Finerenone in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: Rationale and design of the FINEARTS-HF trial.

AIM: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), spironolactone and eplerenone, are strongly recommended in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but the balance of efficacy and safety in those with higher LVEF has not been well established. Broad use of steroidal MRAs has further been limited in part due to safety concerns around risks of hyperkalaemia, gynecomastia, and kidney dysfunction. These risks may be mitigated by the unique pharmacological properties of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone. The FINEARTS-HF trial is designed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of the selective non-steroidal MRA finerenone among patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF is a global, multicentre, event-driven randomized trial evaluating oral finerenone versus matching placebo in symptomatic patients with HF with LVEF ≥40%. Adults (≥40 years) with HF with New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms, LVEF ≥40%, evidence of structural heart disease, and diuretic use for at least the previous 30 days were eligible. All patients required elevated natriuretic peptide levels: for patients in sinus rhythm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) ≥300 pg/ml (or B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP] ≥100 pg/ml) were required, measured within 30 days (in those without a recent worsening HF event) or within 90 days (in those with a recent worsening HF event). Qualifying levels of NT-proBNP or BNP were tripled if a patient was in atrial fibrillation at screening. Estimated glomerular filtration rate <25 ml/min/1.73 m2 or serum potassium >5.0 mmol/L were key exclusion criteria. Patients were enrolled irrespective of clinical care setting (whether hospitalized, recently hospitalized, or ambulatory). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death and total (first and recurrent) HF events. The trial started on 14 September 2020 and has validly randomized 6001 participants across 37 countries. Approximately 2375 total primary composite events are targeted. CONCLUSIONS: The FINEARTS-HF trial will determine the efficacy and safety of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone in a broad population of hospitalized and ambulatory patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435626 and EudraCT 2020-000306-29.

Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Patients With Heart Failure and Impaired Renal Function.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction often leads to reluctance to start or continue life-saving heart failure (HF) therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction experiencing significant kidney dysfunction. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from the RALES (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study) and EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) trials. The association between MRA treatment and outcomes was assessed according to whether the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or not. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 4,355 patients included, 295 (6.8%) experienced a deterioration of eGFR after randomization to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. These patients had more impaired baseline cardiac and kidney function (eGFR 47.3 ± 13.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs 70.5 ± 21.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) and had a higher risk of the primary outcome than patients without eGFR deterioration (HR: 2.49; 95% CI: 2.01-3.08; P < 0.001). However, the risk reduction in the primary outcome with MRA therapy was similar in those who experienced a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.99) compared with those who did not (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.56-0.71) (Pinteraction = 0.87). In patients with a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, 21 fewer individuals (per 100 person-years) experienced the primary outcome with MRA treatment, vs placebo, compared with an excess of 3 more patients with severe hyperkalemia (>6.0 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Because patients experiencing a decrease in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 are at very high risk, the absolute risk reduction with an MRA in these patients is large and this decline in eGFR should not automatically lead to treatment discontinuation.

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.

A novel, small-volume subcutaneous furosemide formulation delivered by an abdominal patch infusor device in patients with heart failure: results of two phase I studies.

AIMS: Subcutaneous (SC) furosemide has potential advantages over intravenous (IV) furosemide by enabling self-administration or administration by a lay caregiver, such as facilitating early discharge, preventing hospitalizations, and in palliative care. A high-concentration, pH-neutral furosemide formulation has been developed for SC administration via a small patch infusor pump. We aimed to compare the bioavailability, pharmacokinetic (PK), and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of a new SC furosemide formulation with conventional IV furosemide and describe the first use of a bespoke mini-pump to administer this formulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A novel pH-neutral formulation of SC furosemide containing 80 mg furosemide in ∼2.7 mL (infused over 5 h) was investigated. The first study was a PK/PD study of SC furosemide compared with 80 mg IV furosemide administered as a bolus in ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF). The primary outcome was absolute bioavailability of SC compared with IV furosemide. The second study investigated the same SC furosemide preparation delivered by a patch infusor in patients hospitalized with HF. Primary outcome measures were treatment-emergent adverse events, infusion site pain, device performance, and PK measurements.The absolute bioavailability of SC furosemide in comparison to IV furosemide was 112%, resulting in equivalent diuresis and natriuresis. When SC furosemide was administered via the patch pump, there were no treatment-emergent adverse events and 95% of participants reported no/minor discomfort at the infusion site. CONCLUSION: The novel preparation of SC furosemide had similar bioavailability to IV furosemide. Administration via a patch pump was feasible and well tolerated.

Dapagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in Renal Function.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are guideline recommended in the management of heart failure (HF). Although these therapies can be initiated even in patients with comorbid chronic kidney disease, some patients may face deterioration of kidney function over time. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to examine the safety and efficacy of continuing SGLT2 inhibitors in HF when the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) falls below thresholds for initiation. METHODS: Associations between a deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy, and safety outcomes and treatment with dapagliflozin were evaluated in time-updated Cox proportional hazard models in a participant-level pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. RESULTS: Among 11,007 patients, 347 (3.2%) experienced a deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. These patients had a higher risk of the primary composite outcome (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.48-2.35; P < 0.001). The risk of the primary outcome was lower with dapagliflozin compared with placebo among patients who did (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.33-0.83) as well as did not (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.72-0.86) experience deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2 (Pinteraction = 0.17). The risk of safety outcomes, including drug discontinuation, was higher among patients with deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2; however, rates remained similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with deterioration of eGFR to <25 mL/min/1.73 m2 had elevated risks of cardiovascular outcomes yet appeared to benefit from continuation of dapagliflozin with no excess in safety outcomes between treatment groups. The benefit-to-risk ratio may favor continuation of dapagliflozin treatment in patients with HF experiencing deterioration of kidney function. 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; and Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction According to Polypharmacy Status.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) have a high burden of multimorbidity, often necessitating numerous medications. There may be clinical concern about introducing another medication, especially among individuals with polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the efficacy and safety of addition of dapagliflozin according to the number of concomitant medications in HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, 6,263 participants with symptomatic HF with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo. Baseline medication use (including vitamins and supplements) was collected. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by medication use categories ("nonpolypharmacy": <5 medications; "polypharmacy": 5 to 9 medications; and "hyperpolypharmacy": ≥10 medications) and continuously. The primary outcome was worsening HF or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Overall, 3,795 (60.6%) patients met polypharmacy and 1,886 (30.1%) met hyperpolypharmacy criteria. Higher numbers of medications were strongly associated with higher comorbidity burden and increased rates of the primary outcome. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin similarly reduced the risk of the primary outcome irrespective of polypharmacy status (nonpolypharmacy HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.58-1.34]; polypharmacy HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.75-1.03]; hyperpolypharmacy HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.60-0.88]; Pinteraction = 0.30). Similarly, benefits with dapagliflozin were consistent across the spectrum of total medication use (Pinteraction = 0.06). Although adverse events increased with higher number of medications, they were not more frequent with dapagliflozin, regardless of polypharmacy status. CONCLUSIONS: In the DELIVER trial, dapagliflozin safely reduced worsening HF or cardiovascular death across a broad range of baseline medication use, including among individuals with polypharmacy (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

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.

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.

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.

Adverse Outcomes Associated With Interleukin-6 in Patients Recently Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation may play a role in the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. We examined whether circulating levels of interleukin-6 identify patients at greater risk of adverse outcomes following hospitalization with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: We assessed relationships between interleukin-6 (IL-6) tertiles (T1-3) and all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and subsequent heart failure hospitalization (sHFH) in 286 patients recently hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Associations between IL (interleukin)-6 and outcomes were examined in a Cox-regression model adjusted for risk factors including BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide). Biomarkers including hsCRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) were assessed. RESULTS: The range of IL-6 (pg/mL) in each tertile was T1 (0.71-4.16), T2 (4.20-7.84), and T3 (7.9-236.32). Compared with T1, patients in the highest IL-6 tertile were more commonly male (56% versus 35%) and had higher creatinine (117±45 versus 101±36 µmol/L), hsCRP (11.6 [4.9-26.6]mg/L versus 2.3[1.1-4.2] mg/L). In univariable analysis, rates of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and sHFH were higher in T3 versus T1. All-cause and cardiovascular death rates remained higher in T3 versus T1 after adjustment (P<0.001). One log unit increase in IL-6 was associated with higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.46 [1.17-1.81]), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.40 [1.10-1.77]), and sHFH (hazard ratio, 1.24 [1.01-1.51]) after adjustment. One log unit increase in hsCRP was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular death and all-cause death before and after adjustment for other factors but was not associated with risk of sHFH before or after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients recently hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, IL-6 is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and sHFH after adjustment for risk factors including BNP. These findings are of particular relevance in the context of current anti-IL-6 drug development.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with a history of cancer recruited to heart failure trials.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) therapy trials usually exclude cancer patients. We examined the association between cancer history and outcomes in trial participants with HF and reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined PARADIGM-HF and ATMOSPHERE, which enrolled HFrEF patients (n = 15 415) and we pooled HFpEF patients (ejection fraction ≥45%) enrolled in PARAGON-HF and CHARM-Preserved (n = 7363). The associations between cancer history, cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, non-CV and all-cause death in these trials were examined. Incident cancer diagnoses during these trials were also measured. There were 658 (4.3%) and 624 (8.5%) patients with a cancer history in the HFrEF and HFpEF trials, respectively. HFrEF patients with a cancer history had a higher risk of HF hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.52, p = 0.007) and non-CV death (adjusted HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.16-2.12, p = 0.003) than those without. The risks of other outcomes were similar. There were no differences in the risk of any outcome in HFpEF patients with and without a cancer history. Adjusting for age and sex, the incidence of new cancer in the HFrEF and HFpEF trials was 1.09 (95% CI 0.83-1.36) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.81-1.32) per 100 person-years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants in HFrEF trials with a cancer history had higher risks of HF hospitalization and non-CV death than those without, the risks of CV and all-cause death were similar. Outcomes in HFpEF patients with and without a cancer history were similar. Incident cancer diagnoses were similar in HFrEF and HFpEF trials.

High-dose intravenous iron reduces myocardial infarction in patients on haemodialysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of high-dose iron vs. low-dose intravenous (IV) iron on myocardial infarction (MI) in patients on maintenance haemodialysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a pre-specified analysis of secondary endpoints of the Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients trial (PIVOTAL) randomized, controlled clinical trial. Adults who had started haemodialysis within the previous year, who had a ferritin concentration <400 µg per litre and a transferrin saturation <30% were randomized to high-dose or low-dose IV iron. The main outcome measure for this analysis was fatal or non-fatal MI. Over a median of 2.1 years of follow-up, 8.4% experienced a MI. Rates of type 1 MIs (3.2/100 patient-years) were 2.5 times higher than type 2 MIs (1.3/100 patient-years). Non-ST-elevation MIs (3.3/100 patient-years) were 6 times more common than ST-elevation MIs (0.5/100 patient-years). Mortality was high after non-fatal MI (1- and 2-year mortality of 40% and 60%, respectively). In time-to-first event analyses, proactive high-dose IV iron reduced the composite endpoint of non-fatal and fatal MI [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.93, P = 0.01] and non-fatal MI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; P = 0.01) when compared with reactive low-dose IV iron. There was less effect of high-dose IV iron on recurrent MI events than on the time-to-first event analysis. CONCLUSION: In total, 8.4% of patients on maintenance haemodialysis had an MI over 2 years. High-dose compared to low-dose IV iron reduced MI in patients receiving haemodialysis. EUDRACT REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2013-002267-25.

Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Ramipril on Cardiac Structure and Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PARADISE-MI Echocardiographic Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuate left ventricular (LV) enlargement after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Preclinical data suggest similar benefits with combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition, but human data are conflicting. The PARADISE-MI Echo Study (Prospective ARNI Versus ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) tested the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on LV function and adverse remodeling after high risk-AMI. METHODS: In a prespecified substudy, 544 PARADISE-MI participants were enrolled in the Echo Study to undergo protocol echocardiography at randomization and after 8 months. Patients were randomized within 0.5 to 7 days of presentation with their index AMI to receive a target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Echocardiographic measures were performed at a core laboratory by investigators blinded to treatment assignment. The effect of treatment on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment region. The primary end points were change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial volume (LAV), and prespecified secondary end points included changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes. RESULTS: Mean age was 64±12 years; 26% were women; mean LVEF was 42±12%; and LAV was 49±17 mL. Of 544 enrolled patients, 457 (84%) had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril). There was no significant difference in change in LVEF (P=0.79) or LAV (P =0.62) by treatment group. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.025) and greater decline in LV mass index (P=0.037), increase in tissue Doppler e'lat (P=0.005), decrease in E/e'lat (P=0.045), and decrease in tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (P=0.024) than patients randomized to ramipril. These differences remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV mass index, LAV, and Doppler-based diastolic indices were associated with risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril after AMI did not result in changes in LVEF or LAV at 8 months. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater improvement in filling pressure. Measures of LV size, systolic function, and diastolic properties were predictive of cardiovascular death and incident heart failure after AMI in this contemporary, well-treated cohort. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure and Effect of Dapagliflozin: Findings From DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is common in heart failure and associated with worse outcomes. We examined the prevalence and consequences of iron deficiency in the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure) and the effect of dapagliflozin on markers of iron metabolism. We also analyzed the effect of dapagliflozin on outcomes, according to iron status at baseline. METHODS: Iron deficiency was defined as a ferritin level <100 ng/mL or a transferrin saturation <20% and a ferritin level 100 to 299 ng/mL. Additional biomarkers of iron metabolism, including soluble transferrin receptor, erythropoietin, and hepcidin were measured at baseline and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or urgent visit requiring intravenous therapy) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Of the 4744 patients randomized in DAPA-HF, 3009 had ferritin and transferrin saturation measurements available at baseline, and 1314 of these participants (43.7%) were iron deficient. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with iron deficiency (16.6 per 100 person-years) compared with those without (10.4 per 100 person-years; P<0.0001). The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent in iron-deficient compared with iron-replete patients (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.58-0.92] versus 0.81 [95% CI, 0.63-1.03]; P-interaction=0.59). Similar findings were observed for cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Transferrin saturation, ferritin, and hepcidin were reduced and total iron-binding capacity and soluble transferrin receptor increased with dapagliflozin compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency was common in DAPA-HF and associated with worse outcomes. Dapagliflozin appeared to increase iron use but improved outcomes, irrespective of iron status at baseline. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Within trial comparison of survival time projections from short-term follow-up with long-term follow-up findings.

AIMS: Data on long-term treatment effects are scarce, despite the intent to use new therapies for many years and the need of patients, physicians and payers to have a better understanding of the lifetime benefits of treatments. The restricted mean or median survival time (RMST) calculated using age instead of time, hypothetically enables estimation of long-term gain in event-free or overall survival from the short-term (within-trial) effects of an intervention, compared with its control. Tha aim of the study is to use trials with long-term follow-up available through extension studies to compare the long-term projections estimated using RMST from within-trial follow-up data with the actual long-term outcomes in the extension studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We estimated the median long-term survival time using age instead of follow-up time and compared these model-based projections with the actual long-term estimates in the (i) SCD-HeFT trial vs. SCD-HeFT long-term outcomes; (ii) SOLVD trial vs. SOLVD 12 year follow-up; (iii) STICH trial vs. STICHES; and (iv) ACCORD study vs. ACCORDION. In the long-term follow-up of SCD-HeFT, gain in survival with ICD vs. placebo over a median of 11.0 years was +1.4 years of life. The RMST model-derived survival projection from the within-trial data (median follow-up of 3.4 years) gave an estimated survival gain of +1.2 years. In STICHES, over a median follow-up of 9.8 years, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. medical care led to a survival extension of +1.4 years in favour of CABG. RMST projections using within-trial data from STICH (median follow-up of 4.9 years), gave an extended survival of +2.4 years in favour of CABG in younger patients. In the long-term follow-up of SOLVD, enalapril vs. placebo led to a survival gain of +0.8 years over a median follow-up of 12.1 years. The RMST projections from the within-trial data (median follow-up of 2.8 years) gave a survival extension of +0.3 years in favour of enalapril. In the long-term follow-up ACCORDION study, with a median follow-up of 8.8 years, intensive vs. a standard anti-hyperglycaemic treatment did not influence long-term survival, which was concordant with the RMST projections from the short-term ACCORD study with median follow-up of 4.9 years. CONCLUSIONS: Age-based survival projections using within-trial data generally provided concordant results with the actual survival measured in long-term follow-up extension studies. Our findings suggest that age-based lifetime projections may be used as means to assess the long-term treatment effects.

Dapagliflozin reduces uric acid concentration, an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in DAPA-HF.

AIMS: Blood uric acid (UA) levels are frequently elevated in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), may lead to gout and are associated with worse outcomes. Reduction in UA is desirable in HFrEF and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may have this effect. We aimed to examine the association between UA and outcomes, the effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline UA level, and the effect of dapagliflozin on UA in patients with HFrEF in the DAPA-HF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The association between UA and the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure, its components, and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox regression analyses among 3119 patients using tertiles of UA, after adjustment for other prognostic variables. Change in UA from baseline over 12 months was also evaluated. Patients in tertile 3 (UA ≥6.8 mg/dl) versus tertile 1 (<5.4 mg/dl) were younger (66.3 ± 10.8 vs. 68 ± 10.2 years), more often male (83.1% vs. 71.5%), had lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (58.2 ± 17.4 vs. 70.6 ± 18.7 ml/min/1.73 m2 ), and more often treated with diuretics. Higher UA was associated with a greater risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio tertile 3 vs. tertile 1: 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.66; p = 0.01). The risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death increased by 7% and 6%, respectively per 1 mg/dl unit increase of UA (p = 0.04 and p = 0.07). Spline analysis revealed a linear increase in risk above a cut-off UA value of 7.09 mg/dl. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced UA by 0.84 mg/dl (95% CI -0.93 to -0.74) over 12 months (p < 0.001). Dapagliflozin improved outcomes, irrespective of baseline UA concentration. CONCLUSION: Uric acid remains an independent predictor of worse outcomes in a well-treated contemporary HFrEF population. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced UA and improved outcomes irrespective of UA concentration.

Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition and renal outcomes across the spectrum of ejection fraction in heart failure.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure are at higher risk of progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), regardless of ejection fraction (EF). We assessed the renal effects of angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in a pooled analysis of 13 195 patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved EF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined data from PARADIGM-HF (EF ≤40%; n = 8399) and PARAGON-HF (EF ≥45%; n = 4796) in a pre-specified pooled analysis. We assessed the effect of treatment (sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril or valsartan) on a composite of either ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), ESRD, or death from renal causes, in addition to changes in eGFR slope. We assessed whether baseline renal function or EF modified the effect of therapy on renal outcomes. At randomization, eGFR was 68 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARADIGM-HF and 63 ± 19 ml/min/1.73 m2 in PARAGON-HF. The composite renal outcome occurred in 70 of 6594 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and in 123 of 6601 patients (1.9%) in the valsartan or enalapril group (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.75; p < 0.001). The mean eGFR change was -1.8 (95% CI -1.9 to -1.7) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year for the sacubitril/valsartan group, compared with -2.4 (95% CI -2.5 to -2.2) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year for the valsartan or enalapril group. The treatment effect on the composite renal endpoint was not modified by categories of baseline eGFR (p-interaction = 0.64), but was most pronounced in those with baseline EF between 30% and 60% (p-interaction = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the risk of serious adverse renal outcomes and slowed decline in eGFR, compared with valsartan or enalapril, independent of baseline renal function.

Resistance to antihypertensive treatment and long-term risk: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study.

More stringent blood pressure (BP) goals have led to greater prevalence of apparent resistant hypertension (ARH), yet the long-term prognostic impact of ARH diagnosed according to these goals in the general population remains unknown. We assessed the prognostic impact of ARH according to contemporary BP goals in 9612 participants of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study without previous cardiovascular disease. ARH, defined as BP above goal (traditional goal <140/90 mmHg, more stringent goal <130/80 mmHg) despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive drug classes or any BP with ≥4 antihypertensive drug classes (one of which was required to be a diuretic) was compared with controlled hypertension (BP at goal with 1-3 antihypertensive drug classes). Cox regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race, study center, BMI, heart rate, smoking, eGFR, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, and diabetes. Using the traditional BP goal, 133 participants (3.8% of the treated) had ARH. If the more stringent BP goal was instead applied, 785 participants (22.6% of the treated) were reclassified from controlled hypertension to uncontrolled hypertension (n = 725) or to ARH (n = 60). Over a median follow-up time of 19 years, ARH was associated with increased risk for a composite end point (all-cause mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure) regardless of whether traditional (adjusted HR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.23-1.82) or more stringent (adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.20-1.70) blood pressure goals were applied. We conclude that in patients free from cardiovascular disease, ARH predicted long-term risk regardless of whether traditional or more stringent BP criteria were applied.

Initiation of domiciliary care and nursing home admission following first hospitalization for heart failure, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic diseases are at higher risk of requiring domiciliary and nursing home care, but how different chronic diseases compare in terms of risk is not known. We examined initiation of domiciliary care and nursing home admission among patients with heart failure (HF), stroke, COPD and cancer. METHODS: Patients with a first-time hospitalization for HF, stroke, COPD or cancer from 2008-2016 were identified. Patients were matched on age and sex and followed for five years. RESULTS: 111,144 patients, 27,786 with each disease, were identified. The median age was 69 years and two thirds of the patients were men. The 5-year risk of receiving domiciliary care was; HF 20.9%, stroke 25.2%, COPD 24.6% and cancer 19.3%. The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), with HF patients used as reference, were: stroke 1.35[1.30-1.40]; COPD 1.29[1.25-1.34]; and cancer 1.19[1.14-1.23]. The five-year incidence of nursing home admission was 6.6% for stroke, and substantially lower in patients with HF(2.6%), COPD(2.6%) and cancer (1.5%). The adjusted HRs were (HF reference): stroke, 2.44 [2.23-2.68]; COPD 1.01 [0.91-1.13] and cancer 0.76 [0.67-0.86]. Living alone, older age, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, depression and dementia predicted a higher likelihood of both types of care. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF, stroke, COPD or cancer 5-year risk of domiciliary care and nursing home admission, ranged from 19-25% and 1-7%, respectively. Patients with stroke had the highest rate of domiciliary care and were more than twice as likely to be admitted to a nursing home, compared to patients with the other conditions.

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.