RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Obesity and type 2 diabetes are prevalent in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and are characterized by a high symptom burden. No approved therapies specifically target obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or more, and type 2 diabetes to receive once-weekly semaglutide (2.4 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end points were the change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations) and the change in body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included the change in 6-minute walk distance; a hierarchical composite end point that included death, heart failure events, and differences in the change in the KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance; and the change in the C-reactive protein (CRP) level. RESULTS: A total of 616 participants underwent randomization. The mean change in the KCCQ-CSS was 13.7 points with semaglutide and 6.4 points with placebo (estimated difference, 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 10.4; P<0.001), and the mean percentage change in body weight was -9.8% with semaglutide and -3.4% with placebo (estimated difference, -6.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -5.2; P<0.001). The results for the confirmatory secondary end points favored semaglutide over placebo (estimated between-group difference in change in 6-minute walk distance, 14.3 m [95% CI, 3.7 to 24.9; P = 0.008]; win ratio for hierarchical composite end point, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.29 to 1.94; P<0.001]; and estimated treatment ratio for change in CRP level, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001]). Serious adverse events were reported in 55 participants (17.7%) in the semaglutide group and 88 (28.8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to larger reductions in heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations and greater weight loss than placebo at 1 year. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP-HFpEF DM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04916470.).
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Agonistas do Receptor do Peptídeo 1 Semelhante ao Glucagon , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Obesidade , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/etiologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/administração & dosagem , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/efeitos adversos , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/uso terapêutico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/etiologia , Obesidade/complicações , Obesidade/tratamento farmacológico , Volume Sistólico , Agonistas do Receptor do Peptídeo 1 Semelhante ao Glucagon/administração & dosagem , Agonistas do Receptor do Peptídeo 1 Semelhante ao Glucagon/efeitos adversos , Agonistas do Receptor do Peptídeo 1 Semelhante ao Glucagon/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In the STEP-HFpEF (NCT04788511) and STEP-HFpEF DM (NCT04916470) trials, the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide improved symptoms, physical limitations, bodyweight, and exercise function in people with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. In this prespecified pooled analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM trials, we aimed to provide a more definitive assessment of the effects of semaglutide across a range of outcomes and to test whether these effects were consistent across key patient subgroups. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified pooled analysis of individual patient data from STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials at 129 clinical research sites in 18 countries. In both trials, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2, New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms, and a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; a measure of heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations) of less than 90 points. In STEP-HFpEF, people with diabetes or glycated haemoglobin A1c concentrations of at least 6·5% were excluded, whereas for inclusion in STEP-HFpEF DM participants had to have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least 90 days before screening and to have an HbA1c of 10% or lower. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either 2·4 mg semaglutide once weekly or matched placebo for 52 weeks. The dual primary endpoints were change from baseline to week 52 in KCCQ-CSS and bodyweight in all randomly assigned participants. Confirmatory secondary endpoints included change from baseline to week 52 in 6-min walk distance, a hierarchical composite endpoint (all-cause death, heart failure events, and differences in changes in KCCQ-CSS and 6-min walk distance); and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations. Heterogeneity in treatment effects was assessed across subgroups of interest. We assessed safety in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2021 and March 9, 2022, 529 people were randomly assigned in STEP-HFpEF, and between June 27, 2021 and Sept 2, 2022, 616 were randomly assigned in STEP-HFpEF DM. Overall, 1145 were included in our pooled analysis, 573 in the semaglutide group and 572 in the placebo group. Improvements in KCCQ-CSS and reductions in bodyweight between baseline and week 52 were significantly greater in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group (mean between-group difference for the change from baseline to week 52 in KCCQ-CSS 7·5 points [95% CI 5·3 to 9·8]; p<0·0001; mean between-group difference in bodyweight at week 52 -8·4% [-9·2 to -7·5]; p<0·0001). For the confirmatory secondary endpoints, 6-min walk distance (mean between-group difference at week 52 17·1 metres [9·2 to 25·0]) and the hierarchical composite endpoint (win ratio 1·65 [1·42 to 1·91]) were significantly improved, and CRP concentrations (treatment ratio 0·64 [0·56 to 0·72]) were significantly reduced, in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group (p<0·0001 for all comparisons). For the dual primary endpoints, the efficacy of semaglutide was largely consistent across multiple subgroups, including those defined by age, race, sex, BMI, systolic blood pressure, baseline CRP, and left ventricular ejection fraction. 161 serious adverse events were reported in the semaglutide group compared with 301 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In this prespecified pooled analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM trials, semaglutide was superior to placebo in improving heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, and reducing bodyweight in participants with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. These effects were largely consistent across patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Semaglutide was well tolerated. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.
Assuntos
Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Obesidade , Volume Sistólico , Humanos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/uso terapêutico , Peptídeos Semelhantes ao Glucagon/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Volume Sistólico/efeitos dos fármacos , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Método Duplo-Cego , Obesidade/complicações , Obesidade/tratamento farmacológico , Resultado do Tratamento , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the STEP-HFpEF trial program, treatment with semaglutide resulted in multiple beneficial effects in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Efficacy may vary according to baseline diuretic use, and semaglutide treatment could modify diuretic dose. METHODS: In this pre-specified analysis of pooled data from the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials (n=1145), which randomized participants with HFpEF and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 to once weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, we examined whether efficacy and safety endpoints differed by baseline diuretic use, as well as the effect of semaglutide on loop diuretic use and dose changes over the 52-week treatment period. RESULTS: At baseline, across no diuretic (n=220), non-loop diuretic only (n=223), and loop diuretic (<40 [n=219], 40 [n=309], and >40 [n=174] mg/day furosemide-equivalents) groups, there was progressively higher prevalence of hypertension and atrial fibrillation; and severity of obesity and heart failure. Over 52 weeks of treatment, semaglutide had a consistent beneficial effect on change in body weight across diuretic use categories (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo ranged from -8.8% [95% CI -10.3, -6.3] to -6.9% [95% CI -9.1, -4.7] from no diuretics to the highest loop diuretic dose category; interaction P=0.39). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score improvement was greater in patients on loop diuretics compared to those not on loop diuretics (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo: +9.3 [6.5; 12.1] vs. +4.7 points [1.3, 8.2]; P=0.042). Semaglutide had consistent beneficial effects on all secondary efficacy endpoints (including 6-min walk distance) across diuretic subgroups (interaction P=0.24-0.92). Safety also favored semaglutide versus placebo across the diuretic subgroups. From baseline to 52 weeks, loop diuretic dose decreased by 17% in the semaglutide group vs. a 2.4% increase in the placebo group (P<0.0001). Semaglutide (vs. placebo) was more likely to result in loop diuretic dose reduction (odds ratio [OR] 2.67 [95% CI 1.70, 4.18]) and less likely dose increase (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.23, 0.53]; P<0.001 for both) from baseline to 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations across diuretic use subgroups, with more pronounced benefits among patients receiving loop diuretics at baseline. Reductions in weight and improvements in exercise function with semaglutide versus placebo were consistent in all diuretic use categories. Semaglutide also led to a reduction in loop diuretic use and dose between baseline and 52 weeks. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04788511 and NCT04916470.
RESUMO
Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle-related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non-modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients' physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease-free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post-transplant journey. This clinical consensus statement focuses on the importance and the characteristics of prevention and rehabilitation designed for HTx recipients.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Transplante de Coração , Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Consenso , Europa (Continente) , Exercício Físico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/reabilitação , Insuficiência Cardíaca/cirurgia , Transplante de Coração/efeitos adversos , Sociedades MédicasRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: End-stage renal disease is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which can be partially eliminated by kidney transplantation. Systolic heart failure might be considered contraindication for kidney transplant, although some patients demonstrate myocardial recovery post-transplant. We aimed to identify and characterize the phenomenon of reverse myocardial remodeling in kidney transplanted patients. METHODS: The study is a retrospective cohort of patients undergoing kidney transplants between 2016 and 2019 (n = 604) at Rabin Medical Center. Patients were assessed according to availability of two echocardiographic examinations: pre- and post-kidney transplant. The change in estimated ejection fraction (EF) and possible predictors of myocardial recovery were examined. RESULTS: Data of 293 patients was available for the final analysis. Eighty-one (28%) patients had a LVEF improvement equal to or above 5%, whereas 36 (12%) patients had a LVEF improvement of 10% or more post-transplantation. Twenty-five patients (8.5%) had moderate or severe systolic heart failure with LVEF reduced to 40% or less at baseline. 13 of them (52%) had a LVEF improvement of ≥5%, and 10 patients (40%) had an improvement of ≥10% in their EF. Cox regression analyses identified female gender as the only independent variable associated with LVEF improvement of at least 10%. CONCLUSION: Renal transplantation might lead to improved LV systolic function in some patients.
Assuntos
Ecocardiografia , Insuficiência Cardíaca Sistólica , Falência Renal Crônica , Transplante de Rim , Volume Sistólico , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Insuficiência Cardíaca Sistólica/fisiopatologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca Sistólica/diagnóstico por imagem , Falência Renal Crônica/cirurgia , Falência Renal Crônica/complicações , Falência Renal Crônica/fisiopatologia , Adulto , Remodelação Ventricular/fisiologia , Função Ventricular Esquerda , IdosoRESUMO
AIM: This paper describes the trajectory during 1 year of four patient-reported outcomes (PROs), namely, sleep, depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), and well-being, in patients with heart failure (HF), their relationship and the patient characteristics associated with changes in these PROs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data analyses of PROs from 603 patients (mean age 67 years; 29% female, 60% NYHA II) enrolled in the HF-Wii study. On short term, between baseline and 3 months, 16% of the patients experienced continuing poor sleep, 11% had sustained depressive symptoms, 13% had consistent poor HrQoL, and 13% consistent poor well-being. Across the entire 1-year period only 21% of the patients had good PRO scores at all timepoints (baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months). All others had at least one low score in any of the PROs at some timepoint during the study. Over the 12 months, 17% had consistently poor sleep, 17% had sustained symptoms of depression, 15% consistently rated a poor HrQoL, and 13% poor well-being. Different patient characteristics per PRO were associated with a poor outcomes across the 12 months. Age, education, New York Heart Association, and length of disease were related to two PRO domains and submaximal exercise capacity (6 min test), co-morbidity, and poor physical activity to one. CONCLUSION: In total, 79% of the patients with HF encountered problems related to sleep, depressive symptoms, HrQoL, and well-being at least once during a 1-year period. This underscores the need for continuous monitoring and follow-up of patients with HF and the need for dynamic adjustments in treatment and care regularly throughout the HF trajectory.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Masculino , Depressão , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Comorbidade , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo PacienteRESUMO
Right-sided heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation are common and strongly associated with poor quality of life and an increased risk of heart failure hospitalizations and death. While medical therapy for right-sided heart failure is limited, treatment options for tricuspid regurgitation include surgery and, based on recent developments, several transcatheter interventions. However, the patients who might benefit from tricuspid valve interventions are yet unknown, as is the ideal time for these treatments given the paucity of clinical evidence. In this context, it is crucial to elucidate aetiology and pathophysiological mechanisms leading to right-sided heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation in order to recognize when tricuspid regurgitation is a mere bystander and when it can cause or contribute to heart failure progression. Notably, early identification of right heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation may be crucial and optimal management requires knowledge about the different mechanisms and causes, clinical course and presentation, as well as possible treatment options. The aim of this clinical consensus statement is to summarize current knowledge about epidemiology, pathophysiology and treatment of tricuspid regurgitation in right-sided heart failure providing practical suggestions for patient identification and management.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Insuficiência da Valva Tricúspide , Humanos , Insuficiência da Valva Tricúspide/diagnóstico , Insuficiência da Valva Tricúspide/epidemiologia , Insuficiência da Valva Tricúspide/terapia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Qualidade de Vida , Valva Tricúspide/cirurgia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Right heart failure (RHF) following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a common and potentially serious condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations with an unfavourable effect on patient outcomes. Clinical scores that predict the occurrence of right ventricular (RV) failure have included multiple clinical, biochemical, imaging and haemodynamic parameters. However, unless the right ventricle is overtly dysfunctional with end-organ involvement, prediction of RHF post-LVAD implantation is, in most cases, difficult and inaccurate. For these reasons optimization of RV function in every patient is a reasonable practice aiming at preparing the right ventricle for a new and challenging haemodynamic environment after LVAD implantation. To this end, the institution of diuretics, inotropes and even temporary mechanical circulatory support may improve RV function, thereby preparing it for a better adaptation post-LVAD implantation. Furthermore, meticulous management of patients during the perioperative and immediate postoperative period should facilitate identification of RV failure refractory to medication. When RHF occurs late during chronic LVAD support, this is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Careful monitoring of RV function and characterization of the origination deficit should therefore continue throughout the patient's entire follow-up. Despite the useful information provided by the echocardiogram with respect to RV function, right heart catheterization frequently offers additional support for the assessment and optimization of RV function in LVAD-supported patients. In any patient candidate for LVAD therapy, evaluation and treatment of RV function and failure should be assessed in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner.