The Effect of Spironolactone in Patients With Obesity at Risk for Heart Failure: Proteomic Insights from the HOMAGE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Adipose tissue influences the expression and degradation of circulating biomarkers. We aimed to identify the biomarker profile and biological meaning of biomarkers associated with obesity to assess the effect of spironolactone on the circulating biomarkers and to explore whether obesity might modify the effect of spironolactone. METHODS AND RESULTS: Protein biomarkers (n = 276) from the Olink Proseek-Multiplex cardiovascular and inflammation panels were measured in plasma collected at baseline, 1 month and 9 months from the HOMAGE randomized controlled trial participants. Of the 510 participants, 299 had obesity defined as an increased waist circumference (≥102 cm in men and ≥88 cm in women). Biomarkers at baseline reflected adipogenesis, increased vascularization, decreased fibrinolysis, and glucose intolerance in patients with obesity at baseline. Treatment with spironolactone had only minor effects on this proteomic profile. Obesity modified the effect of spironolactone on systolic blood pressure (Pinteraction = 0.001), showing a stronger decrease of blood pressure in obese patients (-14.8 mm Hg 95% confidence interval -18.45 to -11.12) compared with nonobese patients (-3.6 mm Hg 95% confidence interval -7.82 to 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at risk for heart failure, those with obesity have a characteristic proteomic profile reflecting adipogenesis and glucose intolerance. Spironolactone had only minor effects on this obesity-related proteomic profile, but obesity significantly modified the effect of spironolactone on systolic blood pressure.

Diagnostic and prognostic relevance of using large gene panels in the genetic testing of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.

It was previously suggested that increasing the number of genes on diagnostic gene panels could increase the genetic yield in patient with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). We explored the diagnostic and prognostic relevance of testing DCM patients with an expanded gene panel. The current study included 225 consecutive DCM patients who had no genetic diagnosis after a 48-gene cardiomyopathy-panel. These were then evaluated using an expanded gene panel of 299 cardiac-associated genes. A likely pathogenic/pathogenic (P/LP) variant was detected in 13 patients. Five variants were reclassifications of variants found in genes which were already detected using the 48 gene panel. Only one of the other eight variants could explain the phenotype of the patient (KCNJ2). The panel detected 186 VUSs in 127 patients (of which 6 also had a P/LP variant). The presence of a VUS was significantly associated with the combined end-point of mortality, heart failure hospitalization, heart transplantation or life-threatening arrhythmias(HR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.15 to 3.65]; p = 0.02). The association of a VUS with prognosis remained when we only included VUSs in robust DCM-associated genes (high suspicious VUSs), but disappeared when we only included VUSs in non-robust DCM-associated genes (low suspicious VUSs), highlighting the importance of weighing of VUSs. Overall, the use of large gene panels for genetic testing in DCM does not increase the diagnostic yield, although a VUS in a robust DCM-associated gene is associated with an adverse prognosis. Altogether, current diagnostic gene panels should be limited to the robust DCM-associated genes.