were available for the primary efficacy outcome analysis; the main reasons for exclusion in all three groups were the lack of adequate venographic data. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 60 (6·7%) of 897 individuals in the enoxaparin group versus 53 (6·0%) of 880 patients in the dabigatran etexilate 220 mg group (absolute difference −0·7%, 95% CI −2·9 to 1·6%) and 75 (8·6%) of 874 people in the 150 mg group (1·9%, −0·6 to 4·4%). Both doses were thus non-inferior to enoxaparin. There was no significant difference in major bleeding rates with either dose of dabigatran etexilate compared with enoxaparin (p=0·44 for 220 mg, p=0·60 for 150 mg). The frequency of increases in liver enzyme concentrations and of acute coronary events during the study did not differ significantly between the groups. Interpretation Oral dabigatran etexilate was as effective as enoxaparin in reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement surgery, with a similar safety profile.
Abstract Dabigatran, an oral once-daily unmonitored thrombin inhibitor, has been tested elsewhere using enoxaparin 40 mg once daily. We used the North American enoxaparin 30 mg BID regimen as the ...comparator. This was a double-blind, centrally randomized trial. Unilateral total knee arthroplasty patients were randomized to receive oral dabigatran etexilate 220 or 150 mg once daily, or enoxaparin 30 mg SC BID after surgery, blinded. Dosing stopped at contrast venography, 12 to 15 days after surgery. Among 1896 patients, dabigatran 220 and 110 mg showed inferior efficacy to enoxaparin (venous thromboembolism rates of 31% P = .02 vs enoxaparin, 34% P < .001 vs enoxaparin, and 25%, respectively). Bleeding rates were similar, and no drug-related hepatic illness was recognized. Dabigatran, effective compared to once-daily enoxaparin, showed inferior efficacy to the twice-daily North American enoxaparin regimen, probably because of the latter's more intense and prolonged dosing.
The EMPEROR-Preserved trial showed that the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) ...in heart failure patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 40%. Here, we report the results of a pre-specified analysis that separately evaluates these patients stratified by LVEF: preserved (≥ 50%) (n = 4,005; 66.9%) or mid-range (41-49%). In patients with LVEF ≥ 50%, empagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or HHF (the primary endpoint) by 17% versus placebo (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71-0.98, P = 0.024). For the key secondary endpoint, the HR for total HHF was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.66-1.04, P = 0.11). For patients with an LVEF of 41-49%, the HR for empagliflozin versus placebo was 0.71 (95%CI: 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002) for the primary outcome (P
= 0.27), and 0.57 (95%CI: 0.42-0.79, P < 0.001) for total HHF (P
= 0.06). These results, together with those from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial in patients with LVEF < 40%, support the use of empagliflozin across the full spectrum of LVEF in heart failure.
PDF
