Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Influence of Weight and Body Size on the Pharmacokinetics of Heart Failure Pharmacotherapy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a review of studies evaluating the influence of body size and weight (WT) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of drugs recommended for heart failure (HF) treatment. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the MEDLINE (1946 to April 2023) and EMBASE (1974 to April 2023) databases was conducted for articles that focused on the impact of WT or body size on the PK of drugs of interest used in HF patients. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles written in English or French related to the aim of our study were retained for analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 6493 articles, 20 were retained for analysis. Weight was associated with the clearance of digoxin, carvedilol, enalapril, and candesartan as well as the volume of distribution of eplerenone and bisoprolol. There was no documented direct impact of WT on the PK of furosemide, valsartan, and metoprolol, although these studies were limited or confounded by the small sample size, adjustment of PK factors by WT, or the use of the Cockroff-Gault equation for the evaluation of creatinine clearance, which includes WT. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review highlights and summarizes the available data on the importance of WT on the PK of HF treatment. CONCLUSION: Considering the significant impact of WT on most HF drugs in this review, it may be important to further investigate it in the context of personalized therapy, particularly in patients presenting extreme WTs.

The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Global Variations in Heart Failure Etiology, Management, and Outcomes.

Importance: Most epidemiological studies of heart failure (HF) have been conducted in high-income countries with limited comparable data from middle- or low-income countries. Objective: To examine differences in HF etiology, treatment, and outcomes between groups of countries at different levels of economic development. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational HF registry of 23 341 participants in 40 high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries, followed up for a median period of 2.0 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: HF cause, HF medication use, hospitalization, and death. Results: Mean (SD) age of participants was 63.1 (14.9) years, and 9119 (39.1%) were female. The most common cause of HF was ischemic heart disease (38.1%) followed by hypertension (20.2%). The proportion of participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction taking the combination of a ß-blocker, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was highest in upper-middle-income (61.9%) and high-income countries (51.1%), and it was lowest in low-income (45.7%) and lower-middle-income countries (39.5%) (P < .001). The age- and sex- standardized mortality rate per 100 person-years was lowest in high-income countries (7.8 [95% CI, 7.5-8.2]), 9.3 (95% CI, 8.8-9.9) in upper-middle-income countries, 15.7 (95% CI, 15.0-16.4) in lower-middle-income countries, and it was highest in low-income countries (19.1 [95% CI, 17.6-20.7]). Hospitalization rates were more frequent than death rates in high-income countries (ratio = 3.8) and in upper-middle-income countries (ratio = 2.4), similar in lower-middle-income countries (ratio = 1.1), and less frequent in low-income countries (ratio = 0.6). The 30-day case-fatality rate after first hospital admission was lowest in high-income countries (6.7%), followed by upper-middle-income countries (9.7%), then lower-middle-income countries (21.1%), and highest in low-income countries (31.6%). The proportional risk of death within 30 days of a first hospital admission was 3- to 5-fold higher in lower-middle-income countries and low-income countries compared with high-income countries after adjusting for patient characteristics and use of long-term HF therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study of HF patients from 40 different countries and derived from 4 different economic levels demonstrated differences in HF etiologies, management, and outcomes. These data may be useful in planning approaches to improve HF prevention and treatment globally.

A disease-specific comorbidity index for predicting mortality in patients admitted to hospital with a cardiac condition.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity indexes derived from administrative databases are essential tools of research in global health. We sought to develop and validate a novel cardiac-specific comorbidity index, and to compare its accuracy with the generic Charlson-Deyo and Elixhauser comorbidity indexes. METHODS: We derived the cardiac-specific comorbidity index from consecutive patients who were admitted to hospital at a tertiary-care cardiology hospital in Quebec. We used logistic regression analysis and incorporated age, sex and 22 clinically relevant comorbidities to build the index. We compared the cardiac-specific comorbidity index with refitted Charlson-Deyo and Elixhauser comorbidity indexes using the C-statistic and net reclassification improvement to predict in-hospital death, and the Akaike information criterion to predict length of stay. We validated our findings externally in an independent cohort obtained from a provincial registry of coronary disease in Alberta. RESULTS: The novel cardiac-specific comorbidity index outperformed the refitted generic Charlson-Deyo and Elixhauser comorbidity indexes for predicting in-hospital mortality in the derivation population (n = 10 137): C-statistic 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-0.9) v. 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.84) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.89), respectively. In the validation population (n = 17 877), the cardiac-specific comorbidity index was similarly better: C-statistic 0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94) v. 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.81) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.86), respectively, and also numerically outperformed the Charlson-Deyo and Elixhauser comorbidity indexes for predicting 1-year mortality (C-statistic 0.78 [95% CI 0.76-0.80] v. 0.75 [95% CI 0.73-0.77] and 0.77 [95% CI 0.75-0.79], respectively). Similarly, the cardiac-specific comorbidity index showed better fit for the prediction of length of stay. The net reclassification improvement using the cardiac-specific comorbidity index for the prediction of death was 0.290 compared with the Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index and 0.192 compared with the Elixhauser comorbidity index. INTERPRETATION: The cardiac-specific comorbidity index predicted in-hospital and 1-year death and length of stay in cardiovascular populations better than existing generic models. This novel index may be useful for research of cardiology outcomes performed with large administrative databases.

Is there a potential association between spironolactone and the risk of new-onset diabetes in a cohort of older patients with heart failure?

PURPOSE: Some evidence suggests that spironolactone may have a deleterious effect on glucose homeostasis. The objective of this study was to assess whether spironolactone use is associated with a higher risk of developing diabetes in a large cohort of patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Two Quebec government administrative databases were used to identify a cohort of hospitalized patients discharged between January 1995 and December 2009 with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF and without secondary discharge diagnosis of diabetes. Patients were categorized as new users of spironolactone and non-users. The primary outcome was defined as new-onset diabetes (NOD) during 5 years of follow-up and was ascertained using ICD codes for diabetes or use of hypoglycemic agents. RESULTS: Among the 2974 patients that were included in the cohort analysis, 769 were given a new prescription of spironolactone. The incidence rate of NOD was similar among spironolactone users (5.0 per 100 person-years) and non-users (4.9 per 100 person-years). There was no significant association between the use of spironolactone and NOD in the crude, unadjusted model (hazard ratio (HR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.28; p = 0.9217), and it remained unchanged in the adjusted Cox proportional hazard model (HR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.72-1.18; p = 0.5227). The results were consistent with those observed in sensitivity analyses of a 1:3 propensity score-matched cohort (HR = 0.97; CI = 0.76-1.25; p = 0.8169). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence supporting the claim that use of spironolactone is associated with a higher risk of diabetes among patients hospitalized for HF.

A comparison of the effects of selective and non-selective mineralocorticoid antagonism on glucose homeostasis of heart failure patients with glucose intolerance or type II diabetes: A randomized controlled double-blind trial.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) decrease morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). However, spironolactone, a non-selective MRA, has been shown to exert a harmful effect on glucose homeostasis. The objective of this multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial was to compare the effects of spironolactone to those of the selective MRA eplerenone on glucose homeostasis among 62 HF patients with glucose intolerance or type II diabetes. Trial registration number:NCT01586442.

The Leadership and Organizational Context Required to Support Patient Partnerships.

Healthcare providers and managers typically design programs based on what they believe patients need and want. Yet patients have knowledge and insight into how the system can be changed to better meet their needs, improve outcomes and reduce costs. We describe challenges in creating a culture of patient partnerships and the leadership actions and organizational context required now and in the future to support engagement-capable environments at the organizational and policy levels in Canada. Case examples illustrate the need for leaders to set clear expectations, develop the infrastructure to support patient partnerships and provide education to staff, physicians and patient partners.