Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674).

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Multidisciplinary care of peripartum heart failure: A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC.

Heart failure is the most common cardiovascular complication during pregnancy and the postpartum period. It is associated with increased risk of maternal morbidity and mortality as well as potentially life-threatening foetal pathology. Management of heart failure in pregnancy requires expert knowledge of cardiovascular disease as well as obstetrics which underscores the importance of multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics teams in order to optimize diagnosis, treatment and outcome. This includes counselling of women at risk before and during the course of pregnancy in order to strengthen the relationship between medical specialists and patients, as well as to allow patient-centred delivery of care and improve quality of life.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Efficacy of empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction according to frailty status in EMPEROR-Preserved.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a severe, common co-morbidity associated with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The impact of frailty on HFpEF outcomes may affect treatment choices in HFpEF. The impact of frailty on HFpEF patients and any impact on the clinical benefits of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition in HFpEF have been described in only a limited number of trials. Whether the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin would improve or worsen frailty status when given to HFpEF patients is also not known. The aims of this study were, therefore, to evaluate, in HFpEF patients enrolled in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), the impact of frailty on clinical outcomes, and on the effects of empagliflozin, as well as the effect of empagliflozin on frailty status during treatment period. METHODS: We calculated a cumulative deficit-derived frailty index (FI) using 44 variables including clinical, laboratory and quality of life parameters recorded in EMPEROR-Preserved. Patients were classified into four groups: non-frail (FI < 0.21), mild frailty (0.21 to <0.30), moderate frailty (0.30 to <0.40) and severe frailty (≥0.40). Clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life were evaluated according to baseline FI along with the effect of empagliflozin on chronological changes in FI (at 12, 32 and 52 weeks). RESULTS: The patient distribution was 1514 (25.3%), 2100 (35.1%), 1501 (25.1%) and 873 (14.6%) in non-frail, mild frailty, moderate frailty and severe frailty, respectively. Severe frailty patients tended to be female and have low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores, more co-morbidities and more polypharmacy. Incidence rates of the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization increased as frailty worsened (hazard ratio [HR] of each FI category compared with the non-frail group: 1.10 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.89-1.35], 2.00 [1.63-2.47] and 2.61 [2.08-3.27] in the mild frailty, moderate frailty and severe frailty groups, respectively; P trend < 0.001). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the risk for the primary outcome across the four FI categories, HR: 0.59 [95% CI 0.42-0.83], 0.79 [0.61-1.01], 0.77 [0.61-0.96] and 0.90 [0.69-1.16] in non-frail to severe frailty categories, respectively (P value for trend = 0.097). Empagliflozin also improved other clinical outcomes and KCCQ score across frailty categories. Compared with placebo, empagliflozin-treated patients had a higher likelihood of being in a lower FI category at Weeks 12, 32 and 52 (P < 0.05), odds ratio: 1.12 [95% CI 1.01-1.24] at Week 12, 1.21 [1.09-1.34] at Week 32 and 1.20 [1.09-1.33] at Week 52. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin improved key efficacy outcomes with a possible diminution of effect in very frail patients. Empagliflozin also improved frailty status during follow-up.

Vascular Disease Burden, Outcomes and Benefits with Empagliflozin in Heart Failure: Insights From the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.

BACKGROUND: The presence of ischemic heart disease impacts prognosis in patients affected by heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). It is not well known how the extent of vascular disease impacts prognoses and responses to therapy in this setting. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced trial, outcomes and the effects of empagliflozin, were assessed in study participants according to the extent (none vs mono1 vs poly [≥ 2] vascular bed) of vascular disease. Vascular disease was defined as investigator-reported coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD) and cerebrovascular disease at baseline. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Incidence rates are presented per 100 person-years (py) of follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 3730 study participants enrolled, 1324 (35.5%) had no vascular disease, 1879 (50.4%) had monovascular disease, and 527 (14.1%) had polyvascular disease. Participants with polyvascular disease tended to be older and male and to have had histories of hypertension, diabetes and smoking. In the placebo arm, a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular death existed in those with polyvascular disease (HR 1.57, 95% CI1.02, 2.44, compared to those with no vascular disease). In adjusted analysis, the benefit of empagliflozin in cardiovascular death or hospitalization due to HF, HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, renal composite endpoint, estimated glomerular filtration slope changes, and health status scores were seen across the 3 groups (interaction P > 0.05 for all) but were attenuated in those with polyvascular disease. Adverse events were higher in those with polyvascular disease, but no major differences were noted between empagliflozin or placebo assignment in the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFrEF, the extent of vascular disease is associated with the risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Empagliflozin offers cardiovascular and renal benefits in HFrEF across the extent of vascular disease, but this benefit is attenuated in those with polyvascular disease.

Patient phenotype profiling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to guide therapeutic decision making. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association, the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, and the European Society of Hypertension.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a highly heterogeneous clinical syndrome affected in its development and progression by many comorbidities. The left ventricular diastolic dysfunction may be a manifestation of various combinations of cardiovascular, metabolic, pulmonary, renal, and geriatric conditions. Thus, in addition to treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in all patients, the most effective method of improving clinical outcomes may be therapy tailored to each patient's clinical profile. To better outline a phenotype-based approach for the treatment of HFpEF, in this joint position paper, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Hypertension Society, have developed an algorithm to identify the most common HFpEF phenotypes and identify the evidence-based treatment strategy for each, while taking into account the complexities of multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy.

Health status across major subgroups of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: There are limited data on health status and changes in it over time across major subgroups of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), including ejection fraction spectrum, age, sex, region, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities including diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), anaemia, and atrial fibrillation/flutter. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) was assessed at baseline, 12, 32 and 52 weeks. Determinants of baseline KCCQ score and change over time, and the impact of empagliflozin on KCCQ scores were studied in specified subgroups. A Cox model was used to assess the association between 5- and 10-point increase and 5-point decrease in KCCQ score from baseline to week 12 and later outcomes. Among 2979 participants in the placebo arm, mean KCCQ clinical summary score (CSS) was 70.7 (20.8). Older age, female sex, BMI, anaemia, and a history of diabetes, and CKD were associated with worse scores. KCCQ-CSS score improved during follow-up; patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter at enrollment (p trend = 0.014) and CKD (p trend < 0.001) had less improvement. A 5-point increase in KCCQ-CSS at week 12 was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (5%), cardiovascular death (8%), and first heart failure hospitalization (4%) subsequently. A similar trend was seen with KCCQ total symptom score (TSS) and overall summary score (OSS). Empagliflozin improved KCCQ-CSS, -TSS and -OSS scores similarly across subgroups studied except for greater improvement in patients with the highest BMI (p trend = 0.153, 0.08 and 0.078, respectively). CONCLUSION: Health status in patients with HFpEF is impaired, especially in elderly, women, and those with obesity and comorbidities. Empagliflozin improved health status among all key subgroups studied with a greater effect in obese patients.

Effects of Dapagliflozin in Asian Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in DAPA-HF.

Background: Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Asia exhibit many differences from those in other parts of the world. Objectives: This study sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, in HFrEF patients in Asia, compared with those elsewhere, enrolled in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure) trial. Methods: Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II to IV with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were eligible for the DAPA-HF trial. The primary outcome in the DAPA-HF trial was the composite of an episode of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. Results: Of the 4,744 patients in the DAPA-HF trial, 1,096 (23.1%) were enrolled in Asia; 721 (15.2% overall, 65.8% of patients in Asia) were enrolled in East Asia (237 in China, 343 in Japan, and 141 in Taiwan), 138 (2.9% overall, 12.6% in Asia) in South-East Asia (Vietnam), and 237 (5.0% overall, 21.6% in Asia) in South Asia (India). Patients from Asia had similar rates of worsening HF events and mortality compared with patients elsewhere. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary endpoint to the same extent in patients from Asia (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.87) as elsewhere (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.89) (P for interaction = 0.32). Consistent benefits were observed for the other prespecified outcomes and among the regions of Asia. Study drug discontinuation and prespecified adverse events did not differ between regions. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of worsening HF events and cardiovascular death to the same extent in Asian patients as elsewhere. (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]; NCT03036124).

Effects of Empagliflozin in Women and Men With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Women and men with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction may differ in their clinical characteristics and their response to therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sex on the effects of empagliflozin in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: The effects of empagliflozin on the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF and on secondary outcomes (including total HF hospitalization, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores) were compared in women and men in the overall cohort and in subgroups defined by left ventricular ejection fraction (41%-49%, 50%-59%, and ≥60%). The effects of empagliflozin on physiological measures, including changes in systolic blood pressure, uric acid, hemoglobin, body weight, and natriuretic peptide levels, were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 5988 patients randomized, 2676 (44.7%) were women. In the placebo arm, women tended to have lower risk for adverse outcomes, including a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56, 0.84]). Compared with placebo, empagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF to a similar degree in both sexes (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69, 0.96] for men; and hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61, 0.92] for women; Pinteraction=0.54). Sex did not modify the relationship between empagliflozin and outcomes across ejection fraction groups. Similar results were seen for secondary outcomes and physiological measures. Compared with placebo, empagliflozin improved the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score to a similar extent in both sexes (1.38 for men versus 1.63 for women at 52 weeks; Pinteraction=0.77); the results were similar for Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score and total summary score. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin produced similar benefits on outcomes and health status in women and men with HF and preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057951.

Empagliflozin, Health Status, and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have significant impairment in health-related quality of life. In the EMPEROR-Preserved trial (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), we evaluated the efficacy of empagliflozin on health-related quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and whether the clinical benefit observed with empagliflozin varies according to baseline health status. METHODS: Health-related quality of life was measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at baseline and 12, 32, and 52 weeks. Patients were divided by baseline KCCQ Clinical Summary Score (CSS) tertiles, and the effect of empagliflozin on outcomes was examined. The effect of empagliflozin on KCCQ-CSS, Total Symptom Score, and Overall Summary Score was evaluated. Responder analyses were performed to compare the odds of improvement and deterioration in KCCQ related to treatment with empagliflozin. RESULTS: The effect of empagliflozin on reducing the risk of time to cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was consistent across baseline KCCQ-CSS tertiles (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-1.00], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.88], and 0.82 [95% CI, 0.62-1.08] for scores <62.5, 62.5-83.3, and ≥83.3, respectively; P trend=0.77). Similar results were seen for total heart failure hospitalizations. Patients treated with empagliflozin had significant improvement in KCCQ-CSS versus placebo (+1.03, +1.24, and +1.50 at 12, 32, and 52 weeks, respectively; P<0.01); similar results were seen for Total Symptom Score and Overall Summary Score. At 12 weeks, patients on empagliflozin had higher odds of improvement ≥5 points (odds ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.10-1.37]), ≥10 points (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]), and ≥15 points (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.26]) and lower odds of deterioration ≥5 points in KCCQ-CSS (odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.97]). A similar pattern was seen at 32 and 52 weeks, and results were consistent for Total Symptom Score and Overall Summary Score. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk for major heart failure outcomes across the range of baseline KCCQ scores. Empagliflozin improved health-related quality of life, an effect that appeared early and was sustained for at least 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057951.

Diabetes and pre-diabetes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIM: There is an association between heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and insulin resistance, but less is known about the diabetic continuum, and in particular about pre-diabetes, in HFpEF. We examined characteristics and outcomes of participants with diabetes or pre-diabetes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients aged ≥50 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45%, structural heart disease and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were eligible. Patients were classified according to glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c): (i) normal HbA1c, <6.0%; (ii) pre-diabetes, 6.0%-6.4%; (iii) diabetes, ≥6.5% or history of diabetes. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and total heart failure hospitalizations (HFH). Of 4796 patients, 50% had diabetes and 18% had pre-diabetes. Compared to patients with normal HbA1c, patients with pre-diabetes and diabetes more often were obese, had a history of myocardial infarction and had lower Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, while patients with diabetes had more clinical evidence of congestion, but similar NT-proBNP concentrations. The risks of the primary composite outcome (rate ratio [RR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.88), total HFH (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39-2.02) and CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.07-1.71) were higher among patients with diabetes, compared to those with normal HbA1c. Patients with pre-diabetes had a higher risk (which was intermediate between that of patients with diabetes and those with normal HbA1c) of the primary outcome (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.60) and HFH (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03-1.77), but not of CV death (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75-1.40). Patients with diabetes treated with insulin had worse outcomes than those not, and those with 'lean diabetes' had similar mortality rates to those with a higher body mass index, but lower rates of HFH. CONCLUSION: Pre-diabetes is common in patients with HFpEF and is associated with worse clinical status and greater risk of HFH. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Efficacy and Safety of Long-Term Evolocumab Use Among Asian Subjects　- A Subgroup Analysis of the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that Asian patients respond differently to some medications. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of evolocumab among Asian vs. other subjects in the FOURIER trial, which randomized stable atherosclerosis patients to receive either evolocumab or placebo.Methods and Results:Effects of adding evolocumab vs. placebo to background statin therapy on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reductions, cardiovascular outcomes, and adverse events were compared among 27,564 participants with atherosclerotic disease, according to self-reported Asian (n=2,723) vs. other (n=24,841) races followed for a median of 2.2 years in the FOURIER trial. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. At randomization, Asians had slightly lower LDL-C (median 89 [IQR 78-104] mg/dL vs. 92 [80-109] mg/dL; P<0.001) and were much less likely to be on a high-intensity statin (33.3% vs. 73.3%; P<0.001). Evolocumab lowered LDL-C more in Asians than in others (66% vs. 58%; P<0.001). The effect of evolocumab on the primary endpoint was similar in Asians (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.03) and others (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93; P interaction=0.55). There was no excess of serious adverse events with evolocumab among Asians over others. CONCLUSIONS: Use of evolocumab robustly lowers LDL-C and is equally efficacious in lowering the risk of cardiovascular events and safe in Asians as it is in others.

Global Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARAGON-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a global public health problem with important regional differences. We investigated these differences in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF), the largest and most inclusive global HFpEF trial. METHODS: We studied differences in clinical characteristics, outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan in 4796 patients with HFpEF from the PARAGON-HF trial, grouped according to geographic region. RESULTS: Regional differences in patient characteristics and comorbidities were observed: patients from Western Europe were oldest (mean 75±7 years) with the highest prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter (36%); Central/Eastern European patients were youngest (mean 71±8 years) with the highest prevalence of coronary artery disease (50%); North American patients had the highest prevalence of obesity (65%) and diabetes (49%); Latin American patients were younger (73±9 years) and had a high prevalence of obesity (53%); and Asia-Pacific patients had a high prevalence of diabetes (44%), despite a low prevalence of obesity (26%). Rates of the primary composite end point of total hospitalizations for HF and death from cardiovascular causes were lower in patients from Central Europe (9 per 100 patient-years) and highest in patients from North America (28 per 100 patient-years), which was primarily driven by a greater number of total hospitalizations for HF. The effect of treatment with sacubitril-valsartan was not modified by region (interaction P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFpEF recruited worldwide in PARAGON-HF, there were important regional differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes, which may have implications for the design of future clinical trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline systolic blood pressure in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF).

AIMS: Concern about hypotension often leads to withholding of beneficial therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, which lowers systolic blood pressure (SBP),according to baseline SBP in Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Key inclusion criteria were: New York Heart Association Class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and SBP ≥95 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined using SBP as both a categorical and continuous variable. A total of 1205 patients had a baseline SBP <110 mmHg; 981 ≥ 110 < 120; 1149 ≥ 120 < 130; and 1409 ≥ 130 mmHg. The placebo-corrected reduction in SBP from baseline to 2 weeks with dapagliflozin was -2.54 (-3.33 to -1.76) mmHg (P < 0.001), with a smaller between-treatment difference in patients in the lowest compared to highest SBP category. Patients in the lowest SBP category had a much higher rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome [20.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.6-24.2] than those in the highest SBP category (13.8, 11.7-16.4). The benefit and safety of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of SBP; hazard ratio (95% CI) in each SBP group, lowest to highest: 0.76 (0.60-0.97), 0.76 (0.57-1.02), 0.81 (0.61-1.08), and 0.67 (0.51-0.87), P interaction = 0.78. Study drug discontinuation did not differ between dapagliflozin and placebo across the SBP categories examined. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin had a small effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF and was superior to placebo in improving outcomes, and well tolerated, across the range of SBP included in DAPA-HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036124.

Dapagliflozin and Diuretic Use in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin in relation to background diuretic treatment and change in diuretic therapy after randomization to dapagliflozin or placebo. METHODS: We examined the effects of study treatment in the following subgroups: no diuretic and diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide <40, 40, and >40 mg daily at baseline. We examined the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or a worsening heart failure event and its components, all-cause death and symptoms. RESULTS: Of 4616 analyzable patients, 736 (15.9%) were on no diuretic, 1311 (28.4%) were on <40 mg, 1365 (29.6%) were on 40 mg, and 1204 (26.1%) were taking >40 mg. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary end point across each of these subgroups: hazard ratios were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.92), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.63-1.10), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.60-0.99), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.97), respectively (P for interaction=0.61). The hazard ratio in patients taking any diuretic was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90). Improvements in symptoms and treatment toleration were consistent across the diuretic subgroups. Diuretic dose did not change in most patients during follow-up, and mean diuretic dose did not differ between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were consistent across the diuretic subgroups examined in DAPA-HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Anaemia, iron deficiency and heart failure in 2020: facts and numbers.

Anaemia is defined by WHO as Hb < 13.0 g/dL in male adults and <12.0 g/dL in female adults. It is a common comorbidity in patients of heart failure with both HFrEF and HFpEF. The incidence ranges between 30% and 50%, though in certain communities, it is likely to be higher still. Elderly age, severe heart failure, poor nutrition, and elevation of inflammatory markers are associated with a higher incidence of anaemia. However, the commonest contributing factor to anaemia in HF is iron deficiency. In a Canadian study of 12 065 patients, the incidence of absolute ID was 21% in anaemic patients. Many other western studies have also quoted incidences varying between 35% and 43%. The earlier attempts to improve outcomes by supplementation with Erythropoietic-stimulating factors were unsuccessful and resulted in a higher incidence of thrombotic events. Iron deficiency (ID) has emerged as an important factor in patients of HF, even in those without anaemia and worsens outcomes. It is defined as Ferritin levels below 100 mcg/L or 100-299 µg/L with transferrin saturation of <20%. Attempts to correct ID by oral supplementation have been unsuccessful as seen in IRON-HF and IRONOUT-HF trials. FAIR-HF and CONFIRM-HF conclusively established the role of IV Iron in improving exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with HFrEF. ESC guidelines have given a class IC indication for testing all heart failure patients for ID, and an IIaA recommendation for its correction by IV ferric carboxymaltose was found to be deficient. Ongoing trials will establish the role of IV iron in improving mortality and in HFpEF patients and in patients with acute heart failure.

Conducting clinical trials in heart failure during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic: an Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.

Efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition according to left ventricular ejection fraction in DAPA-HF.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) modified efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin 10 mg compared with placebo in the 4744 patients with LVEF ≤40% randomized in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined whether LVEF, analysed categorically or continuously, modified the effect of dapagliflozin. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of a worsening heart failure (HF) event (unplanned HF hospitalization/an urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. Mean LVEF was 31.1% and LVEF categories analysed were: <26% (n = 1143), 26-30% (n = 1018), 31-35% (n = 1187), and >35% (n = 1396). Each 5% decrease in LVEF was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.24]. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across the spectrum of LVEF: the dapagliflozin vs. placebo HR was 0.75 (95% CI 0.59-0.95) for LVEF <26%, 0.75 (0.57-0.98) for LVEF 26-30%, 0.67 (0.51-0.89) for LVEF 31-35%, and 0.83 (0.63-1.09) for LVEF >35% (P for interaction = 0.762). Similarly, the effect of dapagliflozin on the components of the primary endpoint was not modified by baseline LVEF (P for interaction for cardiovascular death = 0.974, and for worsening HF = 0.161). Safety of dapagliflozin was also consistent across the range of LVEF and neither efficacy nor safety were modified by diabetes status. CONCLUSION: Left ventricular ejection fraction was a significant predictor of hospitalization and mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction but did not modify the beneficial effect of dapagliflozin, overall or separately, in patients with and without diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03036124.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), whether NT-proBNP modified the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan, and the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan on NT-proBNP overall and in key subgroups. BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces NT-proBNP in heart failure (HF) with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), but did not significantly reduce total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan in patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). METHODS: In the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial, 4,796 patients with HFpEF and elevated NT-proBNP were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. NT-proBNP was measured at screening in all patients and at 5 subsequent times in >2,700 patients: before, between, and after sequential valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan run-in periods, and 16 and 48 weeks post-randomization. RESULTS: Median NT-proBNP was 911 pg/ml (interquartile range: 464 to 1,613 pg/ml) at screening. Screening NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary endpoint, total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (rate ratio [RR]: 1.68 per log increase in NT-proBNP, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 1.85; p < 0.001). This relationship was stronger in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted RR: 2.33 [95% CI: 1.89 to 2.87] vs. 1.58 [95% CI: 1.42 to 1.75] in patients without atrial fibrillation; p interaction <0.001) and weaker in obese patients (adjusted RR: 1.50 [95% CI: 1.31 to 1.71] vs. 1.92 [95% CI: 1.70 to 2.17] in nonobese patients; p interaction <0.001). Screening NT-proBNP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (p interaction = 0.96). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP by 19% (95% CI: 14% to 23%; p < 0.001) compared with valsartan 16 weeks post-randomization, with similar reductions in men (20%) and women (18%), and in patients with left ventricular EF ≤57% (20%) and >57% (18%). Decreases in NT-proBNP predicted lower subsequent risk of the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline NT-proBNP predicted HF events but did not modify the sacubitril/valsartan treatment effect in patients with HFpEF. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP consistently in men and women, and in patients with lower or higher EF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).