Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Renal Impairment in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification integrates both estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR) and urine-albumin-creatinine-ratio to stratify risk more comprehensively in patients with chronic kidney disease. There are limited data assessing whether this classification system is associated with prognosis and treatment response in heart failure populations. METHODS: PARADIGM-HF was a global RCT evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in patients with HFrEF. Patients were classified according to low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk. Treatment responses were assessed according to baseline KDIGO risk. The primary outcome was a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. A renal composite outcome was defined as sustained decline in eGFR by ≥40% or end stage kidney disease. RESULTS: Among 1,910 (23% of total) participants with available data, 42%, 32%, and 26% were classified as low, moderate, and high/very high KDIGO risk, respectively. Patients in the highest KDIGO risk categories experienced the highest rates of the primary composite outcome (7.6[6.5-9.0], 9.4[7.9-11.2], 14.9[12.7-17.6] per 100py; P<0.001). Sacubitril/valsartan had a similar safety profile and similarly reduced the risk of both the primary outcome (PInteraction=0.31) and the renal composite outcome (PInteraction=0.50) across the spectrum of KDIGO risk. CONCLUSION: One in 4 patients with HFrEF were classified as at least high KDIGO kidney risk; these individuals faced concordantly the highest risks of CV events. Sacubitril/valsartan exhibited consistent CV and kidney protective benefits as well as safety across the spectrum of baseline kidney risk. These data further support initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF across a broad range of kidney risk.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan according to polypharmacy status in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a particularly high prevalence of comorbidities, often necessitating treatment with many medications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polypharmacy status and outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, baseline medication status was available in 4793 of 4796 patients included in the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, were assessed according to the number of medications at baseline: 683 non-polypharmacy (<5 medications); 2750 polypharmacy (5-9 medications), and 1360 hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 medications). The primary outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Patients with hyper-polypharmacy were older, had more severe limitations due to HF (worse New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores), and had greater comorbidity. The non-adjusted risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in patients taking more medications, and similar trends were seen for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular and all-cause death. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on the primary outcome from the lowest to highest polypharmacy category was (as a rate ratio): 1.19 (0.76-1.85), 0.94 (0.77-1.15), and 0.77 (0.61-0.96) (pinteraction = 0.16). Treatment-related adverse events were more common in patients in the higher polypharmacy categories but not more common with sacubitril/valsartan, versus valsartan, in any polypharmacy category. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is very common in patients with HFpEF, and those with polypharmacy have worse clinical status and a higher rate of non-fatal and fatal outcomes. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was not diminished in patients taking a larger number of medications at baseline.

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Findings from TOPCAT.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation plays a central role in the genesis and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). C-reactive protein (CRP) is widely used as means to assess systemic inflammation, and elevated levels of CRP have been associated with poor HF prognosis. Identification of chronic low-grade inflammation in outpatients can be performed measuring high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP). The clinical characteristics and outcome associations of a pro-inflammatory state among outpatients with HFpEF requires further study. AIMS: Using a biomarker subset of TOPCAT-Americas (NCT00094302), we aim to characterize HFpEF patients according to hsCRP levels and study the prognostic associations of hsCRP. METHODS: hsCRP was available in a subset of 232 participants. Comparisons were performed between patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L and ≥ 2 mg/L. Cox regression models were used to study the association between hsCRP and the study outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to patients with hsCRP <2 mg/L (n = 89, 38%), those with hsCRP ≥2 mg/L (n = 143, 62%) had more frequent HF hospitalizations prior to randomization, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, orthopnea, higher body mass index, and worse health-related quality-of-life. A hsCRP level ≥ 2 mg/L was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations: hsCRP ≥2 mg/L vs <2 mg/L adjusted HR 2.36, 95%CI 1.27-4.38, P = 0.006. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels from baseline to month 12: gMean ratio = 1.11, 95%CI 0.87-1.42, P = 0.39. CONCLUSIONS: A hsCRP ≥2 mg/L identified HFpEF patients with a high risk of HF events and cardiovascular mortality. Spironolactone did not influence hsCRP levels at 12 months.

Pragmatic randomized controlled trials: strengthening the concept through a robust international collaborative network: PRIME-9-Pragmatic Research and Innovation through Multinational Experimentation.

In an era focused on value-based healthcare, the quality of healthcare and resource allocation should be underpinned by empirical evidence. Pragmatic clinical trials (pRCTs) are essential in this endeavor, providing randomized controlled trial (RCT) insights that encapsulate real-world effects of interventions. The rising popularity of pRCTs can be attributed to their ability to mirror real-world practices, accommodate larger sample sizes, and provide cost advantages over traditional RCTs. By harmonizing efficacy with effectiveness, pRCTs assist decision-makers in prioritizing interventions that have a substantial public health impact and align with the tenets of value-based health care. An international network for pRCT provides several advantages, including larger and diverse patient populations, access to a broader range of healthcare settings, sharing knowledge and expertise, and overcoming ethical and regulatory barriers. The hypothesis and study design of pRCT answers the decision-maker's questions. pRCT compares clinically relevant alternative interventions, recruits participants from diverse practice settings, and collects data on various health outcomes. They are scarce because the medical products industry typically does not fund pRCT. Prioritizing these studies by expanding the infrastructure to conduct clinical research within the healthcare delivery system and increasing public and private funding for these studies will be necessary to facilitate pRCTs. These changes require more clinical and health policy decision-makers in clinical research priority setting, infrastructure development, and funding. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of pRCTs, emphasizing their importance in evidence-based medicine and the advantages of an international collaborative network for their execution. It details the development of PRIME-9, an international initiative across nine countries to advance pRCTs, and explores various statistical approaches for these trials. The paper underscores the need to overcome current challenges, such as funding limitations and infrastructural constraints, to leverage the full potential of pRCTs in optimizing healthcare quality and resource utilization.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, red cell distribution width, and sacubitril/valsartan.

AIMS: Red cell distribution width (RDW) is a strong prognostic marker in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction and other conditions. However, very little is known about its prognostic significance in HF with preserved ejection fraction. We examined the relationship between RDW and outcomes and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, on RDW and clinical outcomes in PARAGON-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARAGON-HF enrolled patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45%, structural heart disease, and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The primary endpoint was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths. Median RDW at randomization was 14.1% (interquartile range 13.5-15.0%). Patients with higher RDW levels were more often men and had more comorbidity, a higher heart rate and NT-proBNP concentration, more advanced New York Heart Association class, and worse Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores. There was a graded relationship between quartiles of RDW at randomization and the primary endpoint, with a significantly higher risk associated with increasing RDW, even after adjustment for NT-proBNP and other prognostic variables {Quartile 1, reference; Quartile 2, rate ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.28]; Quartile 3, 1.25 [1.01 to 1.54]; Quartile 4, 1.70 [1.39 to 2.08]}. This association was seen for each of the secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular and all-cause death. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan reduced RDW at 48 weeks [mean change -0.09 (95% CI -0.15 to -0.02)]. The effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan was not significantly modified by RDW levels at randomization. CONCLUSIONS: RDW, a routinely available and inexpensive biomarker, provides incremental prognostic information when added to established predictors. Compared with valsartan, sacubitril/valsartan led to a small reduction in RDW.

Independent prognostic importance of blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio in heart failure.

AIM: Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratio is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (HF) but little is known about its importance in chronic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined individual patient data from clinical trials (HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]: PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE and DAPA-HF, and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]: PARAGON-HF and I-PRESERVE). The primary outcome examined was a composite time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; its components and all-cause death were also examined. Each HF phenotype was categorized according to median BUN/creatinine ratio, generating four groups that is, HFpEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio and HFrEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio. The association between BUN/creatinine ratio and outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 28 820 patients were analysed. The median (IQR) BUN/creatinine ratio was 20.1 (Q1-Q3 16.7-24.7) in HFpEF and 18.7 (15.2-22.8) in HFrEF. In both HFpEF and HFrEF, higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with older age, female sex, and diabetes, but similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The risk of each outcome examined was significantly higher in patients with BUN/creatinine ratio ≥median, compared to

Calcium channel blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are often treated with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), although the safety of CCBs in these patients is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the association between CCB use and clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF; CCBs were examined overall, as well as by subtype (dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFpEF/HFmrEF trials. The association between CCB use and outcomes was assessed. Among the 16 954 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 402 (79.0%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Altogether, 5874 patients (34.6%) received a CCB (87.6% dihydropyridines). Overall, the risks of death and HF hospitalization were not higher in patients treated with a CCB, particularly dihydropyridines. The risk of pump failure death was significantly lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.96), while the risk of stroke was higher (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.50) in patients treated with a CCB compared to those not. These risks remained different in patients treated and not treated with a CCB after adjustment for other prognostic variables. Although the majority of patients were treated with dihydropyridine CCBs, the pattern of outcomes was broadly similar for both dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs. CONCLUSION: Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that CCBs were associated with worse HF outcomes. Indeed, CCB use was associated with a lower incidence of pump failure death.

Impact of comorbidities on health status measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIM: Patients with heart failure (HF) often suffer from a range of comorbidities, which may affect their health status. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different comorbidities on health status in patients with HF and reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using individual patient data from HFrEF (ATMOSPHERE, PARADIGM-HF, DAPA-HF) and HFpEF (TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF) trials, we examined the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) domain scores and overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) across a range of cardiorespiratory (angina, atrial fibrillation [AF], stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]) and other comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease [CKD], anaemia). Of patients with HFrEF (n = 20 159), 36.2% had AF, 33.9% CKD, 33.9% diabetes, 31.4% obesity, 25.5% angina, 12.2% COPD, 8.4% stroke, and 4.4% anaemia; the corresponding proportions in HFpEF (n = 6563) were: 54.0% AF, 48.7% CKD, 43.4% diabetes, 53.3% obesity, 28.6% angina, 14.7% COPD, 10.2% stroke, and 6.5% anaemia. HFpEF patients had lower KCCQ domain scores and KCCQ-OSS (67.8 vs. 71.3) than HFrEF patients. Physical limitations, social limitations and quality of life domains were reduced more than symptom frequency and symptom burden domains. In both HFrEF and HFpEF, COPD, angina, anaemia, and obesity were associated with the lowest scores. An increasing number of comorbidities was associated with decreasing scores (e.g. KCCQ-OSS 0 vs. ≥4 comorbidities: HFrEF 76.8 vs. 66.4; HFpEF 73.7 vs. 65.2). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities are common in both HFrEF and HFpEF patients and most are associated with reductions in health status although the impact varied among comorbidities, by the number of comorbidities, and by HF phenotype. Treating/correcting comorbidity is a therapeutic approach that may improve the health status of patients with HF.

Changes in mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.

AIMS: Adrenomedullin is a vasodilatory peptide with a role in microcirculatory and endothelial homeostasis. Adrenomedullin is a substrate for neprilysin and may therefore play a role in beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) was measured in 156 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treated with Sac/Val and 264 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) randomized to treatment with Sac/Val or valsartan. Echocardiography and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire results were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months in the HFrEF cohort. Median (Q1-Q3) baseline MR-proADM concentrations were 0.80 (0.59-0.99) nmol/L in HFrEF and 0.88 (0.68-1.20) nmol/L in HFpEF. After 12 weeks of treatment with Sac/Val, MR-proADM increased by median 49% in HFrEF and 60% in HFpEF, while there were no significant changes in valsartan-treated patients (median 2%). Greater increases in MR-proADM were associated with higher Sac/Val doses. Changes in MR-proADM correlated weakly with changes in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, cardiac troponin T and urinary cyclic guanosine monophosphate. Increases in MR-proADM were associated with decreases in blood pressure, but not significantly associated with changes in echocardiographic parameters or health status. CONCLUSIONS: MR-proAD concentrations rise substantially following treatment with Sac/Val, in contrast to no change from valsartan. Change in MR-proADM from neprilysin inhibition did not correlate with improvements in cardiac structure and function or health status. More data are needed regarding the role of adrenomedullin and its related peptides in the treatment of heart failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROVE-HF ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02887183, PARAMOUNT ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887588.

Prevalent and Incident Anemia in PARADIGM-HF and the Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Renin-angiotensin system blockers lower hemoglobin and may induce anemia. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated whether concomitant neprilysin inhibition might ameliorate this effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: Anemia was defined as hemoglobin <120 g/L in women and <130 g/L in men at screening. The authors investigated the effect of randomized treatment on clinical outcomes according to anemia status, change in hemoglobin from baseline, and the incidence of anemia. RESULTS: Of 8,239 participants with a baseline hemoglobin measurement, 1,677 (20.4%) were anemic. Patients with anemia had a more severe heart failure profile, worse kidney function, greater neurohormonal derangement, and worse clinical outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization similarly in patients with (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-1.00) and without anemia (HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87]; P value for interaction = 0.478). Between baseline and 12 months, hemoglobin decreased by 1.5 g/L (95% CI: 1.2-1.7 g/L) with sacubitril/valsartan compared with 2.3 g/L (95% CI: 2.0-2.6 g/L) with enalapril: mean difference 0.8 g/L (95% CI: 0.5-1.2 g/L; P < 0.001). Patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan were less likely to develop anemia at 12 months (321 of 2,806 [11.4%]) compared with patients randomized to enalapril (440 of 2,824 [15.6%]) (OR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.60-0.81]; P < 0.001). These findings were similar in PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) (sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan). There was biomarker evidence of increased iron utilization with sacubitril/valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of anemia status, sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril, decreased mortality and hospitalization. Hemoglobin decreased less with sacubitril/valsartan and the incidence of new anemia was lower with sacubitril/valsartan. (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF] trial; NCT01035255).

Knowledge about self-efficacy and outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIM: Although education in self-management is thought to be an important aspect of the care of patients with heart failure, little is known about whether self-rated knowledge of self-management is associated with outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patient-reported knowledge of self-management and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using individual patient data from three recent clinical trials enrolling participants with HFrEF, we examined patient characteristics and clinical outcomes according to responses to the 'self-efficacy' questions of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. One question quantifies patients' understanding of how to prevent heart failure exacerbations ('prevention' question) and the other how to manage complications when they arise ('response' question). Self-reported answers from patients were pragmatically divided into: poor (do not understand at all, do not understand very well, somewhat understand), fair (mostly understand), and good (completely understand). Cox-proportional hazard models were used to evaluate time-to-first occurrence of each endpoint, and negative binomial regression analysis was performed to compare the composite of total (first and repeat) heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death across the above-defined groups. Of patients (n = 17 629) completing the 'prevention' question, 4197 (23.8%), 6897 (39.1%), and 6535 (37.1%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. Of those completing the 'response' question (n = 17 637), 4033 (22.9%), 5463 (31.0%), and 8141 (46.2%) patients had poor, fair, and good self-rated knowledge, respectively. For both questions, patients with 'poor' knowledge were older, more often female, and had a worse heart failure profile but similar treatment. The rates (95% confidence interval) per 100 person-years for the primary composite outcome for 'poor', 'moderate' and 'good' self-rated knowledge in answer to the 'prevention' question were 12.83 (12.11-13.60), 12.08 (11.53-12.65) and 11.55 (11.00-12.12), respectively, and for the 'response' question were 12.88 (12.13-13.67), 12.22 (11.60-12.86) and 11.56 (11.07-12.07), respectively. The lower event rates in patients with 'good' self-rate knowledge were accounted for by lower rates of cardiovascular (and all-cause) death and not hospitalization for worsening heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient-reported 'self-efficacy' may be associated with higher rates of mortality. Evaluation of knowledge of 'self-efficacy' may provide prognostic information and a guide to which patients may benefit from further education about self-management.

Stroke in patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Stroke is an important problem in patients with heart failure (HF), but the intersection between the two conditions is poorly studied across the range of ejection fraction. The prevalence of history of stroke and related outcomes were investigated in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient meta-analysis of seven clinical trials enrolling patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Of the 20 159 patients with HFrEF, 1683 (8.3%) had a history of stroke, and of the 13 252 patients with HFpEF, 1287 (9.7%) had a history of stroke. Regardless of ejection fraction, patients with a history of stroke had more vascular comorbidity and worse HF. Among those with HFrEF, the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 18.23 (16.81-19.77) per 100 person-years in those with prior stroke vs. 13.12 (12.77-13.48) in those without [hazard ratio 1.37 (1.26-1.49), P < 0.001]. The corresponding rates in patients with HFpEF were 14.16 (12.96-15.48) and 9.37 (9.06-9.70) [hazard ratio 1.49 (1.36-1.64), P < 0.001]. Each component of the composite was more frequent in patients with stroke history, and the risk of future stroke was doubled in patients with prior stroke. Among patients with prior stroke, 30% with concomitant atrial fibrillation were not anticoagulated, and 29% with arterial disease were not taking statins; 17% with HFrEF and 38% with HFpEF had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (≥140 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Heart failure patients with a history of stroke are at high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, and targeting underutilization of guideline-recommended treatments might be a way to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Predicting Stroke in Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction Without Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The rate of stroke in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation (AF), is uncertain as is whether it is possible to reliably predict the risk of stroke in these patients. METHODS: We validated a previously developed simple risk model for stroke among patients enrolled in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function) and PARAGON-HF trial (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction). The risk model consisted of 3 variables: history of previous stroke, insulin-treated diabetes, and plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level. RESULTS: Of the 8924 patients included in the pooled trial dataset, 5126 patients did not have AF at baseline. Among patients without AF, 190 (3.7%) experienced a stroke over a median follow-up of 3.6 years (rate 10.5 per 1000 patient-years). The risk for stroke increased with increasing risk score: second tertile hazard ratio, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.17-2.71); third tertile hazard ratio, 3.03 (95% CI, 2.06-4.47), with the first tertile as reference. For patients in the third tertile, the occurrence rate of stroke was 17.7 per 1000 patient-years, similar to that in patients with AF not receiving anticoagulation (20.7 per 1000 patient-years), and those with AF who were receiving anticoagulation (14.5 per 1000 patient-years). Model discrimination was good with a C index of 0.81 (0.68-0.91) and a simple score could be created from the model. CONCLUSIONS: A simple risk model can detect a subset of HF and preserved ejection fraction patients without AF who have a higher risk for stroke. The balance of risk-to-benefit in these individuals may justify the use of prophylactic anticoagulation, but this hypothesis needs to be prospectively evaluated. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00095238 and NCT01920711.

Clinical characteristics of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with rare pathogenic variants in dilated cardiomyopathy-associated genes: A subgroup analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence of pathogenic variants in genes associated with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in a clinical trial population with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and describe the baseline characteristics by variant carrier status. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post hoc analysis of the Phase 3 PARADIGM-HF trial. Forty-four genes, divided into three tiers, based on definitive, moderate or limited evidence of association with DCM, were assessed for rare predicted loss-of-function (pLoF) variants, which were prioritized using ClinVar annotations, measures of gene transcriptional output and evolutionary constraint, and pLoF confidence predictions. Prevalence was reported for pLoF variant carriers based on DCM-associated gene tiers. Clinical features were compared between carriers and non-carriers. Of the 1412 HFrEF participants with whole-exome sequence data, 68 (4.8%) had at least one pLoF variant in the 8 tier-1 genes (definitive/strong association with DCM), with Titin being most commonly affected. The prevalence increased to 7.5% when considering all 44 genes. Among patients with idiopathic aetiology, 10.0% (23/229) had tier-1 variants only and 12.6% (29/229) had tier-1, -2 or -3 variants. Compared to non-carriers, tier-1 carriers were younger (4 years; adjusted p-value [padj ] = 4 × 10-3 ), leaner (27.8 kg/m2 vs. 29.4 kg/m2 ; padj = 3.2 × 10-3 ), had lower ejection fraction (27.3% vs. 29.8%; padj = 5.8 × 10-3 ), and less likely to have ischaemic aetiology (37.3% vs. 67.4%; padj = 4 × 10-4 ). CONCLUSION: Deleterious pLoF variants in genes with definitive/strong association with DCM were identified in ∼5% of HFrEF patients from a PARADIGM-HF trial subset, who were younger, had lower ejection fraction and were less likely to have had an ischaemic aetiology.

Incremental prognostic value of biomarkers in PARADIGM-HF.

AIMS: It is uncertain how much candidate biomarkers improve risk prediction when added to comprehensive models including routinely collected clinical and laboratory variables in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Aldosterone, cystatin C, high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), galectin-3, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), kidney injury molecule-1, matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9, soluble suppression of tumourigenicity-2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio were measured in 1559 of PARADIGM-HF participants. We tested whether these biomarkers, individually or collectively, improved the performance of the PREDICT-HF prognostic model, which includes clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide data, for the primary endpoint and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The mean age of participants was 67.3 ± 9.9 years, 1254 (80.4%) were men and 1103 (71%) were in New York Heart Association class II. During a mean follow-up of 30.7 months, 300 patients experienced the primary outcome and 197 died. Added individually, only four biomarkers were independently associated with all outcomes: hs-TnT, GDF-15, cystatin C and TIMP-1. When all biomarkers were added simultaneously to the PREDICT-HF models, only hs-TnT remained an independent predictor of all three endpoints. GDF-15 also remained predictive of the primary endpoint; TIMP-1 was the only other predictor of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Individually or in combination, these biomarkers did not lead to significant improvements in discrimination or reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: None of the biomarkers studied individually or collectively led to a meaningful improvement in the prediction of outcomes over what is provided by clinical, routine laboratory, and natriuretic peptide variables.

Prognostic Importance of NT-proBNP (N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) Following High-Risk Myocardial Infarction in the PARADISE-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is a potent predictor of death and heart failure (HF) across multiple populations. We evaluated the prognostic importance of NT-proBNP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both and ≥1 of 8 risk-augmenting factors enrolled in the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction). METHODS: Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily within 0.5 to 7 days of a MI. Patients with prior HF were excluded. NT-proBNP and hs-cTnT (high-sensitivity troponin T) were collected at randomization in a prespecified substudy of 1129 patients. The primary end point of PARADISE-MI was a composite of cardiovascular death or incident HF (hospitalization or outpatient symptomatic HF), analyzed as time-to-first event; additional end points included all-cause death and the composite of fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke. RESULTS: Median NT-proBNP was 1757 ng/L (25th-75th percentiles, 896-3462 ng/L) at randomization (4.0±1.8 days after the index MI). Patients in the highest quartile of NT-proBNP were older, more commonly women and had more hypertension, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction, and pulmonary congestion on presentation (all P<0.001). NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary end point (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.45 per doubling of NT-proBNP; [95% CI, 1.23-1.70]), adjusted for clinical variables and baseline hs-cTnT. NT-proBNP was also independently associated with all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38-2.21]) and fatal or nonfatal MI or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.45]). NT-proBNP did not significantly modify the neutral treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan relative to ramipril (P interaction=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Within the first week of a high-risk MI NT-proBNP is associated with incident HF, death and atherosclerotic events. This prognostic information is independent of hs-cTnT. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Impact of multimorbidity on mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: which comorbidities matter most? An analysis of PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE.

AIMS: Multimorbidity, the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions, is synonymous with heart failure (HF). How risk related to comorbidities compares at individual and population levels is unknown. The aim of this study is to examine the risk related to comorbidities, alone and in combination, both at individual and population levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using two clinical trials in HF - the Prospective comparison of ARNI (Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor) with ACEI (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor) to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in HF trial (PARADIGM-HF) and the Aliskiren Trial to Minimize Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure trials (ATMOSPHERE) - we identified the 10 most common comorbidities and examined 45 possible pairs. We calculated population attributable fractions (PAF) for all-cause death and relative excess risk due to interaction with Cox proportional hazard models. Of 15 066 patients in the study, 14 133 (93.7%) had at least one and 11 867 (78.8%) had at least two of the 10 most prevalent comorbidities. The greatest individual risk among pairs was associated with peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.33) and anaemia (HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.39-2.11). The combination of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and hypertension had the highest PAF (5.65%; 95% CI 3.66-7.61). Two pairs demonstrated significant synergistic interaction (atrial fibrillation with CKD and coronary artery disease, respectively) and one an antagonistic interaction (anaemia and obesity). CONCLUSIONS: In HF, the impact of multimorbidity differed at the individual patient and population level, depending on the prevalence of and the risk related to each comorbidity, and the interaction between individual comorbidities. Patients with coexistent PAD and stroke were at greatest individual risk whereas, from a population perspective, coexistent CKD and hypertension mattered most.

Importance of cystatin C in estimating glomerular filtration rate: the PARADIGM-HF trial.

AIMS: The 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation combining creatinine and cystatin C provides a better estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) compared to the creatinine-only equation. METHODS AND RESULTS: CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C equation (creatinine-cystatin) was compared to creatinine-only (creatinine) equation in a subpopulation of Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF). Patients were categorized according to difference in eGFR using the two equations: Group 1 (<-10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min lower than creatinine), Group 2 (>-10 and <10 mL/min/1.73 m2), and Group 3 (>10 mL/min/1.73 m2, i.e. creatinine-cystatin more than 10 mL/min higher than creatinine). Cystatin C and creatinine were available in 1966 patients at randomization. Median (interquartile range) eGFR difference was -0.7 (-6.4-4.8) mL/min/1.73 m2. Compared to creatinine, creatinine-cystatin led to a substantial reclassification of chronic kidney disease stages. Overall, 212 (11%) and 355 (18%) patients were reallocated to a better and worse eGFR category, respectively. Compared to patients in Group 2, those in Group 1 (lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had higher mortality and those in Group 3 (higher eGFR with creatinine-cystatin) had lower mortality. Increasing difference in eGFR (due to lower eGFR with creatinine-cystatin compared to creatinine) was associated with increasing elevation of biomarkers (including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) and worsening Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. The reason why the equations diverged with increasing severity of heart failure was that creatinine did not rise as steeply as cystatin C. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI creatinine-only equation may overestimate GFR in sicker patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01035255.