Blinded Withdrawal of Long-Term Randomized Treatment With Empagliflozin or Placebo in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether the benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure persist after years of therapy. METHODS: In the EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trials in Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) and EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trials in Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials, patients with heart failure were randomly assigned (double-blind) to placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg/day for a median of 16 and 26 months, respectively. At the end of the trials, 6799 patients (placebo 3381, empagliflozin 3418) were prospectively withdrawn from treatment in a blinded manner, and, of these, 3981 patients (placebo 2020, empagliflozin 1961) underwent prespecified in-person assessments after ≈30 days off treatment. RESULTS: From 90 days from the start of closeout to the end of double-blind treatment, the annualized risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure was lower in empagliflozin-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (10.7 [95% CI, 9.0-12.6] versus 13.5 [95% CI, 11.5-15.6] events per 100 patient-years, respectively; hazard ratio 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60-0.96]). When the study drugs were withdrawn for ≈30 days, the annualized risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure increased in patients withdrawn from empagliflozin but not in those withdrawn from placebo (17.0 [95% CI, 12.6-22.1] versus 14.1 [95% CI, 10.1-18.8] events per 100 patient-years for empagliflozin and placebo, respectively). The hazard ratio for the change in risk in the patients withdrawn from empagliflozin was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.20-2.54), P=0.0034, whereas the change in the risk in patients withdrawn from placebo was not significant (hazard ratio 1.12 [95% CI, 0.76-1.66]); time period-by-treatment interaction, P=0.068. After withdrawal, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score declined by 1.6±0.4 in patients withdrawn from empagliflozin versus placebo (P<0.0001). Furthermore, withdrawal of empagliflozin was accompanied by increases in fasting glucose, body weight, systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate, N-terminal pro-hormone B-type natriuretic peptide, uric acid, and serum bicarbonate and decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit (all P<0.01). These physiological and laboratory changes were the inverse of the effects of the drug seen at the start of the trials during the initiation of treatment (≈1-3 years earlier) in the same cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These observations demonstrate a persistent effect of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure even after years of treatment, which dissipated rapidly after withdrawal of the drug. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03057977 and NCT03057951.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, but their effects in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction are uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II-IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Over a median of 26.2 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 415 of 2997 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 of 2991 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.90; P<0.001). This effect was mainly related to a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the empagliflozin group. The effects of empagliflozin appeared consistent in patients with or without diabetes. The total number of hospitalizations for heart failure was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (407 with empagliflozin and 541 with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P<0.001). Uncomplicated genital and urinary tract infections and hypotension were reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Preserved ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057951).

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. More evidence is needed regarding the effects of these drugs in patients across the broad spectrum of heart failure, including those with a markedly reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. RESULTS: During a median of 16 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 361 of 1863 patients (19.4%) in the empagliflozin group and in 462 of 1867 patients (24.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.86; P<0.001). The effect of empagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent in patients regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. The total number of hospitalizations for heart failure was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). The annual rate of decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate was slower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (-0.55 vs. -2.28 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area per year, P<0.001), and empagliflozin-treated patients had a lower risk of serious renal outcomes. Uncomplicated genital tract infection was reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving recommended therapy for heart failure, those in the empagliflozin group had a lower risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure than those in the placebo group, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Reduced ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057977.).

Effect of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction.

AIMS: No therapy has shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure across the entire range of ejection fractions seen in clinical practice. We assessed the influence of ejection fraction on the effect of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis was performed on both the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials (9718 patients; 4860 empagliflozin and 4858 placebo), and patients were grouped based on ejection fraction: <25% (n = 999), 25-34% (n = 2230), 35-44% (n = 1272), 45-54% (n = 2260), 55-64% (n = 2092), and ≥65% (n = 865). Outcomes assessed included (i) time to first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular mortality, (ii) time to first heart failure hospitalization, (iii) total (first and recurrent) hospitalizations for heart failure, and (iv) health status assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). The risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure declined progressively as ejection fraction increased from <25% to ≥65%. Empagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, mainly by reducing heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization by ≈30% in all ejection fraction subgroups, with an attenuated effect in patients with an ejection fraction ≥65%. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were: ejection fraction <25%: 0.73 (0.55-0.96); ejection fraction 25-34%: 0.63 (0.50-0.78); ejection fraction 35-44%: 0.72 (0.52-0.98); ejection fraction 45-54%: 0.66 (0.50-0.86); ejection fraction 55-64%: 0.70 (0.53-0.92); and ejection fraction ≥65%: 1.05 (0.70-1.58). Other heart failure outcomes and measures, including KCCQ, showed a similar response pattern. Sex did not influence the responses to empagliflozin. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of the effect of empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes was clinically meaningful and similar in patients with ejection fractions <25% to <65%, but was attenuated in patients with an ejection fraction ≥65%. KEY QUESTION: How does ejection fraction influence the effects of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure and either a reduced or a preserved ejection fraction? KEY FINDING: The magnitude of the effect of empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes and health status was similar in patients with ejection fractions <25% to <65%, but it was attenuated in patients with an ejection fraction ≥65%. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: The consistency of the response in patients with ejection fractions of <25% to <65% distinguishes the effects of empagliflozin from other drugs that have been evaluated across the full spectrum of ejection fractions in patients with heart failure.

Cardiac and Kidney Benefits of Empagliflozin in Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Insights From EMPEROR-Reduced.

BACKGROUND: In EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations, and slowed the progressive decline in kidney function in patients with HF and a reduced ejection fraction, with and without diabetes. We aim to study the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes across the spectrum of kidney function. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis, patients were categorized by the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at baseline (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or albumin-to-creatine ratio >300 mg/g). The primary and key secondary outcomes were: (1) a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome); (2) total HF hospitalizations; and (3) eGFR slope. The direct impact on kidney events was investigated by a prespecified composite kidney outcome (defined as a sustained profound decline in eGFR, chronic dialysis, or transplant). The median follow-up was 16 months. RESULTS: Of 3730 patients who were randomized to empagliflozin or placebo, 1978 (53%) had CKD. Empagliflozin reduced the primary outcome and total HF hospitalizations in patients with and without CKD: hazard ratio (HR)=0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.93) and HR=0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.90), respectively (interaction P=0.63). Empagliflozin slowed the slope of eGFR decline by 1.11 (0.23-1.98) ml/min/1.73 m2/yr in patients with CKD and by 2.41 (1.49-3.32) ml/min/1.73 m2/yr in patients without CKD. The risk of the composite kidney outcome was reduced similarly in patients with and without CKD: HR=0.53 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91) and HR=0.46 (95% CI, 0.22-0.99), respectively. The effect of empagliflozin on the primary composite outcome and key secondary outcomes was consistent across a broad range of baseline kidney function, measured by clinically relevant eGFR subgroups or by albuminuria, including patients with eGFR as low as 20 ml/min/1.73 m2. Empagliflozin was well tolerated in CKD patients. CONCLUSIONS: In EMPEROR-Reduced, empagliflozin had a beneficial effect on the key efficacy outcomes and slowed the rate of kidney function decline in patients with and without CKD, and regardless of the severity of kidney impairment at baseline. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure Events in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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]; P<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]; P=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]; P=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]; P<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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Effect of Empagliflozin on the Clinical Stability of Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes, but additional data are needed about the effect of the drug on inpatient and outpatient events that reflect worsening heart failure. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II to IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of ≤40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to recommended treatments for heart failure, for a median of 16 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of death, hospitalization for heart failure or an emergent/urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (415 versus 519 patients; empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 12 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P=0.008) and that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug or mechanical or surgical intervention (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87; P=0.005). As compared with placebo, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported intensification of diuretics (297 versus 414 [HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; P<0.0001]). Additionally, patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 40% more likely to experience an improvement in New York Heart Association functional class and were 20% to 40% less likely to experience worsening of New York Heart Association functional class, with statistically significant effects that were apparent 28 days after randomization and maintained during long-term follow-up. The risk of any inpatient or outpatient worsening heart failure event in the placebo group was high (48.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up), and it was reduced by empagliflozin (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk and total number of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events, with benefits seen early after initiation of treatment and sustained for the duration of double-blind therapy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Empagliflozin and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

AIMS: In this secondary analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, we sought to evaluate whether the benefits of empagliflozin varied by baseline health status and how empagliflozin impacted patient-reported outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Health status was assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaires-clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). The influence of baseline KCCQ-CSS (analyzed by tertiles) on the effect of empagliflozin on major outcomes was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. Responder analyses were performed to assess the odds of improvement and deterioration in KCCQ scores related to treatment with empagliflozin. Empagliflozin reduced the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization regardless of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertiles [hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (0.68-1.02), HR 0.74 (0.58-0.94), and HR 0.61 (0.46-0.82) for <62.5, 62.6-85.4, and ≥85.4 score tertiles, respectively; P-trend = 0.10]. Empagliflozin improved KCCQ-CSS, total symptom score, and overall summary score at 3, 8, and 12 months. More patients on empagliflozin had ≥5-point [odds ratio (OR) 1.20 (1.05-1.37)], 10-point [OR 1.26 (1.10-1.44)], and 15-point [OR 1.29 (1.12-1.48)] improvement and fewer had ≥5-point [OR 0.75 (0.64-0.87)] deterioration in KCCQ-CSS at 3 months. These benefits were sustained at 8 and 12 months and were similar for other KCCQ domains. CONCLUSION: Empagliflozin improved cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization risk across the range of baseline health status. Empagliflozin improved health status across various domains, and this benefit was sustained during long-term follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

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.

Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a 4-year (208-week) phase III trial of empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with insufficient glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: Sulfonylureas (SUs) are commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), usually as second-line treatment after the failure of metformin. However, SUs are associated with poor durability, hypoglycemia and weight gain. Empagliflozin is a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in development for the treatment of T2DM. In Phase II/III trials, empagliflozin reduced hyperglycemia, body weight and blood pressure, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. The aim of this Phase III study is to compare the effects of empagliflozin and the SU glimepiride as second-line therapy in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin immediate release (IR) and diet/exercise. METHOD: After a 2-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to receive empagliflozin 25 mg once daily (qd) or glimepiride 1-4 mg qd double-blind for 2 years, in addition to metformin IR. Patients who participate in the initial 2-year randomization period will be eligible for a 2-year double-blind extension. The primary endpoint is change from baseline in HbA1c. Secondary endpoints are change from baseline in body weight, the incidence of confirmed hypoglycemia and changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Exploratory endpoints include markers of insulin secretion, body composition and responder analyses. Safety endpoints include the incidence of adverse events (AEs) (including macro- and microvascular adverse events) and changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Between August 2010 and June 2011, 1549 patients were randomized and 1545 patients were treated. At baseline, mean (SD) age was 55.9 (10.4) years, HbA1c was 7.92 (0.84)%, body mass index was 30.11 (5.59) kg/m², systolic blood pressure was 133.5 (15.9) mmHg and diastolic blood pressure was 79.5 (9.4) mmHg. DISCUSSION: This is the largest study to compare the efficacy and safety of an SGLT2 inhibitor with an SU in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin to date. In addition to determining the effects of these treatments on glycemic control over the long term, this study will investigate effects on beta-cell function, cardiovascular risk factors and markers of renal function/damage. The results will help to inform the choice of second-line treatment in patients with T2DM who have failed on metformin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01167881.

Recurrent Events in Cardiovascular Trials: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Many randomized trials in cardiovascular disease have repeat nonfatal events (such as hospitalizations) occurring during patient follow-up; yet, it remains common practice to have time-to-first event as the primary outcome. We explore the value of analyses that include repeat events. Do they help us understand the effect of treatment and total disease burden? Do they enhance statistical power? Should they become a trial's primary analysis? It may also be difficult to choose which of the various statistical methods for analyzing repeat events to use, and we provide a nontechnical guide to what each method is doing. We compare several methods for repeat events: Lin Wei Yang Ying, negative binomial, joint frailty, win ratio, and area under the curve. We illustrate their performance in 5 large cardiovascular trials and compare them with time-to-first-event analyses. We review their use in recently published heart failure trials and make recommendations for their use in future trials.

Recency of Heart Failure Hospitalization, Outcomes, and the Effect of Empagliflozin: An EMPEROR-Pooled Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a recent heart failure (HF) hospitalization have a high risk of rehospitalization and mortality. Early treatment may have a substantial impact on patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to study the outcomes and effect of empagliflozin according to timing of prior HF hospitalization. METHODS: EMPEROR-Pooled (EMPEROR-Reduced [EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction] and EMPEROR-Preserved [EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction] combined) included 9,718 HF patients who were grouped according to the recency of HF hospitalization (none, <3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, >12 months). The primary outcome was a composite of time to first of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death, over a median follow-up of 21 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome event rates (per 100 person-years) in the placebo group were 26.7, 18.1, 13.7, and 2.8 for patients hospitalized within 3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, and >12 months, respectively. The relative risk reduction of primary outcome events with empagliflozin was similar across HF hospitalization categories (P interaction = 0.67). The primary outcome absolute risk reduction was more pronounced among patients with a recent HF hospitalization but without statistical heterogeneity of treatment effect: -6.9, -5.5, -0.8, and -0.6 events prevented per 100 person-years for patients hospitalized within <3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, and >12 months, respectively, and -2.4 events prevented per 100 person-years of follow-up in those without a prior HF hospitalization (P interaction = 0.64). Empagliflozin was safe irrespective of HF hospitalization recency. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a recent HF hospitalization have a high risk of events. Empagliflozin reduced HF events regardless of HF hospitalization recency.

Impact of Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in Patients With Ischemic Versus Nonischemic Cause.

Background Outcomes and treatment effects of therapy may vary according to the cause of heart failure (HF). Methods and Results In this post hoc analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial, the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and renal outcomes was assessed according to the cause of HF. The cause of HF was investigator reported and stratified as ischemic or nonischemic. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. Of the 3730 patients enrolled, 1929 (51.7%) had ischemic cause. In the placebo arm, patients with ischemic cause of HF did not have a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.90-1.63]) and hospitalization for HF (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.72-1.12]) compared with nonischemic cause. Empagliflozin compared with placebo significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cause (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68-0.99] for ischemic and HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.82] for nonischemic cause; P interaction=0.15). The benefit of empagliflozin on HF hospitalization, the renal composite end point, estimated glomerular filtration slope changes, and health status scores were also consistent in both groups without treatment by cause modification. Conclusions Empagliflozin offers cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction regardless of the cause of HF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

The win ratio method in heart failure trials: lessons learnt from EMPULSE.

AIMS: The EMPULSE trial evaluated the clinical benefit of empagliflozin versus placebo using the stratified win ratio approach in 530 patients with acute heart failure (HF) after initial stabilization. We aim to elucidate how this method works and what it means, thereby giving guidance for use of the win ratio in future trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary trial outcome is a hierarchical composite of death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, or a ≥5-point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score change at 90 days. In an overall (unstratified) analysis we show how comparison of all 265 x 265 patients pairs contribute to 'wins' for empagliflozin and placebo at all four levels of the hierarchy, leading to an unstratified win ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.71; p = 0.0036). How such a win ratio should (and should not) be interpreted is then described. The more complex primary analysis using a stratified win ratio is then presented in detail leading to a very similar overall result. Win ratios for de novo acute HF and decompensated chronic HF patients were 1.29 and 1.39, respectively, their weighted combination yielding an overall stratified win ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 1.09-1.68) (p = 0.0054). Alternative ways of including HF events and KCCQ scores in the clinical hierarchy are presented, leading to recommendations for their use in future trials. Specifically, inclusion of both number of HF events and time-to-first HF event appears an unnecessary complication. Also, the use of a 5-point margin for KCCQ score paired comparisons is not statistically necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The EMPULSE trial findings illustrate how deaths, clinical events and patient-reported outcomes can be integrated into a win ratio analysis strategy that yields clinically meaningful findings of patient benefit. This has implications for future trial designs that recognize the clinical priorities of patient evaluation and the need for efficient progress towards approval of new treatments.

Impact of anaemia and the effect of empagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: findings from EMPEROR-Reduced.

AIMS: Anaemia is frequent among patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is associated with poor outcomes. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) increase haematocrit and may correct anaemia. This study aims to investigate the impact of empagliflozin on haematocrit and anaemia, and whether anaemia influenced the effect of empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Reduced. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mixed-effects models and survival analysis. A total of 3726 patients (out of 3730) had baseline haematocrit values, 3013 (81%) had no anaemia and 713 (19%) had anaemia. Patients with anaemia were older (70.4 vs. 66.0 years), had lower body mass index (26.6 vs. 28.2 kg/m2 ), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (54.2 vs. 63.9 ml/min/1.73 m2 ), and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (2362 vs. 1800 pg/ml). Compared to patients without anaemia, those with anaemia had 1.5 to 2.5-fold higher rates of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, total HF hospitalizations, and kidney composite outcomes. The effect of empagliflozin to reduce the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalizations, total HF hospitalizations, and kidney composite outcome was not modified by baseline anaemia status (interaction p > 0.1 for all). Compared to placebo, empagliflozin rapidly (as early as week 4) increased haematocrit and haemoglobin and reduced the rates of new-onset anaemia throughout the follow-up (22.6% in placebo vs. 12.3% in empagliflozin; hazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.59; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Anaemia was associated with poor outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced new-onset anaemia throughout the follow-up and improved HF and kidney outcomes irrespective of anaemia status at baseline.

Outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction using DELIVER-like endpoint definitions.

AIMS: To report data from EMPEROR-Preserved according to prespecified endpoints of DELIVER. METHODS AND RESULTS: In order to assess the impact of DELIVER-like definition on EMPEROR-Preserved outcomes, the following differences were reconciled: (1) the primary outcome in DELIVER added urgent heart failure (HF) visits to cardiovascular death or HF hospitalizations; (2) the EMPEROR-Preserved trial did not require documentation of physical findings or laboratory tests for confirming a HF hospitalization and it included events of 12-24 h if intensification of treatment was not only oral diuretics; (3) DELIVER excluded undetermined causes of deaths from the primary endpoint; (4) the composite renal endpoint in DELIVER included a sustained ≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate and incorporated renal death; and (5) DELIVER will assess outcomes in the overall population and in patients with ejection fraction (EF) <60% separately. Using the endpoint definitions from DELIVER, the primary outcome overall occurred in 13.1% in the empagliflozin and 16.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.87; p < 0.0001). The relative risk reduction (RRR) changed from 21% to 24% when urgent HF visits were added, and undetermined death was eliminated. Compared to overall population RRR of 24%, it was 28% in patients with EF <60%. Death from cardiovascular causes excluding undetermined causes occurred in 6.2% in the empagliflozin and in 7.1% in the placebo group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.07). The RRR for the composite renal endpoint changed from 22% in the overall population (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54-1.13) to 40% when patients with EF <60% were assessed (p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Findings from EMPEROR-Preserved were modestly altered when analysed using cardiovascular trial endpoint definitions of the DELIVER trial. For the composite renal endpoint, the effect of empagliflozin became statistically significant in patients with EF <60% using the DELIVER definition.

Minimally Clinically Important Difference in Health Status Scores in Patients With HFrEF vs HFpEF.

BACKGROUND: Differences in clinically important thresholds in patient-reported outcomes measures such as the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) remain less well-established in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) versus heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to estimate meaningful thresholds for improvement or deterioration in the KCCQ-Total Symptom Score (TSS) in patients with HFrEF versus HFpEF. METHODS: This secondary analysis of EMPERIAL program used anchor- and distribution-based approaches to estimate thresholds for improvement or deterioration in the KCCQ-TSS using Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) as the primary anchor. Mean change in KCCQ-TSS from baseline to week 12 was calculated for each PGIS. RESULTS: A total of 312 HFrEF and 315 HFpEF patients were enrolled. At week 12, mean changes in KCCQ-TSS corresponding to PGIS changes of "any improvement," "1-category improvement," and "1-category deterioration" were 13 ± 17, 12 ± 17, -3 ± 16 points in HFrEF, and 15 ± 18, 13 ± 17, -7 ± 18 points in HFpEF. Threshold for meaningful within-patient change in KCCQ-TSS was ≥9 points in HFrEF and ≥7 points in HFpEF patients. Sensitivity and specificity of ≥9 points/≥7 points change was 0.65 and 0.70 for HFrEF and 0.64 and 0.66 for HFpEF. Cumulative distribution function curves of KCCQ-TSS change from baseline to week 12 showed a shift to higher scores in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the EMPERIAL program, a change in KCCQ-TSS of ≥9 points in HFrEF and ≥7 points in HFpEF represents the minimal clinically important difference for improvement, confirming the broad range of 5-10 points as meaningful thresholds.

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists and Empagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) may be beneficial in reducing heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. The effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction according to MRA background therapy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of empagliflozin in MRA users and nonusers in the EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: Survival analyses were conducted comparing the effects of empagliflozin vs placebo in MRA users and nonusers at baseline with treatment-by-MRA use interaction terms. RESULTS: A total of 5,988 patients were included, of whom 2,244 (37.5%) were using MRAs at baseline. MRA users had higher event rates than MRA nonusers (placebo group primary outcome 9.4 vs 8.2 events per 100 person-years). The benefit of empagliflozin to reduce the primary outcome was not significantly different between MRA nonusers and MRA users (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.62-0.87] and HR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.71-1.06]; interaction P = 0.22). The effect of empagliflozin to reduce first and recurrent HF hospitalizations was more pronounced in MRA nonusers than in MRA users (HR: 0.60 [95% CI: 0.47-0.77] and HR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.68-1.19]; interaction P = 0.038). MRA users experienced almost twice as many hyperkalemia events as MRA nonusers, and empagliflozin reduced the risk for hyperkalemia or initiation of potassium binders regardless of MRA use (MRA nonusers: HR: 0.90 [95% CI: 0.69-1.19]; MRA users: HR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.56-0.96]; interaction P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of empagliflozin to reduce the primary outcome was not significantly different between MRA nonusers and MRA users. The effect of empagliflozin to reduce first and recurrent HF hospitalizations was more pronounced in MRA nonusers. Empagliflozin reduced hyperkalemia, with no significant treatment-by-MRA subgroup interaction. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Preserved]; NCT03057951).