Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSEs score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure: Are There Thresholds and Inflection Points in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Thresholds Justifying a Clinical Classification?

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines proposed a classification for heart failure (HF) on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), although it remains unclear whether the divisions chosen were biologically rational. Using patients spanning the full range of LVEF, we examined whether there was evidence of LVEF thresholds in patient characteristics or inflection points in clinical outcomes. METHODS: Using patient-level information, we created a merged dataset of 33 699 participants who had been enrolled in 6 randomized controlled HF trials including patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. The relationship between the incidence of all-cause death (and specific causes of death) and HF hospitalization, and LVEF, was evaluated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: As LVEF increased, age, the proportion of women, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation and diabetes increased, whereas ischemic pathogenesis, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) decreased. As LVEF increased >50%, age and the proportion of women continued to increase, and ischemic pathogenesis and NT-proBNP decreased, but other characteristics did not change meaningfully. The incidence of most clinical outcomes (except noncardiovascular death) decreased as LVEF increased, with a LVEF inflection point of around 50% for all-cause death and cardiovascular death, around 40% for pump failure death, and around 35% for HF hospitalization. Higher than those thresholds, there was little further decline in the incidence rate. There was no evidence of a J-shaped relationship between LVEF and death; no evidence of worse outcomes in patients with high-normal ("supranormal") LVEF. Similarly, in a subset of patients with echocardiographic data, there were no structural differences in patients with a high-normal LVEF suggestive of amyloidosis, and NT-proBNP levels were consistent with this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF, there was a LVEF threshold of around 40% to 50% where the pattern of patient characteristics changed, and event rates began to increase compared with higher LVEF values. Our findings provide evidence to support current upper LVEF thresholds defining HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction on the basis of prognosis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00634309, NCT00634400, NCT00634712, NCT00095238, NCT01035255, NCT00094302, NCT00853658, and NCT01920711.

Cardiac Myosin Activation with Omecamtiv Mecarbil in Systolic Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016-002299-28.).

Investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias and mortality in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Few reports have examined the incidence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) or their relationship with mortality in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the PARAGON-HF, TOPCAT, I-Preserve, and CHARM-Preserved trials were merged. VT/VF, reported as adverse events, were identified. Patients who experienced VT/VF were compared with patients who did not. The relationship between VT/VF and mortality was examined in time-updated Cox proportional hazard regression models. Variables associated with VT/VF were examined in Cox proportional hazard regression models. The rate of VT/VF in patients with HFmrEF compared with patients with HFpEF was examined in a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Of 13 609 patients, over a median follow-up of 1170 days (interquartile range: 966-1451), 146 (1.1%) experienced an investigator-reported VT/VF (incidence rate 0.3 per 100 person-years). Patients who experienced VT/VF were more likely to be male, have had a myocardial infarction, poorer renal function, more adverse left ventricular remodelling, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) than patients who did not. Occurrence of VT/VF was associated with NT-proBNP, history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, male sex, lower ejection fraction, and history of hypertension. VT/VF was associated with all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.80-5.57; P < 0.001] and cardiovascular death, driven by death from heart failure and not sudden death. Patients with HFmrEF had a higher rate of VT/VF than patients with HFpEF (adjusted HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.77-2.71). CONCLUSION: VT/VF was uncommon in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. However, such events were strongly associated with mortality and appear to be a marker of disease severity rather than risk of sudden death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier: NCT01920711(PARAGON-HF); NCT00094302 (TOPCAT); NCT00095238 (I-Preserve); NCT00634712 (CHARM-Preserved).

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.

Revisiting Race and the Benefit of RAS Blockade in Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Concerns have arisen that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are less effective in Black patients than non-Black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: To determine whether the effects of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes differ between Black patients and non-Black patients with HFrEF. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase databases through December 31, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized trials investigating the effect of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with HFrEF that enrolled Black and non-Black patients. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual-participant data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Independent Personal Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Effects were estimated using a mixed-effects model using a 1-stage approach. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. Results: The primary analysis, based on the 3 placebo-controlled RAS inhibitor monotherapy trials, included 8825 patients (9.9% Black). Rates of death and hospitalization for HF were substantially higher in Black than non-Black patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for RAS blockade vs placebo for the primary composite was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.03) in Black patients and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .14). The HR for first HF hospitalization was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.13) in Black patients and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .006). Conversely, the corresponding HRs for cardiovascular death were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65-1.07) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93), respectively (P for interaction = .99). For total hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular deaths, the corresponding rate ratios were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80), respectively (P for interaction = .27). The supportive analyses including the 2 trials adding an angiotensin receptor blocker to background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment (n = 16 383) gave consistent findings. Conclusions and Relevance: The mortality benefit from RAS blockade was similar in Black and non-Black patients. Despite the smaller relative risk reduction in hospitalization for HF with RAS blockade in Black patients, the absolute benefit in Black patients was comparable with non-Black patients because of the greater incidence of this outcome in Black patients.

Serial Assessment of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin and the Effect of Dapagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the DAPA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Circulating high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) predominantly reflects myocardial injury, and higher levels are associated with a higher risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Less is known about the prognostic significance of changes in hsTnT over time, the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes in relation to baseline hsTnT levels, and the effect of dapagliflozin on hsTnT levels. METHODS: DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dapagliflozin (10 mg daily) in patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (median follow-up, 18.2 months). hsTnT (Roche Diagnostics) was measured at baseline in 3112 patients and at 1 year in 2506 patients. The primary end point was adjudicated worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Clinical end points were analyzed according to baseline hsTnT and change in hsTnT from baseline to 1 year. Comparative treatment effects on clinical end points with dapagliflozin versus placebo were assessed by baseline hsTnT. The effect of dapagliflozin on hsTnT was explored. RESULTS: Median baseline hsTnT concentration was 20.0 (25th-75th percentile, 13.7-30.2) ng/L. Over 1 year, 67.9% of patients had a ≥10% relative increase or decrease in hsTnT concentrations, and 43.5% had a ≥20% relative change. A stepwise gradient of higher risk for the primary end point was observed across increasing quartiles of baseline hsTnT concentration (adjusted hazard ratio Q4 versus Q1, 3.44 [95% CI, 2.46-4.82]). Relative and absolute increases in hsTnT over 1 year were associated with higher subsequent risk of the primary end point. The relative reduction in the primary end point with dapagliflozin was consistent across quartiles of baseline hsTnT (P-interaction=0.55), but patients in the top quartile tended to have the greatest absolute risk reduction (absolute risk difference, 7.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-14.0%]). Dapagliflozin tended to attenuate the increase in hsTnT over time compared with placebo (relative least squares mean reduction, -3% [-6% to 0%]; P=0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline hsTnT and greater increase in hsTnT over 1 year are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk of the primary end point, irrespective of baseline hsTnT levels. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure Events in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: EMPEROR-Preserved Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, but additional data are needed about its effect on inpatient and outpatient heart failure events. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II through IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of >40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to usual therapy, for a median of 26 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an emergency or urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (432 versus 546 patients [empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively]; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67-0.87]; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 18 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.52-0.96]; P=0.028) and the total number of all hospitalizations that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; P=0.033). Compared with patients in the placebo group, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported outpatient intensification of diuretics (482 versus 610; hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.86]; P<0.0001), and patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 50% more likely to have a better New York Heart Association functional class, with significant effects at 12 weeks that were maintained for at least 2 years. The benefit on total heart failure hospitalizations was similar in patients with an ejection fraction of >40% to <50% and 50% to <60%, but was attenuated at higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, empagliflozin produced a meaningful, early, and sustained reduction in the risk and severity of a broad range of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Effect of Empagliflozin on the Clinical Stability of Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EMPEROR-Reduced Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, with or without diabetes, but additional data are needed about the effect of the drug on inpatient and outpatient events that reflect worsening heart failure. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3730 patients with class II to IV heart failure with an ejection fraction of ≤40% to double-blind treatment with placebo or empagliflozin (10 mg once daily), in addition to recommended treatments for heart failure, for a median of 16 months. We prospectively collected information on inpatient and outpatient events reflecting worsening heart failure and prespecified their analysis in individual and composite end points. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of death, hospitalization for heart failure or an emergent/urgent heart failure visit requiring intravenous treatment (415 versus 519 patients; empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87; P<0.0001). This benefit reached statistical significance at 12 days after randomization. Empagliflozin reduced the total number of heart failure hospitalizations that required intensive care (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P=0.008) and that required a vasopressor or positive inotropic drug or mechanical or surgical intervention (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87; P=0.005). As compared with placebo, fewer patients in the empagliflozin group reported intensification of diuretics (297 versus 414 [HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; P<0.0001]). Additionally, patients assigned to empagliflozin were 20% to 40% more likely to experience an improvement in New York Heart Association functional class and were 20% to 40% less likely to experience worsening of New York Heart Association functional class, with statistically significant effects that were apparent 28 days after randomization and maintained during long-term follow-up. The risk of any inpatient or outpatient worsening heart failure event in the placebo group was high (48.1 per 100 patient-years of follow-up), and it was reduced by empagliflozin (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk and total number of inpatient and outpatient worsening heart failure events, with benefits seen early after initiation of treatment and sustained for the duration of double-blind therapy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

Efficacy of Dapagliflozin on Renal Function and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results of DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have chronic kidney disease that complicates pharmacological management and is associated with worse outcomes. We assessed the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, according to baseline kidney function, in the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on kidney function after randomization. METHODS: Patients who have HFrEF with or without type 2 diabetes and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 were enrolled in DAPA-HF. We calculated the incidence of the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) according to eGFR category at baseline (<60 and ≥60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2) and used eGFR at baseline as a continuous measure, as well. Secondary cardiovascular outcomes and a prespecified composite renal outcome (≥50% sustained decline eGFR, end-stage renal disease, or renal death) were also examined, along with a decline in eGFR over time. RESULTS: Of 4742 patients with a baseline eGFR, 1926 (41%) had eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary and secondary outcomes did not differ by eGFR category or examining eGFR as a continuous measurement. The hazard ratio (95% CI) for the primary end point in patients with chronic kidney disease was 0.71 (0.59-0.86) versus 0.77 (0.64-0.93) in those with an eGFR ≥60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 (interaction P=0.54). The composite renal outcome was not reduced by dapagliflozin (hazard ratio=0.71 [95% CI, 0.44-1.16]; P=0.17) but the rate of decline in eGFR between day 14 and 720 was less with dapagliflozin, -1.09 (-1.40 to -0.77) versus placebo -2.85 (-3.17 to -2.53) mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 per year (P<0.001). This was observed in those with and without type 2 diabetes (P for interaction=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline kidney function did not modify the benefits of dapagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in HFrEF, and dapagliflozin slowed the rate of decline in eGFR, including in patients without diabetes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.).

How I treat anemia in heart failure.

Anemia is a very common comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF), affecting ∼30% of stable ambulatory patients and 50% patients with acute decompensated HF. Absolute or functional iron deficiency (ID) is seen in ∼50% patients with HF. Both of these comorbidities often coexist and are independently associated with increased mortality and hospitalizations. These findings led several investigators to test the hypotheses that treatment of anemia and ID in HF would improve symptoms and long-term outcomes. Small studies showed that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) improve subjective measures of HF. However, a large pivotal outcome trial found that the ESA darbepoetin alfa did not improve long-term outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and instead was associated with adverse effects. Studies using IV iron have had somewhat greater success, showing improvements in subjective and some objective measures of HF. However, more research is needed to establish the best treatment options for these high-risk patients. We present 5 common scenarios of patients with HF and anemia and describe our personal approach on how we might treat them based on objective evidence where available. An algorithm that offers guidance in regard to personalized therapy for such patients is also presented.

Sacubitril-valsartan as a treatment for apparent resistant hypertension in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on 'apparent resistant hypertension' in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). 'Apparent resistant hypertension' was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. 'Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant' hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18-5.89). CONCLUSION: Sacubitril-valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: While disease-modifying therapies exist for heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), few options are available for patients in the higher range of LVEF (>40%). Sacubitril/valsartan has been compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone in 2 similarly designed clinical trials of patients with reduced and preserved LVEF, permitting examination of its effects across the full spectrum of LVEF. METHODS: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (LVEF eligibility≤40%; n=8399) and PARAGON-HF (LVEF eligibility≥45%; n=4796) in a prespecified pooled analysis. We divided randomized patients into LVEF categories: ≤22.5% (n=1269), >22.5% to 32.5% (n=3987), >32.5% to 42.5% (n=3143), > 42.5% to 52.5% (n=1427), > 52.5% to 62.5% (n=2166), and >62.5% (n=1202). We assessed time to first cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, its components, and total heart failure hospitlizations, all-cause mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. Incidence rates and treatment effects were examined across categories of LVEF. RESULTS: Among 13 195 randomized patients, we observed lower rates of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization, but similar rates of noncardiovascular death, among patients in the highest versus the lowest groups. Overall sacubitril/valsartan was superior to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibition for first cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78-0.90]), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77-0.91]), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was modified by LVEF (treatment-by-continuous LVEF interaction P=0.02), and benefit appeared to be present for individuals with EF primarily below the normal range, although the treatment benefit for cardiovascular death diminished at a lower ejection fraction. We observed effect modification by LVEF on the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in both men and women with respect to composite total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, although women derived benefit to higher ejection fractions. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor alone, vary by LVEF with treatment benefits, particularly for heart failure hospitalization, that appear to extend to patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction. These therapeutic benefits appeared to extend to a higher LVEF range in women compared with men. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 (PARAGON-HF), NCT01035255 (PARADIGM-HF).

Biomarkers Enhance Discrimination and Prognosis of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The observed incidence of type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI) is expected to increase with the implementation of increasingly sensitive cTn assays. However, it remains to be determined how to diagnose, risk-stratify, and treat patients with T2MI. We aimed to discriminate and risk-stratify T2MI using biomarkers. METHODS: Patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain, enrolled in the CHOPIN study (Copeptin Helps in the early detection Of Patients with acute myocardial INfarction), were retrospectively analyzed. Two cardiologists adjudicated type 1 MI (T1MI) and T2MI. The prognostic ability of several biomarkers alone or in combination to discriminate T2MI from T1MI was investigated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The biomarkers analyzed were cTnI, copeptin, MR-proANP (midregional proatrial natriuretic peptide), CT-proET1 (C-terminal proendothelin-1), MR-proADM (midregional proadrenomedullin), and procalcitonin. The prognostic utility of these biomarkers for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event (a composite of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, reinfarction, heart failure, and stroke) at 180-day follow-up was also investigated. RESULTS: Among the 2071 patients, T1MI and T2MI were adjudicated in 94 and 176 patients, respectively. Patients with T1MI had higher levels of baseline cTnI, whereas those with T2MI had higher baseline levels of MR-proANP, CT-proET1, MR-proADM, and procalcitonin. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the diagnosis of T2MI was higher for CT-proET1, MR-proADM, and MR-proANP (0.765, 0.750, and 0.733, respectively) than for cTnI (0.631). Combining all biomarkers resulted in a similar accuracy to a model using clinical variables and cTnI (0.854 versus 0.884, P=0.294). Addition of biomarkers to the clinical model yielded the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.917). Other biomarkers, but not cTnI, were associated with mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event at 180 days among all patients, with no interaction between the diagnosis of T1MI or T2MI. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of biomarkers reflecting pathophysiologic processes occurring with T2MI might help differentiate it from T1MI. All biomarkers measured, except cTnI, were significant predictors of prognosis, regardless of the type of myocardial infarction.

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.

Effect of Dapagliflozin on Outpatient Worsening of Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), dapagliflozin, added to guideline-recommended therapies, reduced the risk of mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. We examined the frequency and significance of episodes of outpatient HF worsening, requiring the augmentation of oral therapy, and the effects of dapagliflozin on these additional events. METHODS: Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and elevation of NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), were eligible. The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or an urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death, whichever occurred first. An additional prespecified exploratory outcome was the primary outcome plus worsening HF symptoms/signs leading to the initiation of new, or the augmentation of existing, oral treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 36% more patients experienced the expanded, in comparison with the primary, composite outcome. In the placebo group, 684 of 2371 (28.8%) patients and, in the dapagliflozin group, 527 of 2373 (22.2%) participants experienced the expanded outcome (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.65-0.82]; P<0.0001). Each component of the composite was reduced significantly by dapagliflozin. Over the median follow-up of 18.2 months, the number of patients needed to treat with dapagliflozin to prevent 1 experiencing an episode of fatal or nonfatal worsening was 16. Among the 4744 randomly assigned patients, the first episode of worsening was outpatient augmentation of treatment in 407 participants (8.6%), an urgent HF visit with intravenous therapy in 20 (0.4%), HF hospitalization in 489 (10.3%), and cardiovascular death in 295 (6.2%). The adjusted risk of death from any cause (in comparison with no event) after an outpatient worsening was hazard ratio, 2.67 (95% CI, 2.03-3.52); after an urgent HF visit, the adjusted risk of death was hazard ratio, 3.00 (95% CI, 1.39-6.48); and after a HF hospitalization, the adjusted risk of death was hazard ratio, 6.21 (95% CI, 5.07-7.62). CONCLUSION: In DAPA-HF, outpatient episodes of HF worsening were common, were of prognostic importance, and were reduced by dapagliflozin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03036124.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus Valsartan in Women Compared With Men With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84-1.25) in men (P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: 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.