Natriuretic Peptides, Kidney Function, and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptides (NT-proBNPs) are guideline-recommended biomarkers for risk stratification in patients with heart failure. However, NT-proBNP levels are often elevated in chronic kidney disease, introducing uncertainty about their prognostic relevance in persons across a broad range of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the association of NT-proBNP with cardiovascular and mortality outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, stratified by baseline kidney function. METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted of participants with NT-proBNP and eGFR measured at baseline in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction), TOPCAT (Americas region) (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function), PARAGON (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction), and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the LIVEs of Patients With PReserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The relationship between NT-proBNP and eGFR was assessed using piecewise linear regression. Using multivariable Cox and Poisson regression models, the association of NT-proBNP with outcomes across a range of eGFR was evaluated. The primary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Among 14,831 participants (mean age: 72.1 years; 50.3% female; mean eGFR: 63.3 mL/min/1.73 m2, and median NT-proBNP: 840 pg/mL) followed up for a median 33.5 months, there were 3,092 primary outcomes. NT-proBNP levels increased by 9%, 8%, and 23% per 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR in patients with baseline eGFR ≥60, 45-<60, and <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively (P for nonlinearity < 0.001). Each doubling in NT-proBNP was associated with a 37% relative increase in the primary outcome (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.34-1.41), consistent across different eGFR categories (P for interaction = 0.42). For the same incidence of the primary outcome, NT-proBNP levels were approximately 2.5- to 3.5-fold lower in patients with eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, compared with patients with eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Similar patterns were observed across all outcomes studied, including cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: The same NT-proBNP concentration predicts a substantially higher absolute risk of adverse outcomes for people with heart failure and reduced kidney function, compared with those with preserved kidney function. These data call into question proposals for higher NT-proBNP references ranges in people with CKD, and suggest that reduced kidney function per se should not be a reason to disregard higher NT-proBNP levels.

Finerenone in Patients With a Recent Worsening Heart Failure Event: The FINEARTS-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) and a recent worsening heart failure (WHF) event are known to be at high risk of recurrent hospitalization and death, regardless of ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the efficacy and safety of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone in relation to the recency of a WHF event. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF (FINerenone trial to investigate Efficacy and sAfety superioR to placebo in paTientS with Heart Failure) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of finerenone in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%. In this prespecified analysis, we assessed the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and response to finerenone vs placebo in relation to the time from WHF to randomization (during or within 7 days, 7 days to 3 months, >3 months, or no prior WHF). The primary outcome was a composite of total (first and recurrent) WHF events and CV death, analyzed using a proportional rates method. RESULTS: Of 6,001 patients validly randomized to finerenone or placebo, 1,219 (20.3%) were enrolled during (749 [12.5%]) or within 7 days (470 [7.8%]), 2,028 (33.8%) between 7 days and 3 months, and 937 (15.6%) >3 months from a WHF event; 1,817 (30.3%) had no prior history of WHF. Rates of the primary composite outcome varied inversely with time since WHF, with >2-fold higher risk in those enrolled during or within 7 days of WHF compared with those enrolled >3 months from WHF or without prior WHF (risk ratio [RR]: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.82-2.55). Compared to placebo, finerenone appeared to lower the risk of the primary composite to a greater extent in those enrolled within 7 days of WHF (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.95) or between 7 days and 3 months of WHF (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.97) than in those >3 months from WHF or without prior WHF (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.81-1.21); however, no definitive treatment-by-time interaction could be confirmed (P = 0.07). Greater absolute risk reductions with finerenone were accordingly seen in those with recent WHF (Ptrend = 0.011). The risk of adverse events including hyperkalemia and worsening renal function among patients assigned to finerenone was not increased in those with recent WHF. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with those without recent WHF, patients with HF and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction who have experienced a recent WHF event are at higher risk for recurrent HF events and CV death; a possible signal of enhanced absolute treatment benefit with finerenone in this population requires further confirmation in future studies. (Study to Evaluate the Efficacy [Effect on Disease] and Safety of Finerenone on Morbidity [Events Indicating Disease Worsening] & Mortality [Death Rate] in Participants With Heart Failure and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction [Proportion of Blood Expelled Per Heart Stroke] Greater or Equal to 40% [FINEARTS-HF], NCT04435626; A study to gather information on the influence of study drug finerenone on the number of deaths and hospitalizations in participants with heart failure EudraCT 2020-000306-29).

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure: an individual patient level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) reduce hospitalisations and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the benefit in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear. We evaluated the effect of MRAs in four trials that enrolled patients with heart failure across the range of ejection fraction. METHODS: This is a prespecified, individual patient level meta-analysis of the RALES (spironolactone) and EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFrEF, and of the TOPCAT (spironolactone) and FINEARTS-HF (finerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was a composite of time to first hospitalisation for heart failure or cardiovascular death. We also estimated the effect of MRAs on components of this composite, total (first or repeat) heart failure hospitalisations (with and without cardiovascular deaths), and all-cause death. Safety outcomes were also assessed, including serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum potassium, and systolic blood pressure. An interaction between trials and treatment was tested to examine the heterogeneity of effect in these populations. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024541487. FINDINGS: 13 846 patients were included in the four trials. MRAs reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation (hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·72-0·83]). There was a statistically significant interaction by trials and treatment (p for interaction=0·0012) due to the greater efficacy in HFrEF (0·66 [0·59-0·73]) compared with HFmrEF or HFpEF (0·87 [0·79-0·95]). We observed significant reductions in heart failure hospitalisation in the HFrEF trials (0·63 [0·55-0·72]) and the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·82 [0·74-0·91]). The same pattern was observed for total heart failure hospitalisations with or without cardiovascular death. Cardiovascular death was reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·72 [0·63-0·82]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·92 [0·80-1·05]). All-cause death was also reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·73 [0·65-0·83]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·94 [0·85-1·03]). With an MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia was doubled compared with placebo (odds ratio 2·27 [95% CI 2·02-2·56]), but the incidence of serious hyperkalaemia (serum potassium >6·0 mmol/L) was low (2·9% vs 1·4%); the risk of hypokalaemia (potassium <3·5 mmol/L) was halved (0·51 [0·45-0·57]; 7% vs 14%). INTERPRETATION: Steroidal MRAs reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation in patients with HFrEF and non-steroidal MRAs reduce this risk in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. FUNDING: None.

Effects of the Non-Steroidal MRA Finerenone with and without Concomitant SGLT2 Inhibitor Use in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction face heightened long-term risks of morbidity and mortality. The sodium glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone have both been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in this population, but the effects of their combined use are not known. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of finerenone in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%. Baseline SGLT2i use was a prespecified subgroup. The primary outcome was a composite of total (first and recurrent) worsening HF events and cardiovascular death. We first assessed for evidence of treatment heterogeneity based on baseline SGLT2i use. We further examined SGLT2i uptake during the trial and evaluated the treatment effects of finerenone accounting for baseline and during trial use of SGLT2i in time-varying analyses. RESULTS: Among 6,001 participants, 817 (13.6%) were treated with an SGLT2i at baseline. During 2.6-years median follow-up, treatment with finerenone similarly reduced the risk of the primary outcome in participants treated with an SGLT2i (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.16) and without an SGLT2i at baseline (rate ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.98); Pinteraction=0.76. In follow-up, 980 participants initiated SGLT2i, which was less frequent in the finerenone arm compared with placebo (17.7% vs. 20.1%; hazard ratio 0.86; confidence interval 0.76 to 0.97). Time-updated analyses accounting for baseline and subsequent use of SGLT2i did not meaningfully alter the treatment effects of finerenone on the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment benefits of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone were observed irrespective of concomitant use of an SGLT2i. These data suggest that the combined use of SGLT2i and a non-steroidal MRA may provide additive protection against cardiovascular events in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: a Prespecified Analysis of The FINEARTS-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of treatments for heart failure may vary among patients according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). In the FINEARTS-HF, the nonsteroidal MRA finerenone reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and total worsening heart failure events in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). We examined the effect of finerenone according to LVEF in FINEARTS-HF. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial examining the efficacy and safety of finerenone in patients with heart failure and LVEF �%. The treatment effect of finerenone was examined in prespecified analyses according to LVEF categories (<50%, ≥50 to <60%, and ≥60%) and with LVEF as a continuous variable. The primary outcome was a composite of total (first and recurrent) worsening HF events and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Baseline LVEF data were available for 5993 of the 6001 participants in FINEARTS-HF. Mean and median LVEF were 53 ± 8% and 53% (IQR 46% -58%), respectively. LVEF was <50% in 2172 (36), between 50 to <60% in 2674 (45%), and ≥60% in 1147 (19%). Patients with a higher LVEF were older, more commonly female, were less likely to have a history of coronary artery disease, and more frequently had a history of hypertension and chronic kidney disease compared to those with a lower LVEF. Finerenone reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and total heart failure events consistently across LVEF categories: LVEF <50% rate ratio (RR) = 0.84 (95% CI 0.68, 1.03), LVEF ≥50 to <60% RR = 0.80 (0.66, 0.97) and LVEF ≥60% RR = 0.94 (0.70, 1.25); p interaction = 0.70. There was no modification of the benefit of finerenone across the range of LVEF when analyzed as a continuous variable (p interaction = 0.28). There was a similar consistent effect of finerenone on reducing the total number of worsening heart failure events (continuous p interaction = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, finerenone reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure events, irrespective of LVEF.

Finerenone in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but their efficacy in those with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction has not been established. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction are needed. METHODS: In this international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive finerenone (at a maximum dose of 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of total worsening heart failure events (with an event defined as a first or recurrent unplanned hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) and death from cardiovascular causes. The components of the primary outcome and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 32 months, 1083 primary-outcome events occurred in 624 of 3003 patients in the finerenone group, and 1283 primary-outcome events occurred in 719 of 2998 patients in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.95; P = 0.007). The total number of worsening heart failure events was 842 in the finerenone group and 1024 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = 0.006). The percentage of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was 8.1% and 8.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11). Finerenone was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia and a reduced risk of hypokalemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in a significantly lower rate of a composite of total worsening heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FINEARTS-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04435626.).

In-hospital course of patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction in the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF) may face residual risks of clinical events that are comparable to those experienced by patients with HF whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has consistently been above 40%. However, little is known about the clinical course of patients with HFimpEF during hospitalization for HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: DELIVER randomized patients with HF and LVEF >40% to dapagliflozin or placebo, including HFimpEF (LVEF previously ≤40%). We evaluated all HF hospitalizations adjudicated by the clinical endpoints committee with available data for determination of in-hospital course. Complicated hospitalization was defined as any hospitalization requiring intensive care unit stay, intravenous vasopressors/inotropes/vasodilators, invasive or non-invasive ventilation, mechanical fluid removal, ultrafiltration, or mechanical circulatory support. LVEF changes were extracted using a validated GPT-3.5, a large language model, via a secure private endpoint. Of the 6263 patients enrolled in DELIVER, 1151 (18%) had HFimpEF. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years, there were 224 total HF hospitalizations in 144 patients with HFimpEF and 985 in 603 patients with LVEF consistently >40%. Patients with HFimpEF experienced higher rates of complicated HF hospitalization as compared with patients with LVEF consistently >40% (39% vs. 27%; p < 0.001). Among those who experienced a first HF hospitalization, there was no significant difference in length of stay or in-hospital mortality between patients with HFimpEF versus LVEF consistently >40%. In a subset of participants who had at least one LVEF measurement available during HF hospitalization, 66% of those with HFimpEF and 29% of patients with LVEF consistently >40% experienced a reduction in their LVEF to ≤40% from the time of enrolment (p < 0.001). In the entire DELIVER cohort, dapagliflozin reduced total uncomplicated and complicated HF hospitalizations, irrespective of HFimpEF status (pinteraction ≥0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for HF in DELIVER, those with HFimpEF experienced a more adverse in-hospital clinical course, necessitating higher resource utilization beyond standard diuretic therapy compared with patients with HF and LVEF consistently >40%, but had similar in-hospital mortality. Treatment benefits of dapagliflozin were not modified by hospitalization type.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces incident anaemia and iron therapy utilization in heart failure: The PARAGON-HF trial.

AIMS: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to lower haemoglobin levels, potentially related to reductions in erythropoietin levels and haematopoiesis. We examined whether sacubitril/valsartan might attenuate this effect of RASi alone on incident anaemia in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAGON-HF was a global, multicentre randomized clinical trial of sacubitril/valsartan versus the RASi valsartan in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%. We evaluated haemoglobin trajectory and risks of incident anaemia and new iron therapy initiation during follow-up. Among 4795 participants, 1111 (23.2%) had anaemia at randomization and 5.6% were treated with iron at baseline. Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, patients with anaemia were at significantly higher risk for total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, compared with those without anaemia (21.6 vs. 11.5 per 100 patient-years; adjusted rate ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.54; p = 0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan slightly slowed the decline in haemoglobin levels by 0.1 g/dl (95% CI 0.0-0.2 g/dl; p = 0.005). Participants treated with sacubitril/valsartan were at significantly lower risk of developing anaemia (30.3% vs. 37.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.85; p < 0.001) and starting iron therapy (8.1% vs. 10.0%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.97; p = 0.026). Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were consistent among patients across the haemoglobin spectrum (pinteraction = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in modestly smaller declines in haemoglobin, lower rates of incident anaemia, and fewer new initiations of iron therapy compared with RASi. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01920711.

Timing and content of serious illness conversations for patients with advanced heart failure in a specialty-aligned palliative care service.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced heart failure (AHF) desire communication around values and goals prior to treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the timing and content of the first serious illness communication (SI conversation) for patients with AHF after referral to a specialist palliative care (PC) team (HeartPal). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used electronic health records to identify patients referred to HeartPal and their first SI conversations at a tertiary care hospital between October 2018 and September 2021. We used natural language processing and predetermined codes to quantify prevalence of prior goals of care conversations by the cardiology team within six months preceding the HeartPal consultation and the prevalence of hopes, fears, and seven conversation content codes. Consecutive SI conversations and patient outcomes were followed until March 2022. RESULTS: Of 468 patients (mean age: 64 years, 72 % male, 66 % referred for goals of care conversation), 25.2 % had prior documented goals of care conversations preceding the HeartPal consultation. During the study period, 206 (44.0 %) patients died (median time from initial SI conversation to death: 65 days, IQR 206) and 43.2 % engaged in multiple SI conversations before death. SI conversation analysis (n = 324) revealed that patients hoped to "be at home" (74.1 %, n = 240), "be independent" (65.7 %, n = 213) and "live as long as possible" (53.4 %, n = 173). Conversation content included goals of care (83.0 %), strengths (83.0 %), decision-making (79.3 %), spirituality (71.0 %), coping (52.2 %), and prognostic communication (43.5 %). CONCLUSION: Specialist PC service provides documentation of goals and values and offers longitudinal follow-up for patients with AHF.

Finerenone in heart failure and chronic kidney disease with type 2 diabetes: FINE-HEART pooled analysis of cardiovascular, kidney and mortality outcomes.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome is an emerging entity that connects cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone has been studied in three prospective randomized clinical trials of patients with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome: FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD and FINEARTS-HF. In light of the strong epidemiological overlap and shared mechanistic drivers of clinical outcomes across cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, we summarize the efficacy and safety of finerenone on cardiovascular, kidney and mortality outcomes in this pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis. The three trials included 18,991 participants (mean age 67 ± 10 years; 35% women). During 2.9 years of median follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death occurred in 421 (4.4%) participants assigned to finerenone and 471 (5.0%) participants assigned to placebo (hazard ratio (HR): 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.01; P = 0.076). Death from any cause occurred in 1,042 (11.0%) participants in the finerenone arm and in 1,136 (12.0%) participants in the placebo arm (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84-0.99; P = 0.027). Finerenone further reduced the risk of hospitalization from heart failure (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.75-0.92; P < 0.001) and the composite kidney outcome (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.72-0.90; P < 0.001). While in this pooled analysis the reduction in cardiovascular death was not statistically significant, finerenone reduced the risks for deaths of any cause, cardiovascular events and kidney outcomes. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42024570467 .

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Estimated Long-Term Benefits of Finerenone in Heart Failure: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the FINEARTS-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: People living with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction have substantially curtailed life expectancy free from clinical events compared with their peers of comparable age. The nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, finerenone, was recently shown to reduce risks of cardiovascular events in this population over a median follow-up of 2.6 years; as patients with HF typically continue treatment beyond this time frame, estimating the potential long-term benefits of finerenone could inform shared clinical decision-making. Objective: To estimate the projected long-term treatment effects of finerenone in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction if treated over a patient's lifetime. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified analyses were conducted of the FINEARTS-HF trial, a phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted across 653 sites in 37 countries. Adults 40 years and older with symptomatic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater were randomized from September 2020 to January 2023. Median (IQR) follow-up was 2.6 (1.9-3.0) years. Interventions: Finerenone (titrated to either 20 mg or 40 mg) or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary composite outcome was time to cardiovascular death or worsening HF event. The long-term gains in survival free from a primary end point with finerenone were iteratively estimated with age-based Kaplan-Meier curves using age at randomization rather than time from randomization. Differences in areas under the survival curves between the finerenone and placebo arms represented event-free survival gains. Results: Among 6001 participants (median [IQR] age, 73 [66-79] years; 3269 male [54.5%]), mean survival free from the primary end point for a 55-year-old participant was 13.6 years (95% CI, 11.9-15.2 years) with finerenone and 10.5 years (95% CI, 6.8-11.3 years) with placebo, representing a gain in event-free survival of 3.1 years (95% CI, 0.8-5.4 years; P = .007). Mean event-free survival for a 65-year-old participant was 11.0 years (95% CI, 10.1-11.9 years) with finerenone and 8.9 years (95% CI, 8.1-9.8 years) with placebo, representing a gain of 2.0 years (95% CI, 0.8-3.3 years; P = .001). Projected mean event-free survival was numerically greater with finerenone than with placebo for every starting age between 50 to 80 years. Lifetime gains in event-free survival were observed even among individuals already treated with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (65-year-old participant: 3.1 years; 95% CI, 0.1-6.0 years; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prespecified secondary analysis of the FINEARTS-HF randomized clinical trial, long-term treatment with finerenone was estimated to extend event-free survival by up to 3 years among people with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04435626.

Finerenone Improves Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction Irrespective of Age: A Prespecified Analysis of FINEARTS-HF.

Background: Finerenone improves outcomes in patients with HF and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrHF/HFpEF). It is important to understand the efficacy and safety of finerenone in these patients according to age. Methods: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the interaction between age and the efficacy and safety of finerenone in the FINEARTS-HF trial (Finerenone trial to investigate efficacy and safety compared to placebo in patients with heart failure). A total of 6,001 patients aged 40-97 years were stratified by quartile (Q 1-4) of baseline age: Q1 40-66 years (n=1,581), Q2 67-73 years (n=1,587), Q 3 74-79 years (n=1,421), and Q4 ≧ 80 years (n=1,412). FINEARTS-HF evaluated the impact of age on the efficacy of finerenone with respect to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death and total (first and recurrent) HF events, including HF hospitalization or urgent HF event, along with secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: The incidence of primary outcome increased with age. Finerenone reduced the risk of the primary outcome consistently across all age categories: RR (95% CI) Q1 0.70 (0.53- 0.92), Q2 0.83 (0.64-1.07), Q3 0.98 (0.76-1.26), and Q4 0.85 (0.67-1.07); p for interaction =0.27. Similarly, a consistent effect was observed for the components of the primary outcome. The mean increase in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-total symptom score from baseline to 12 months was greater with finerenone than placebo, with a consistent effect across all age categories: mean placebo-corrected change (95% CI) Q1 2.87 (1.09-4.66), Q2 1.24 (-0.59-3.07), Q3 0.94 (-0.98-2.86), and Q4 1.24 (-0.90-3.38); P-interaction=0.50. Adverse events were similar across all age categories. The odds of experiencing hypotension, elevated creatinine, or hyperkalemia (increased) or hypokalemia (decreased) related to finerenone did not differ by age. Conclusions: In the FINEARTS-HF trial, finerenone reduced the primary outcome and components of the primary outcome, and improved symptoms across a wide age spectrum. In addition, finerenone was safe and well-tolerated, irrespective of age. Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifiers: NCT04435626 and EudraCT 2020-000306-29.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on All-Cause Hospitalizations in Heart Failure: Post Hoc Analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Sacubitril/valsartan is indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with chronic HF. However, many of these patients are older and have multiple comorbidities that increase the risk of hospitalization for causes other than HF. Objective: To assess the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on hospitalizations of any cause across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc, participant-level, pooled analysis of the PARADIGM-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≤40%) and PARAGON-HF (in patients with an LVEF ≥45%) randomized clinical trials was conducted from February 5, 2024, to April 5, 2024. Participants with chronic HF, New York Heart Association classes II through IV symptoms, and elevated natriuretic peptides were randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan or a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi)-enalapril in the PARADIGM-HF trial or valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial. Intervention: Sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi (enalapril or valsartan). Main Outcomes and Measures: The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on time to first investigator-reported all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations were examined using Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by geographic region and trial. Effect modification by LVEF as a continuous function was examined. Results: Among 13 194 participants in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials, mean (SD) patient age was 67 (11) years, 8883 patients (67.3%) were male, and mean (SD) LVEF was 40% (15%). Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of all-cause hospitalization (ACH) compared with RASi over a median (IQR) follow-up period of 2.5 (1.8-3.1) years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; P = .002). The incidence rate of first ACH was 25 (95% CI, 24-26) per 100 patient-years in the sacubitril/valsartan arm and 27 (95% CI, 26-28) per 100 patient-years in the RASi arm. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 2.1 per 100 patient-years, corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 48 patient-years of treatment exposure to prevent 1 ACH. Reductions in overall hospitalizations seemed primarily driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations with sacubitril/valsartan. Patients in the 2 treatment arms had similar rates of composite noncardiac hospitalizations. Treatment heterogeneity on ACH by LVEF was observed (P for interaction = .03), with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF less than 60% (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96), but not in patients with an LVEF of 60% or more (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.09). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc pooled analysis of 13 194 patients with chronic HF in the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF randomized clinical trials, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced hospitalization for any reason, with benefits most apparent in patients with an LVEF below normal. This reduction appeared to be principally driven by lower rates of cardiac and pulmonary hospitalizations. Trial Registrations: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF) and NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF).

Beta-blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

Optimal Medical Therapy and Outcomes Among Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Optimal medical therapy (OMT) scoring may stratify clinical risk in real-world chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by integrating use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFrEF. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize patients and associated long-term clinical outcomes by OMT score-derived treatment groups. METHODS: CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) included U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF receiving ≥1 GDMT. OMT subgroups were defined as suboptimal (score <3), acceptable (score = 3), and optimal (score ≥4) by baseline use and dose of GDMT, as proposed by the HF Collaboratory consortium. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to assess for all-cause and cardiovascular death across subgroups, after adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. RESULTS: The authors studied 4,582 participants enrolled in CHAMP-HF with available 2-year follow-up. Median age was 68 years, 1,327 (29%) were women, and 2,842 (62%) were White, non-Hispanic. Median OMT score across the population was 4 (Q1-Q3: 2-5), and 1,628 (35%) had suboptimal, 665 (14%) had acceptable, and 2,289 (50%) had optimal therapy. Participants with optimal treatment were younger, had higher annual household income, and were enrolled from practices with dedicated HF clinics (all P < 0.001) than participants with acceptable or suboptimal treatment. Participants with optimal treatment had lower all-cause death (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92) and cardiovascular death (adjusted HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65-0.96) than those with suboptimal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Across a large cohort of chronic ambulatory HFrEF, OMT scores stratified risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Effects of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction: An analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

AIMS: The primary aim was to evaluate the effect of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), given that prolongation of QRS duration is associated with less favourable ventricular remodelling with pharmacological therapy and worse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, excluding patients with a paced rhythm and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Overall, 4008 patients had heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and 5816 had HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). QRS duration was <120 ms in 7039 patients (71.7%), 120-149 ms in 1725 (17.6%), and ≥150 ms in 1060 patients (10.8%). The median follow-up time was 23 months. The rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening HF was 9.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.7-9.7), 14.3 (13.0-15.7), and 15.9 (14.1-17.9) per 100 patient-years in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively. This gradient in event rates was observed both in HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF. Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of the primary outcome consistently across the QRS duration subgroups (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.75 [0.67-0.85], 0.79 [0.65-0.96], and 0.89 [0.70-1.13] in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively; p for interaction = 0.28). The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the QRS duration regardless of HF phenotype that is, HFrEF or HFmrEF/HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of QRS duration is associated with worse outcomes irrespective of HF phenotype. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome, regardless of QRS duration, in DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Geographical variation in patient characteristics and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Compared to heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are increasing in prevalence, yet little is known about the geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among these two HF phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate geographic differences in HFpEF and HFmrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted an individual patient analysis of five clinical trials enrolling patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (CEER), and Asia-Pacific (AP). We compared regions using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models. Among the 19 959 patients included, 4066 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 15 353 (76.9%) HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, patients from WE were oldest, and those in CEER youngest. LA had the largest portion of females and NA most black patients. Obesity and diabetes were most prevalent in NA and hypertension and coronary heart disease most common in CEER. Self-reported health status varied strikingly and was the worst in NA and best in AP. Among patients with HFmrEF, rates of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were: NA 12.56 per 100 patient-years (/100py), AP 11.67/100py, CEER 10.12/100py, LA 8.90/100py, and WE 8.43/100py, driven by differences in the rate of HF hospitalization. The corresponding values in HFpEF were 11.47/100py, 7.80/100py, 5.47/100py, 5.92/100py, and 7.80/100py, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These findings have implications for interpretation and generalizability of trial results, design and conduct of future trials, and optimization of care for these patients.