Efficacy of empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction according to frailty status in EMPEROR-Preserved

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a severe, common co-morbidity associated with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The impact of frailty on HFpEF outcomes may affect treatment choices in HFpEF. The impact of frailty on HFpEF patients and any impact on the clinical benefits of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition in HFpEF have been described in only a limited number of trials. Whether the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin would improve or worsen frailty status when given to HFpEF patients is also not known. The aims of this study were, therefore, to evaluate, in HFpEF patients enrolled in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), the impact of frailty on clinical outcomes, and on the effects of empagliflozin, as well as the effect of empagliflozin on frailty status during treatment period.

METHODS

We calculated a cumulative deficit-derived frailty index (FI) using 44 variables including clinical, laboratory and quality of life parameters recorded in EMPEROR-Preserved. Patients were classified into four groups: non-frail (FI < 0.21), mild frailty (0.21 to <0.30), moderate frailty (0.30 to <0.40) and severe frailty (≥0.40). Clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life were evaluated according to baseline FI along with the effect of empagliflozin on chronological changes in FI (at 12, 32 and 52 weeks).

RESULTS

The patient distribution was 1514 (25.3%), 2100 (35.1%), 1501 (25.1%) and 873 (14.6%) in non-frail, mild frailty, moderate frailty and severe frailty, respectively. Severe frailty patients tended to be female and have low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores, more co-morbidities and more polypharmacy. Incidence rates of the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization increased as frailty worsened (hazard ratio [HR] of each FI category compared with the non-frail group: 1.10 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.89-1.35], 2.00 [1.63-2.47] and 2.61 [2.08-3.27] in the mild frailty, moderate frailty and severe frailty groups, respectively; P trend < 0.001). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the risk for the primary outcome across the four FI categories, HR: 0.59 [95% CI 0.42-0.83], 0.79 [0.61-1.01], 0.77 [0.61-0.96] and 0.90 [0.69-1.16] in non-frail to severe frailty categories, respectively (P value for trend = 0.097). Empagliflozin also improved other clinical outcomes and KCCQ score across frailty categories. Compared with placebo, empagliflozin-treated patients had a higher likelihood of being in a lower FI category at Weeks 12, 32 and 52 (P < 0.05), odds ratio: 1.12 [95% CI 1.01-1.24] at Week 12, 1.21 [1.09-1.34] at Week 32 and 1.20 [1.09-1.33] at Week 52.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin improved key efficacy outcomes with a possible diminution of effect in very frail patients. Empagliflozin also improved frailty status during follow-up.

Efficacy and Safety of Empagliflozin According to Background Diuretic Use in HFrEF: Post-Hoc Analysis of EMPEROR-Reduced

BACKGROUND

The EMPEROR-Reduced (EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial established the efficacy of empagliflozin in reducing heart failure (HF) outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

The authors examined the outcomes of EMPEROR-Reduced as a function of background diuretic therapy.

METHODS

The EMPEROR-Reduced trial was a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of placebo vs empagliflozin 10 mg among 3,730 HFrEF patients. Herein, the population was stratified into 4 groups: no diuretic and diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide <40, 40, and >40 mg daily at baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 3,656 patients from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial were available for analysis. Of those patients, 482 (13.2%) were receiving no diuretic therapy, and 731 (20.0%), 1,411 (38.6%), and 1,032 (28.2%) were receiving <40 mg, 40 mg, and >40 mg, respectively. The efficacy of empagliflozin on the primary outcome (time to first event of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular [CV] death) was consistent regardless of background diuretic therapy (>40 mg: HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.71-1.10]; 40 mg: HR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.51-0.82]; <40 mg: HR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.46-0.92]); no diuretic agents: HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.47-1.29]; Ptrend test = 0.192). Baseline diuretic doses did not influence the effect of empagliflozin on body weight, systolic blood pressure, NT-proBNP, or hematocrit at 52 weeks. The safety profile of empagliflozin vs placebo was unaffected by baseline diuretic dose; however, independently of treatment allocation, total rates of adverse events were higher among patients with higher baseline doses of diuretic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin exhibits a consistent effect on time to CV death or HF hospitalization and an unaltered safety profile regardless of baseline diuretic therapy. (EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Reduced]; NCT03057977).

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use and the effects of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients admitted for acute heart failure: Findings from EMPULSE

AIMS

In patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) empagliflozin produced greater clinical benefit than placebo. Many patients with AHF are treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The interplay between empagliflozin and MRAs in AHF is yet to be explored. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin versus placebo according to MRA use at baseline in the EMPULSE trial (NCT04157751).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this analysis all comparisons were performed between empagliflozin and placebo, stratified by baseline MRA use. The primary outcome included all-cause death, heart failure events, and a ≥5 point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score at 90 days, assessed using the win ratio (WR). First heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was a secondary outcome. From the 530 patients randomized, 276 (52%) were receiving MRAs at baseline. MRA users were younger, had lower ejection fraction, better renal function, and higher KCCQ scores. The primary outcome showed benefit of empagliflozin irrespective of baseline MRA use (WR 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.97 and WR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93-1.73 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.52). The effect of empagliflozin on first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was not modified by MRA use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.30-1.11 and HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47-1.52 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.39). Investigator-reported and severe hyperkalaemia events were infrequent (<6%) irrespective of MRA use.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted for AHF, initiation of empagliflozin produced clinical benefit and was well tolerated irrespective of background MRA use. These findings support the early use of empagliflozin on top of MRA therapy in patients admitted for AHF.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics following once-daily doses of BI 187004, an inhibitor of 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1, over 28 days in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and overweight or obesity

AIMS

To study the oral 11 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-1 (11β-HSD1) inhibitor BI 187004 (NCT02150824), as monotherapy and in combination with metformin, versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) affected by overweight or obesity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This Phase II, randomized controlled trial investigated multiple rising doses of BI 187004 as monotherapy (Arm 1: 20, 80 or 240 mg) and in combination with metformin (Arm 2: 240 mg), in adults with T2DM and a body mass index of 28-40 kg/m² .

RESULTS

In total, 103 patients (Arm 1: n = 62, Arm 2: n = 41) were included in this study. BI 187004 was rapidly absorbed and exposure increased approximately dose-dependently. Target engagement of 11β-HSD1 was observed with near-full inhibition of 11β-HSD1 in the liver [decreased (5α-tetrahydrocortisol + 5β-tetrahydrocortisol)/tetrahydrocortisone ratio]; hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation was also seen (increased total urinary corticosteroids). No clinically relevant changes from baseline with BI 187004 treatment were observed for bodyweight or meal tolerance test parameters, or in most efficacy endpoints testing glucose and lipid metabolism; a significant increase was observed in weighted mean plasma glucose (p < .05 for 80 and 240 mg BI 187004) but not fasting plasma glucose. Drug-related adverse events were reported for 14 patients (22.6%) in Arm 1 and 10 patients (24.4%) in Arm 2, most frequently headache, diarrhoea, flushing and dizziness. A dose-dependent increase in heart rate was seen with BI 187004 treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

BI 187004 was generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM. Despite complete 11β-HSD1 inhibition, no clinically relevant effects were observed with BI 187004.

Empagliflozin in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in addition to background therapies and therapeutic combinations (EMPEROR-Reduced): a post-hoc analysis of a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

It is important to evaluate whether a new treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) provides additive benefit to background foundational treatments. As such, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF in addition to baseline treatment with specific doses and combinations of disease-modifying therapies.

METHODS

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial, which took place in 520 centres (hospitals and medical clinics) in 20 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II-IV with an ejection fraction of 40% or less were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the addition of either oral empagliflozin 10 mg per day or placebo to background therapy. The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalisation; the secondary outcome was total heart failure hospital admissions. An extended composite outcome consisted of inpatient and outpatient HFrEF events was also evaluated. Outcomes were analysed according to background use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), as well as β blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at less than 50% or 50% or more of target doses and in various combinations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03057977.

FINDINGS

In this post-hoc analysis of 3730 patients (mean age 66·8 years [SD 11·0], 893 [23·9%] women; 1863 [49·9%] in the empagliflozin group, 1867 [50·1%] in the placebo group) assessed between March 6, 2017, and May 28, 2020, empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome (361 in 1863 participants in the empagliflozin group and 462 of 1867 in the placebo group; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·65-0·86]) regardless of background therapy or its target doses for ACE inhibitors or ARBs at doses of less than 50% of the target dose (HR 0·85 [0·69-1·06]) and for doses of 50% or more of the target dose (HR 0·67 [0·52-0·88]; p_interaction=0·18). A similar result was seen for β blockers at doses of less than 50% of the target dose (HR 0·66 [0·54-0·80]) and for doses of 50% or more of the target dose (HR 0·81 [0·66-1·00]; p_interaction=0·15). Empagliflozin also reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of background use of triple therapy with an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or ARNI plus β blocker plus MRA (given combination HR 0·73 [0·61-0·88]; not given combination HR 0·76 [0·62-0·94]; p_interaction=0·77). Similar patterns of benefit were observed for the secondary and extended composite outcomes. Empagliflozin was well tolerated and rates of hypotension, symptomatic hypotension, and hyperkalaemia were similar across all subgroups.

INTERPRETATION

Empagliflozin reduced serious heart failure outcomes across doses and combinations of disease-modifying therapies for HFrEF. Clinically, these data suggest that empagliflozin might be considered as a foundational therapy in patients with HFrEF regardless of their existing background therapy.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company.

Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran in patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a post hoc analysis of the randomised RE-DUAL PCI trial

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg twice daily, plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor) versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and STEMI.

METHODS

In the RE-DUAL PCI trial, 305 patients with STEMI were randomised to dabigatran 110 mg (n=113 versus 106 warfarin) or 150 mg (n=86 versus 84 warfarin). The primary endpoint was the time to first major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding event (MBE/CRNMBE). The thrombotic endpoint was a composite of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularisation.

RESULTS

In STEMI patients, dabigatran 110 mg (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.20-0.74) and 150 mg (0.43, 0.21-0.89) dual therapy reduced the risk of MBE/CRNMBE versus warfarin triple therapy (p for interaction vs all other patients=0.31 and 0.16). The risk of thrombotic events for dabigatran 110 mg (HR 1.61, 95% CI: 0.85-3.08) and 150 mg (0.56, 0.20-1.51) had p interactions of 0.20 and 0.33, respectively. For net clinical benefit, the HRs were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.46-1.17) and 0.49 (0.27-0.91) for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg (p for interaction=0.80 and 0.12), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After PCI for STEMI, patients on dabigatran dual therapy had lower risks of bleeding events versus warfarin triple therapy with similar risks of thromboembolic events, supporting dabigatran dual therapy even in patients with high thrombotic risk.

The effect of sex on the efficacy and safety of dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran versus triple therapy with warfarin after PCI in patients with atrial fibrillation (a RE-DUAL PCI subgroup analysis and comparison to other dual antithrombotic therapy trials)

Background

The RE‐DUAL PCI trial demonstrated that in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, either clopidogrel or ticagrelor, reduced the risk of bleeding without an increased risk of thromboembolic events as compared to triple therapy with warfarin in addition to a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and aspirin. What remains unclear is whether this effect is consistent between males and females undergoing PCI.

Hypothesis

The reduction in risk of bleeding without increased risk of thromboembolic events with dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor in comparison to triple therapy with warfarin, a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and aspirin is consistent in females and males.

Methods

The primary safety endpoint was the first International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding event (MBE) or clinically relevant non‐major bleeding event (CRNMBE). The efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, thromboembolic event (stroke, myocardial infarction, and systemic embolism) or unplanned revascularization. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were applied to calculate corresponding hazard ratios and interaction p values for each endpoint.

Results

A total of 655 women and 2070 men were enrolled. The risk of major or CRNM bleeding was lower with both dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy and dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy in female and male patients (for 110 mg: females: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47–1.01, males: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37–0.59, interaction p value: 0.084 and for 150 mg: females HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48–1.16, males HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56–0.90, interaction p value: 0.83). There was also no detectable difference in the composite efficacy endpoint of death, thromboembolic events or unplanned revascularization between dabigatran dual therapy and warfarin triple therapy, with no statistically significant interaction between sex and treatment (interaction p values: 0.73 and 0.72, respectively).

Conclusions

Consistent with the overall study results, the risk of bleeding was lower with dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy, and risk of thromboembolic events was comparable with warfarin triple therapy independent of the patient's sex.

Effect of empagliflozin on exercise ability and symptoms in heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction, with and without type 2 diabetes

AIMS

The EMPERIAL (Effect of EMPagliflozin on ExeRcise ability and HF symptoms In patients with chronic heArt faiLure) trials evaluated the effects of empagliflozin on exercise ability and patient-reported outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D), reporting, for the first time, the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibition in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

HF patients with reduced EF (HFrEF) (≤40%, N = 312, EMPERIAL-Reduced) or preserved EF (>40%, N = 315, EMPERIAL-Preserved), with and without T2D, were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-minute walk test distance (6MWTD) change to Week 12. Key secondary endpoints included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score (KCCQ-TSS) and Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire Self-Administered Standardized format (CHQ-SAS) dyspnoea score. 6MWTD median (95% confidence interval) differences, empagliflozin vs. placebo, at Week 12 were -4.0 m (-16.0, 6.0; P = 0.42) and 4.0 m (-5.0, 13.0; P = 0.37) in EMPERIAL-Reduced and EMPERIAL-Preserved, respectively. As the primary endpoint was non-significant, all secondary endpoints were considered exploratory. Changes in KCCQ-TSS and CHQ-SAS dyspnoea score were non-significant. Improvements with empagliflozin in exploratory pre-specified analyses of KCCQ-TSS responder rates, congestion score, and diuretic use in EMPERIAL-Reduced are hypothesis generating. Empagliflozin adverse events were consistent with those previously reported.

CONCLUSION

The primary outcome for both trials was neutral. Empagliflozin was well tolerated in HF patients, with and without T2D, with a safety profile consistent with that previously reported in T2D. Hypothesis-generating improvements in exploratory analyses of secondary endpoints with empagliflozin in HFrEF were observed.

Dabigatran Dual Therapy vs Warfarin Triple Therapy Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation With/Without a Proton Pump Inhibitor: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the RE-DUAL PCI Trial

Background and Objective

In patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention, if a proton pump inhibitor is used, could that allow the use of warfarin triple therapy, or is there additional reduction in bleeding while using it with dual therapy?

Methods

The RE-DUAL PCI trial randomized 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation post-percutaneous coronary intervention to dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg twice daily, with clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or warfarin triple therapy (with clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin for 1–3 months). This prespecified subgroup analysis evaluated risks of a first major bleeding event or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, all gastrointestinal bleeding, and a composite efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality/thromboembolic event or unplanned revascularization according to baseline use of a proton pump inhibitor.

Results

Of 2678 analyzed patients, 1641 (61.3%) were receiving a proton pump inhibitor at baseline. Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy regardless of proton pump inhibitor use, with comparable risk of the composite efficacy endpoint (all interaction p values > 0.05). For gastrointestinal bleeding, no interaction was observed between study treatment and proton pump inhibitor use (interaction p values 0.84 and 0.62 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin triple therapy).

Conclusions

Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy, regardless of proton pump inhibitor use at baseline, in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk of the composite efficacy endpoint appeared to be similar for dabigatran dual therapy vs warfarin triple therapy in patients receiving/not receiving a proton pump inhibitor.

ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier

NCT02164864.

Video abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40265-020-01323-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antithrombotic therapy according to baseline bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: applying the PRECISE-DAPT score in RE-DUAL PCI

Aims

Patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary intervention are at higher bleeding risk due to the concomitant need for oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. The RE-DUAL PCI trial demonstrated better safety with dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT: dabigatran 110 or 150 mg b.i.d., clopidogrel or ticagrelor) compared to triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT: warfarin, clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin). We explored the impact of baseline bleeding risk based on the PRECISE-DAPT score for decision-making regarding DAT vs. TAT.

Methods and results

A score ≥25 points qualified high bleeding risk (HBR). Comparisons were made for the primary safety endpoint International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and the composite efficacy endpoint of death, thrombo-embolic events, or unplanned revascularization, analysed by time-to-event analysis. PRECISE-DAPT was available in 2336/2725 patients, and 37.9% were HBR. Compared to TAT, DAT with dabigatran 110 mg reduced bleeding risk both in non-HBR [hazard ratio (HR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.57] and HBR (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52–0.94), with a greater magnitude of benefit among non-HBR (Pint = 0.02). Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran 150 mg vs. TAT reduced bleeding in non-HBR (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.80), with a trend toward less benefit in HBR patients (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63–1.34; Pint = 0.08). The risk of ischaemic events was similar on DAT with dabigatran (both 110 and 150 mg) vs. TAT in non-HBR and HBR patients (Pint = 0.45 and Pint = 0.56, respectively).

Conclusions

PRECISE-DAPT score appeared useful to identify AF patients undergoing PCI at further increased risk of bleeding complications and may help clinicians identifying the antithrombotic regimen intensity with the best benefit–risk ratio in an individual patient.

Heparin dosing in uninterrupted anticoagulation with dabigatran vs. warfarin in atrial fibrillation ablation: RE-CIRCUIT study

AIMS

To describe heparin dosing requirements in patients who underwent catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation with uninterrupted anticoagulation using dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) or warfarin to attain therapeutic activated clotting time (ACT) in the RE-CIRCUIT® study. The RE-CIRCUIT study showed significantly fewer major bleeding events in the dabigatran vs. warfarin treatment group. Unfractionated heparin was administered during the procedure to maintain ACT >300 s.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were randomly assigned to dabigatran 150 mg bid or international normalized ratio-adjusted warfarin. Ablation was performed with uninterrupted anticoagulation and continued for 8 weeks after the procedure. Heparin was administered after placement of femoral sheaths before or immediately after transseptal puncture. Ablation was performed in 635 patients (dabigatran, 317; warfarin, 318); data were available from 396 patients administered heparin (dabigatran, 191; warfarin, 205). Most frequent time window from last dose of study drug to septal puncture was 0 to <4 h in the dabigatran (41.3%) and 16 to <24 h in the warfarin arms (44.7%). Overall mean (standard deviation) heparin dose was similar between the dabigatran and warfarin groups [12 402 (10 721) vs. 11 910 (8359) IU, respectively]. Heparin dosing requirement to reach therapeutic ACT was lowest when time from last dose of dabigatran to septal puncture was 0 to <4 h.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with dabigatran required a similar amount of unfractionated heparin as those treated with warfarin to achieve an ACT of >300 s during ablation. More heparin units were required when the time from the last dose of dabigatran to septal puncture increased.

Dabigatran dual therapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention in atrial fibrillation patients with or without acute coronary syndrome: a subgroup analysis from the RE-DUAL PCI trial

AIMS

After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation, safety and efficacy with dabigatran dual therapy were evaluated in pre-specified subgroups of patients undergoing PCI due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or elective PCI, and those receiving ticagrelor or clopidogrel treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the RE-DUAL PCI trial, 2725 patients were randomized to dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg with P2Y12 inhibitor, or warfarin with P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin. Mean follow-up was 14 months, 50.5% had ACS, and 12% received ticagrelor. The risk of the primary endpoint, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, was reduced with both dabigatran dual therapies vs. warfarin triple therapy in patients with ACS [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 0.47 (0.35-0.63) for 110 mg and 0.67 (0.50-0.90) for 150 mg]; elective PCI [0.57 (0.43-0.76) for 110 mg and 0.76 (0.56-1.03) for 150 mg]; receiving ticagrelor [0.46 (0.28-0.76) for 110 mg and 0.59 (0.34-1.04) for 150 mg]; or clopidogrel [0.51 (0.41-0.64) for 110 mg and 0.73 (0.58-0.91) for 150 mg], all interaction P-values >0.10. Overall, dabigatran dual therapy was comparable to warfarin triple therapy for the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or unplanned revascularization, with minor variations across the subgroups, all interaction P-values >0.10.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of both dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy in reducing bleeding risks were consistent across subgroups of patients with or without ACS, and patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel.

Comparison of the Effect of Age (< 75 Versus ≥ 75) on the Efficacy and Safety of Dual Therapy (Dabigatran + Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor) Versus Triple Therapy (Warfarin + Aspirin + Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor) in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the RE-DUAL PCI Trial)

The RE-DUAL PCI trial reported that dabigatran dual therapy (110/150 mg twice daily, plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor) reduced bleeding events versus warfarin triple therapy (warfarin plus aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor) in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, with noninferiority in composite thromboembolic events. In this prespecified analysis, risks of first major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event and composite end point of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization were compared between dabigatran dual therapy and warfarin triple therapy in older (≥ 75 years) and younger (< 75 years) patients, using Cox proportional hazard regression. Of 2,725 patients randomized to treatment, 1,026 (37.7%) were categorized into older and 1,699 (62.3%) into younger age groups. Dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy lowered bleeding risk versus warfarin triple therapy in older (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.89) and younger patients (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54); interaction p value: 0.0125. Dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy lowered bleeding risk versus warfarin triple therapy in younger patients (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74), whereas no benefit could be observed in older patients (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77); interaction p value: 0.0013. For the thromboembolic end point, there was a trend for a higher risk with dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy in older patients, compared with warfarin triple therapy, whereas the risk was similar in younger patients. For dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy, the thromboembolic risk versus warfarin triple therapy was similar in older and younger patients. In conclusion, the benefits of dabigatran dual therapy differed in the 2 age groups, which may help dose selection when using dabigatran dual therapy.

P34 The effect of sex on the efficacy and safety of dabigatran dual therapy in atrial fibrillation after PCI: a subgroup analysis from the RE-DUAL PCI trial

Funding Acknowledgements

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH

On Behalf

The Re-DUAL PCI Investigators

Background

The RE-DUAL PCI study (NCT02164864) compared dabigatran dual antithrombotic therapy (D-DAT) with warfarin triple antithrombotic therapy (W-TAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As previously reported D-DAT reduced bleeding compared with W-TAT and was non-inferior with regard to thromboembolic events. 

Aim 

The aim of this subgroup analysis of RE-DUAL was to assess the relationship between sex and treatment effects of D-DAT and W-TAT on bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes.

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive W-TAT (warfarin, clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin) or D-DAT (dabigatran 110 or 150 mg twice daily with clopidogrel or ticagrelor; D110- or D150-DAT). Younger patients (aged &lt; 80 yrs. [&lt; 70 yrs. in Japan]) and US patients irrespective of age received D110-DAT, D150-DAT or W-TAT; older patients (aged ≥ 80 yrs. in non-US countries [≥ 70 yrs. in Japan]) received only D110-DAT or W-TAT. Bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes were assessed according to treatment group and by sex (female vs. male).

Results

A total of 2725 patients were randomized; 2070 patients were male (76.0%) and 655 (24.0%) were female. Overall females were older at time of PCI than males (73.2 ± 7.9 vs. 70.0 ± 8.8 years). The mean CHA2DS2-VASc and modified HAS-BLED scores were higher in women at 4.5 and 2.8, respectively, than in men at 3.3 and 2.7, respectively. 

For the primary endpoint of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events, treatment effects of D110-DAT vs. W-TAT were consistent for female and male patients (females: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47-1.01, males HR 0.46, 95%CI 0.37-0.59, interaction p-value 0.084). Similarly, consistent treatment effects were seen for the primary endpoint with D150-DAT vs W-TAT in female and male patients (females HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48-1.16, males HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90, interaction p value 0.83). 

No interaction between sex and treatment was observed for D110- or D150-DAT vs W-TAT with regard to the composite efficacy endpoint of death, thromboembolic events or unplanned revascularization (interaction p values 0.73 and 0.72, respectively) (figure).

Conclusion

The treatment effect of dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg dual therapy vs warfarin triple therapy was consistent across sex groups. This suggests that female and male patients with AF undergoing PCI should be treated equally in terms of the dosage of dabigatran selected for dual therapy strategies.

Abstract P34 Figure. Re-DUAL sex subgroup analysis

Uninterrupted anticoagulation with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: Lessons learned from randomized trials

Catheter ablation has been established as a rhythm control strategy in selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have failed or wish to avoid anti-arrhythmic drugs. Uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) peri-ablation is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic and bleeding complications as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation and bridging heparin. However, a substantial portion of patients with AF are treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Herein, we perform an in-depth review and comparison of three recent randomized trials of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with NOACs vs VKAs in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation. Furthermore, we report pooled results of these randomized trials. The pooled incidence of major bleeding was significantly lower with NOACs as compared to VKAs (2% vs 4.9%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.40; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.16-0.99). Similarly, cardiac tamponade was also reduced in the NOAC group (0.4% vs 1.5%; OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07-0.97). Thromboembolic complications were not significantly different between groups. Overall, these findings support the 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement's class I recommendation for uninterrupted NOAC use in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation.

Comparison of uninterrupted anticoagulation with dabigatran etexilate or warfarin in the periprocedural period for atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: Results of the Japanese subgroup of the RE-CIRCUIT trial

Background

There are limited data on uninterrupted anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly in Japan. We planned a subgroup analysis of the RE-CIRCUIT study, comparing the use of uninterrupted dabigatran therapy with warfarin therapy during catheter ablation among the Japanese subgroup and with that in the total population.

Methods

The RE-CIRCUIT study utilized a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint design, and the primary endpoint was the incidence of major bleeding events (MBEs). Patients were randomized to uninterrupted dabigatran 150 mg twice daily or warfarin. In this study, we analyzed the results in Japanese patients.

Results

Of 704 enrolled patients in the study, 112 Japanese patients were randomized to dabigatran (n = 65) or warfarin (n = 47). MBEs were experienced by two patients: one in the dabigatran group (1.6%, cardiac tamponade) and one in the warfarin group (2.2%, groin hematoma) (risk difference vs warfarin -0.6%; 95% CI -5.8, 4.7). Within the Japanese subgroup, there were no thromboembolic events in both groups.

Conclusion

While not designed to show statistical difference between two treatment groups, our results from the Japanese subgroup supported those from the overall population. Furthermore, this study provided clinical information regarding MBE, especially cardiac tamponade, in Japanese patients.

Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Triple antithrombotic therapy with warfarin plus two antiplatelet agents is the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with atrial fibrillation, but this therapy is associated with a high risk of bleeding.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation who had undergone PCI to triple therapy with warfarin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) and aspirin (for 1 to 3 months) (triple-therapy group) or dual therapy with dabigatran (110 mg or 150 mg twice daily) plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) and no aspirin (110-mg and 150-mg dual-therapy groups). Outside the United States, elderly patients (≥80 years of age; ≥70 years of age in Japan) were randomly assigned to the 110-mg dual-therapy group or the triple-therapy group. The primary end point was a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event during follow-up (mean follow-up, 14 months). The trial also tested for the noninferiority of dual therapy with dabigatran (both doses combined) to triple therapy with warfarin with respect to the incidence of a composite efficacy end point of thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism), death, or unplanned revascularization.

RESULTS

The incidence of the primary end point was 15.4% in the 110-mg dual-therapy group as compared with 26.9% in the triple-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.63; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority) and 20.2% in the 150-mg dual-therapy group as compared with 25.7% in the corresponding triple-therapy group, which did not include elderly patients outside the United States (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.88; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of the composite efficacy end point was 13.7% in the two dual-therapy groups combined as compared with 13.4% in the triple-therapy group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.29; P=0.005 for noninferiority). The rate of serious adverse events did not differ significantly among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with atrial fibrillation who had undergone PCI, the risk of bleeding was lower among those who received dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor than among those who received triple therapy with warfarin, a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, and aspirin. Dual therapy was noninferior to triple therapy with respect to the risk of thromboembolic events. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-DUAL PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164864 .).

Uninterrupted Dabigatran versus Warfarin for Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is typically performed with uninterrupted anticoagulation with warfarin or interrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy. Uninterrupted anticoagulation with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, such as dabigatran, may be safer; however, controlled data are lacking. We investigated the safety of uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled trial with blinded adjudicated end-point assessments, we randomly assigned patients scheduled for catheter ablation of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation to receive either dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) or warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0). Ablation was performed after 4 to 8 weeks of uninterrupted anticoagulation, which was continued during and for 8 weeks after ablation. The primary end point was the incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation; secondary end points included thromboembolic and other bleeding events.

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 704 patients across 104 sites; 635 patients underwent ablation. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. The incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation was lower with dabigatran than with warfarin (5 patients [1.6%] vs. 22 patients [6.9%]; absolute risk difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -2.2; P<0.001). Dabigatran was associated with fewer periprocedural pericardial tamponades and groin hematomas than warfarin. The two treatment groups had a similar incidence of minor bleeding events. One thromboembolic event occurred in the warfarin group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation with uninterrupted dabigatran was associated with fewer bleeding complications than uninterrupted warfarin. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-CIRCUIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02348723 .).

Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: Two 24-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trials

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin vs placebo as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with inadequate glycaemic control despite stable-dose metformin received open-label empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or 25 mg (study 2) as add-on therapy for 16 weeks. Subsequently, those with HbA1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.5% (>53 and ≤91 mmol/mol) (N = 482) were randomized to 24 weeks' double-blind, double-dummy treatment with linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 1, or to linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 2; all patients continued treatment with metformin and empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or metformin and empagliflozin 25 mg (study 2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline (defined as the last value before first intake of randomized, double-blind treatment) in HbA1c at week 24.

RESULTS

At week 24, HbA1c (mean baseline 7.82-8.04 [62-64 mmol/mol]) was significantly reduced with linagliptin vs placebo; adjusted mean (SE) differences in change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin vs placebo were -.32% (.10) (-3.59 [1.08] mmol/mol) ( P = .001) for patients on empagliflozin 10 mg and metformin, and -0.47% (0.10) (-5.15 [1.04] mmol/mol) ( P < 0.001) for patients on empagliflozin 25 mg and metformin. Adverse events were reported in more patients receiving placebo than in those receiving linagliptin: 55.5% vs 48.4% in study 1 and 58.9% vs 52.7% in study 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin for 24 weeks improved glycaemic control vs placebo, and was well tolerated.