Ongoing and Future Clinical Trials of Pharmacotherapy for Heart Failure.

Increasing knowledge of the processes leading to heart failure (HF) has allowed significant developments in therapies for HF over the past few decades. Despite the evolution of HF treatment, it still places a large burden on patients and health care systems across the world.We used clinicaltrials.gov to gather information about clinical trials as of August 2023 studying pharmacotherapy for HF. We included interventional trials that were "active, not recruiting", "recruiting", or looking for participants but "not yet recruiting". In total, 119 studies met our criteria of ongoing clinical trials studying novel as well as currently approved HF pharmacotherapies. The major interventions were novel medications/already approved medications for other diseases 29 % (34 trials), sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors 21 % (25 trials), angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitors 10 % (12 trials), diuretics 14 % (17 trials) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists 5 % (6 trials). Ongoing research will aid in reducing the impact of HF and we summarize clinical trials leading the way to better HF treatment in this review.

DCRM 2.0: Multispecialty practice recommendations for the management of diabetes, cardiorenal, and metabolic diseases.

The spectrum of cardiorenal and metabolic diseases comprises many disorders, including obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), dyslipidemias, hypertension, and associated comorbidities such as pulmonary diseases and metabolism dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and metabolism dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASLD and MASH, respectively, formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis [NAFLD and NASH]). Because cardiorenal and metabolic diseases share pathophysiologic pathways, two or more are often present in the same individual. Findings from recent outcome trials have demonstrated benefits of various treatments across a range of conditions, suggesting a need for practice recommendations that will guide clinicians to better manage complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. To meet this need, we formed an international volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM 2.0 Practice Recommendations, an updated and expanded revision of a previously published multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of persons living with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 22 separate graphics covering the essentials of management to improve general health, control cardiorenal risk factors, and manage cardiorenal and metabolic comorbidities, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Sacubitril/valsartan and cardiovascular biomarkers among patients with recent COVID-19 infection: The PARACOR-19 randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The PARACOR-19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARACOR-19 was a single-centre, double-blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID-19 infection 4-16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th-75th) time from COVID-19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48-80) days. Median age was 67 (62-71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co-primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs-TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group. CONCLUSION: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs-cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT-proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528.

Cause-Specific Health Care Costs Following Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Cost Offset With SGLT2i Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding differences in cause-specific costs between heart failure (HF) with ejection fraction (EF) ≤40% vs >40%, and potential cost implications of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare cause-specific health care costs following hospitalization for HF with EF ≤40% vs >40% and estimate the cost offset with implementation of SGLT2i therapy. METHODS: This study examined Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from 2016 to 2020. Mean per-patient total (excluding drug costs) and cause-specific costs from discharge through 1-year follow-up were calculated and compared between EF ≤40% vs >40%. Next, risk reductions on total all-cause and HF hospitalizations were estimated in a trial-level meta-analysis of 5 pivotal trials of SGLT2is in HF. Finally, these relative treatment effects were applied to Medicare beneficiaries eligible for SGLT2i therapy to estimate the projected cost offset with implementation of SGLT2i, excluding drug costs. RESULTS: Among 146,003 patients, 50,598 (34.7%) had EF ≤40% and 95,405 (65.3%) had EF >40%. Mean total cost through 1 year was $40,557. Total costs were similar between EF groups overall but were higher for EF ≤40% among patients surviving the 1-year follow-up period. Patients with EF >40% had higher costs caused by non-HF and noncardiovascular hospitalizations, and skilled nursing facilities (all P < 0.001). Trial-level meta-analysis of the 5 SGLT2i clinical trials estimated 11% (rate ratio: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93; P < 0.001) and 29% (rate ratio: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.66-0.76; P < 0.001) relative reductions in rates of total all-cause and HF hospitalizations, respectively, regardless of EF. Reductions in all-cause and HF hospitalizations were projected to reduce annual costs of readmission by $2,451 to $2,668 per patient with EF ≤40% and $1,439 to $2,410 per patient with EF >40%. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of older U.S. adults hospitalized for HF, cause-specific costs of care differed among patients with EF ≤40% vs >40%. SGLT2i significantly reduced the rate of HF and all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of EF in clinical trials, and implementation of SGLT2i therapy in clinical practice is projected to reduce costs by $1,439 to $2,668 per patient over the 1 year post-discharge, excluding drug costs.

Contemporary outpatient management of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Clinical outcome results from the CHART-HF study.

Background: Based on available data from randomized clinical trials, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and worsening HF events (WHFE) have substantial disease burden and poor outcomes. WHFE clinical outcome data in non-clinical trial patients, more representative of the US clinical practice, has not been demonstrated. Methods and results: CHART-HF collected data from two complementary, non-clinical trial cohort with HFrEF (LVEF <45 %): 1) 1,000 patients from an integrated delivery network and 2) 458 patients from a nationwide physician panel. CHART-HF included patients with WHFE between 2017 and 2019 followed by an index outpatient cardiology visit ≤6 months, and patients without WHFE in a given year between 2017 and 2019, with the last outpatient cardiology visit in the same year as the index visit. Compared to patients without WHFE (after covariate adjustment, all p < 0.05), patients with WHFE had a greater risk of HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53-2.40) and next WHFE event (HR: 1.67-2.41) following index visits in both cohorts. Conclusion: HFrEF patients with recent WHFE consistently had worse clinical outcomes in these non-clinical trial cohorts. Despite advances in therapies, unmet need to improve clinical outcomes in HFrEF patients with WHFE remains.

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Slope as an Endpoint in Cardiovascular Trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: End stage kidney disease can be a slow process and it may be challenging to achieve required follow-up for sufficient events. Therefore, a surrogate kidney endpoint, such as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope maybe attractive to assess the kidney in cardiovascular trials, especially heart failure (HF). RECENT FINDINGS: eGFR slope can generate informative results in a shorter follow-up period, has decreased risk of type-2 error, and is less sensitive to eGFR shifts compared with other surrogate kidney endpoints (eGFR decline≥40% or doubling creatinine). However, eGFR slope has its limitations with acute effects, heterogeneity in slope calculation/reporting, and deviations from linearity. eGFR slope is a kidney endpoint which may be well-suited for HF trials. Cross-collaborated guideline recommendations are needed to optimize the use of eGFR slope as a kidney endpoint in patients with HF.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Kidney Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries After Hospitalization for Heart Failure.

Importance: Kidney health has received increasing focus as part of comprehensive heart failure (HF) treatment efforts. However, the occurrence of clinically relevant kidney outcomes in contemporary populations with HF has not been well studied. Objective: To examine rates of incident dialysis and acute kidney injury (AKI) among Medicare beneficiaries after HF hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study evaluated adults aged 65 years or older who were hospitalized for HF across 372 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry in the US between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. Patients younger than 65 years or requiring dialysis either during or prior to hospitalization were excluded. Data were analyzed from May 4, 2021, to March 8, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was inpatient dialysis initiation in the year after HF hospitalization and was ascertained via linkage with Medicare claims data. Other all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations were also evaluated. The covariate-adjusted association between discharge estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and 1-year postdischarge outcomes was examined using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: Overall, among 85 298 patients included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 80 [9] years; 53% women) mean (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 47% (16%) and mean (SD) eGFR was 53 (29) mL/min per 1.73 m2; 54 010 (63%) had an eGFR less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. By 1 year after HF hospitalization, 6% had progressed to dialysis, 7% had progressed to dialysis or end-stage kidney disease, and 7% had been readmitted for AKI. Incident dialysis increased steeply with lower discharge eGFR category: compared with patients with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or more, individuals with an eGFR of 45 to less than 60 and of less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 had higher rates of dialysis readmission (45 to <60: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 2.16 [95% CI, 1.86-2.51]; <30: AHR, 28.46 [95% CI, 25.25-32.08]). Lower discharge eGFR (per 10 mL/min per 1.73 m2 decrease) was independently associated with a higher rate of readmission for dialysis (AHR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.14-2.32), dialysis or end-stage kidney disease (AHR, 2.34; 95% CI, 2.24-2.44), and AKI (AHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.27), with similar findings for all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and HF readmission. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction did not modify the covariate-adjusted association between lower discharge eGFR and kidney outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, older adults with HF had substantial risk of kidney complications, with an estimated 6% progressing to dialysis in the year after HF hospitalization. These findings emphasize the need for health care approaches prioritizing kidney health in this high-risk population.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Eligibility and Projected Benefits of Rapid Initiation of Quadruple Medical Therapy for Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: U.S. nationwide estimates of the proportion of patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) eligible for quadruple medical therapy, and the associated benefits of rapid implementation, are not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize the degree to which patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF are eligible for quadruple medical therapy, and the projected benefits of in-hospital initiation. METHODS: Among patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed HFrEF in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from 2016 to 2023, eligibility criteria based on regulatory labeling, guidelines, and expert consensus documents were applied for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor therapies. Of those eligible, the projected effect of quadruple therapy on 12-month mortality was modeled using treatment effects from pivotal clinical trials utilized by the AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure, and compared with observed outcomes among patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blockers. RESULTS: Of 33,036 patients newly diagnosed with HFrEF, 27,158 (82%) were eligible for quadruple therapy, and 30,613 (93%) were eligible for ≥3 components. From 2021 to 2023, of patients eligible for quadruple therapy, 15.3% were prescribed quadruple therapy and 41.5% were prescribed triple therapy. Among Medicare beneficiaries eligible for quadruple therapy, 12-month incidence of mortality was 24.7% and HF hospitalization was 22.2%. Applying the relative risk reductions in clinical trials, complete implementation of quadruple therapy by time of discharge was projected to yield absolute risk reductions in 12-month mortality of 10.4% (number needed to treat = 10) compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blocker, and 24.8% (number needed to treat = 4) compared with no GDMT. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide U.S. cohort of patients hospitalized for newly diagnosed HFrEF, >4 of 5 patients were projected as eligible for quadruple therapy at discharge; yet, <1 in 6 were prescribed it. If clinical trial benefits can be fully realized, in-hospital initiation of quadruple medical therapy for newly diagnosed HFrEF would yield large absolute reductions in mortality.

Contemporary Decongestion Strategies in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: A National Community-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization in the United States. Decongestion remains a central goal of inpatient management, but contemporary decongestion practices and associated weight loss have not been well characterized nationally. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe contemporary inpatient diuretic practices and clinical predictors of weight loss in patients hospitalized for HF. METHODS: The authors identified HF hospitalizations from 2015 to 2022 in a U.S. national database aggregating deidentified patient-level electronic health record data across 31 geographically diverse community-based health systems. The authors report patient characteristics and inpatient weight change as a primary indicator of decongestion. Predictors of weight loss were evaluated using multivariable models. Temporal trends in inpatient diuretic practices, including augmented diuresis strategies such as adjunctive thiazides and continuous diuretic infusions, were assessed. RESULTS: The study cohort included 262,673 HF admissions across 165,482 unique patients. The median inpatient weight loss was 5.3 pounds (Q1-Q3: 0.0-12.8 pounds) or 2.4 kg (Q1-Q3: 0.0-5.8 kg). Discharge weight was higher than admission weight in 20% of encounters. An increase of ≥0.3 mg/dL in serum creatinine from admission to inpatient peak occurred in >30% of hospitalizations and was associated with less weight loss. Adjunctive diuretic agents were utilized in <20% of encounters but were associated with greater weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: In a large-scale U.S. community-based cohort study of HF hospitalizations, estimated weight loss from inpatient decongestion remains highly variable, with weight gain observed across many admissions. Augmented diuresis strategies were infrequently used. Comparative effectiveness trials are needed to establish optimal strategies for inpatient decongestion for acute HF.

Treatment patterns of patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with HFrEF and worsening HF events (WHFE) are at particularly high risk and urgently need disease-modifying therapy. CHART-HF assessed treatment patterns and reasons for medication decisions among HFrEF patients with and without WHFE. METHODS AND RESULTS: CHART-HF collected retrospective electronic medical records of outpatients with HF and EF < 45% between 2017-2019 from a nationwide panel of 238 cardiologists (458 patients) and the Geisinger Health System (GHS) medical record (1000 patients). The index visit in the WHFE cohort was the first outpatient cardiologist visit ≤6 months following the WHFE, and in the reference cohort was the last visit in a calendar year without WHFE. Demographic characteristics were similar between patients with and without WHFE in both the nationwide panel and GHS. In the nationwide panel, the proportion of patients with versus without WHFE receiving ≥50% of guideline-recommended dose on index visit was 35% versus 40% for beta blocker, 74% versus 83% for ACEI/ARB/ARNI, and 48% versus 49% for MRA. The proportion of patients receiving ≥50% of guideline-recommended dose was lower in the GHS: 29% versus 34% for beta-blocker, 16% versus 31% for ACEI/ARB/ARNI, and 18% versus 22% for MRA. For patients with and without WHFE, triple therapy on index date was 42% and 44% of patients from the nationwide panel, and 14% and 17% in the GHS. Comparing end of index clinic visit with 12-month follow-up in the GHS, the proportion of patients on no GDMT increased from 14% to 28% in the WHFE cohort and from 14 to 21% in the non-WHFE group. CONCLUSIONS: Major gaps in use of GDMT, particularly combination therapy, remain among US HFrEF patients. These gaps persist during longitudinal follow-up and are particularly large among patients with recent WHFE.

Impact of Insurance Status and Region on Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescription During Heart Failure Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: An angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is the preferred renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Among eligible patients, insurance status and prescriber concern regarding out-of-pocket costs may constrain early initiation of ARNI and other new therapies. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the association of insurance and other social determinants of health with ARNI initiation at discharge from HFrEF hospitalization. METHODS: The authors analyzed ARNI initiation from January 2017 to June 2020 among patients with HFrEF eligible to receive RAS inhibitor at discharge from hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The primary outcome was the proportion of ARNI prescription at discharge among those prescribed RAS inhibitor who were not on ARNI on admission. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association of insurance status, U.S. region, and their interaction, as well as self-reported race, with ARNI initiation at discharge. RESULTS: From 42,766 admissions, 24,904 were excluded for absolute or relative contraindications to RAS inhibitors. RAS inhibitors were prescribed for 16,817 (94.2%) of remaining discharges, for which ARNI was prescribed in 1,640 (9.8%). Self-reported Black patients were less likely to be initiated on ARNI compared to self-reported White patients (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). Compared to Medicare beneficiaries, patients with third-party insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance were less likely to be initiated on ARNI (OR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.72], OR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.25-0.67], and OR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.08-0.47], respectively). ARNI therapy varied by hospital region, with lowest utilization in the Mountain region. An interaction was demonstrated between the impact of insurance disparities and hospital region. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized between 2017 and 2020 for HFrEF who were prescribed RAS inhibitor therapy at discharge, insurance status, geographic region, and self-reported race were associated with ARNI initiation.

Recurrent central odontogenic fibroma in a patient with nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome: case report and in vitro analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Central odontogenic fibromas (COF) are rare, benign tumors derived from dental mesenchymal tissue that may occur in the maxilla or mandible. This report describes primary and recurrent COF in the mandible of a patient with nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (NBCCS). STUDY DESIGN: A 36-year-old African American male presented with a COF and its recurrence 17 months later. Tissue pieces were obtained from both occurrences with IRB-approved signed consent. Collected tissue pieces were dissected; one portion was formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded, and the other was cultured for the isolation of cell populations from the primary (COdF-1) and recurrent (COdF-1a) tumors. Quantification real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), immunohistochemistry, and DNA sequencing were used for gene and protein analysis of the primary tumor and cell populations. RESULTS: Histopathologic analysis of the tumor showed sparse odontogenic epithelial cords in fibrous connective tissue, and qRT-PCR analysis of tumor and cell populations (COdF-1 and COdF-1a) detected VIM, CK14, CD34, CD99 and ALPL mRNA expression. Protein expression was confirmed by immunohistochemistry. CD34 expression in primary tissues was higher than in tumor cells due to tumor vascularization. DNA sequencing indicated the patient had PTCH1 mutations. CONCLUSIONS: Histopathology, mRNA, and protein expression indicate the rare occurrence of COF in a patient with mutated PTCH1 gene and NBCCS.

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Role of telemedicine in the management of obesity: State-of-the-art review.

Obesity is a worsening public health epidemic that remains challenging to manage. Obesity substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and presents a significant financial burden on the healthcare system. Digital health interventions, specifically telemedicine, may offer an attractive and viable solution for managing obesity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for a safer alternative to in-person visits led to the increased popularity of telemedicine. Multiple studies have tested the efficacy of telemedicine modalities, including digital coaching via videoconferencing sessions, e-health monitoring using wearable devices, and asynchronous forms of communication such as online chatrooms with counselors. In this review, we discuss the available evidence for telemedicine interventions in managing obesity, review current challenges and barriers to using telemedicine, and outline future directions to optimize the management of patients with obesity using telemedicine.

Acetazolamide as an Adjunctive Diuretic Therapy for Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that acetazolamide may be beneficial as an adjunctive diuretic therapy in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF). We aim to pool all the studies conducted until now and provide updated evidence regarding the role of acetazolamide as adjunctive diuretic in patients with acute decompensated HF. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from inception until July 2023, for randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating acetazolamide as add-on diuretic in patients with acute decompensated HF. Data about natriuresis, urine output, decongestion, and the clinical signs of congestion were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Results were presented as risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies (n = 684 patients) were included with a median follow-up time of 3 months. Pooled analysis demonstrated significantly increased natriuresis (MD 55.07, 95% CI 35.1-77.04, P < 0.00001; I2 = 54%; moderate certainty), urine output (MD 1.04, 95% CI 0.10-1.97, P = 0.03; I2 = 79%; moderate certainty) and decongestion [odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% CI 1.14-2.31, P = 0.007; I2 = 0%; high certainty] in the acetazolamide group, as compared with controls. There was no significant difference in ascites (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23-1.36, P = 0.20; I2 = 0%; low certainty), edema (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52-2.0, P = 0.95; I2 = 45%; very low certainty), raised jugular venous pressure (JVP) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63-1.17, P = 0.35; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and pulmonary rales (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.44-1.51, P = 0.52; I2 = 25%; low certainty) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Acetazolamide as an adjunctive diuretic significantly improves global surrogate endpoints for decongestion therapy but not all individual signs and symptoms of volume overload. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ), registration number CRD498330.