Incidence of clinical outcomes in heart failure patients with and without advanced chronic kidney disease.

AIMS: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a well-established risk factor for heart failure (HF); however, patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 have been systematically excluded from clinical trials. This study investigated the incidence of HF and kidney outcomes in HF patients with and without advanced CKD, that is, eGFR < 30. METHODS: From nationwide registries, HF patients were identified from 2014 to 2018 and categorized into three groups according to baseline eGFR (eGFR ≥ 60, 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and eGFR < 30). The incidence of primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, end-stage kidney disease and sustained 50% eGFR decline) was estimated using cumulative incidence functions. RESULTS: Of the 21 959 HF patients included, the median age was 73.9 years, and 30% of patients had an eGFR between 30 and 60 and 7% had an eGFR < 30. The 4 year incidence of all-cause mortality was highest for patients with eGFR < 30 (28.3% for patients with eGFR ≥ 60, 51.6% for patients with 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and 72.2% for patients with eGFR < 30). The 4 year incidence of HF hospitalization was comparable between the groups (25.8%, 29.8% and 26.1% for patients with eGFR ≥ 60, 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and eGFR < 30, respectively). For patients with eGFR < 30, kidney outcomes were four times more often the first event than patients with eGFR > 30 (4 year incidence of kidney outcome as the first event was 5.0% for eGFR ≥ 60, 4.8% for 60 > eGFR ≥ 30 and 20.1% for eGFR < 30). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced CKD had a higher incidence of mortality and poorer kidney outcomes than those without advanced CKD, but a similar incidence of HF hospitalizations.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. METHODS: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. RESULTS: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI.

BACKGROUND: Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI. METHODS: The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type. RESULTS: Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

Health and Economic Evaluation of Sacubitril-Valsartan for Heart Failure Management.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration expanded labeling of sacubitril-valsartan from the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF) to all patients with HF, noting the greatest benefits in those with below-normal EF. However, the upper bound of below normal is not clearly defined, and value determinations across a broader EF range are unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis) across various upper-level cutoffs of EF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation included participant-level data from the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNi with ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. PARADIGM-HF was conducted between 2009 and 2014, PARAGON-HF was conducted between 2014 and 2019, and this analysis was conducted between 2021 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A 5-state Markov model used risk reductions for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization from PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Quality-of-life differences were estimated from EuroQol-5D scores. Hospitalization and medication costs were obtained from published national sources; the wholesale acquisition cost of sacubitril-valsartan was $7092 per year. Risk estimates and treatment effects were generated in consecutive 5% EF increments up to 60% and applied to an EF distribution of US patients with HF from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The base case included a lifetime horizon from a health care sector perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at EFs of 60% or less (base case) and at various upper-level EF cutoffs. Results: Among 13 264 total patients whose data were analyzed, for those with EFs of 60% or less, sacubitril-valsartan was projected to add 0.53 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental lifetime cost of $40 892 compared with RASi, yielding an ICER of $76 852 per QALY. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 95% of the values of the ICER occurred between $71 516 and $82 970 per QALY. Among patients with chronic HF and an EF of 60% or less, treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis would be at least of economic intermediate value (ICER <$180 000 per QALY) at a sacubitril-valsartan cost of $10 242 or less per year, of high economic value (ICER <$60 000 per QALY) at a cost of $3673 or less per year, and cost-saving at a cost of $338 or less per year. The ICERs were $67 331 per QALY, $59 614 per QALY, and $56 786 per QALY at EFs of 55% or less, 50% or less, and 45% or less, respectively. Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in only those with EFs of 45% or greater (up to ≤60%) yielded an ICER of $127 172 per QALY gained; treatment was more cost-effective in those at the lower end of this range (ICER of $100 388 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-55%; ICER of $84 291 per QALY gained for those with EFs of 45%-50%). Conclusions and Relevance: Cost-effectiveness modeling provided an ICER for treatment with sacubitril-valsartan vs RASis consistent with high economic value for patients with reduced and mildly reduced EFs (≤50%) and at least intermediate value at the current undiscounted wholesale acquisition cost price at an EF of 60% or less. Treatment was more cost-effective at lower EF ranges. These findings may have implications for coverage decisions and value assessments in contemporary clinical practice guidelines.

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.

Spironolactone effect on cardiac structure and function of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: a pooled analysis of three randomized trials.

AIMS: Spironolactone is currently used in a large proportion of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), yet its effect on cardiac structure and function in a large population has not been well established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of spironolactone on key echocardiographic parameters in HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: An individual-patient-data meta-analysis of three randomized trials (HOMAGE, Aldo-DHF, and TOPCAT) was performed comparing spironolactone (9-12 month exposure) to placebo (or control) for the changes in left atrial volume index (LAVi), left ventricular mass index (LVMi), interventricular septum (IVS) thickness, E/e' ratio, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) among patients with stage B (HOMAGE) or C (Aldo-DHF and TOPCAT) HFpEF. Analysis of covariance was used to test the effect of spironolactone on echocardiographic changes. A total of 984 patients were included in this analysis: 452 (45.9%) from HOMAGE, 398 (40.4%) from Aldo-DHF, and 134 (13.6%) from TOPCAT. The pooled-cohort patient's median age was 71 (66-77) years and 39% were women. Median LAVi was 29 (24-35) ml/m2 , LVMi 100 (84-118) g/m2 , IVS thickness 12 (10-13) mm, E/e' ratio 11 (9-13), and LVEF 64 (59-69)%. Spironolactone reduced LAVi by -1.1 (-2.0 to -0.1) ml/m2 (p = 0.03); LVMi by -3.6 (-6.4 to -0.8) g/m2 (p = 0.01); IVS thickness by -0.2 (-0.3 to -0.1) mm (p = 0.01); E/e' ratio by -1.3 (-2.4 to -0.2) (p = 0.02); and increased LVEF by 1.7 (0.8-2.6)% (p < 0.01). No treatment-by-study heterogeneity was found except for E/e' ratio with a larger effect in Aldo-DHF and TOPCAT (interaction p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Spironolactone improved cardiac structure and function of patients with HFpEF.

The Effects of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition on Major Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the PARADISE-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients who survive an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors decrease the risk of subsequent major cardiovascular events. Whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan reduce major coronary events more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in high-risk patients with recent AMI remains unknown. We aimed to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on coronary outcomes in patients with AMI. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitors Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI), which compared sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) with ramipril (5 mg twice daily) for reducing heart failure events after myocardial infarction in 5661 patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, pulmonary congestion, or both. In the present analysis, the prespecified composite coronary outcome was the first occurrence of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for angina, or postrandomization coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned at a median of 4.4 [3.0-5.8] days after index AMI (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 76%, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction 24%), by which time 89% of patients had undergone coronary reperfusion. Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan decreased the risk of coronary outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-0.99], P=0.04) over a median follow-up of 22 months. Rates of the components of the composite outcomes were lower in patients on sacubitril/valsartan but were not individually significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In survivors of an AMI with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and pulmonary congestion, sacubitril/valsartan-compared with ramipril-reduced the risk of a prespecified major coronary composite outcome. Dedicated studies are necessary to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

Steroidal MRA Across the Spectrum of Renal Function: A Pooled Analysis of RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are underused in patients with kidney dysfunction, and their efficacy among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of steroidal MRAs across the spectrum of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) in randomized controlled trials. The study included patients with heart failure (HF) or myocardial infarction and advanced CKD who participated in the RALES (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study), EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure), TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) in the Americas, and EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-AMI Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study) trials. METHODS: This study used individual patient data meta-analysis using Cox models stratified by trial with treatment-by-eGFR interaction terms. eGFR was recalculated by using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine formula. RESULTS: A total of 12,700 patients were included, of whom 331 (2.6%) had an eGFR ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (mean eGFR: 26.8 ± 3.2 mL/min/1.73 m2). Patients with advanced CKD had higher annualized event rates for all studied outcomes: placebo event rate for the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was ∼3-fold higher in patients with eGFR ≤30 compared with those with eGFR >90 mL/min/1.73 m2: 41.6 vs 14.6 events per 100 person-years. MRAs (vs placebo) reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization, but the effect was attenuated as eGFR decreased: the corresponding HRs by eGFR categories were: HR for >90 mL/min/1.73 m2: 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49-0.78); HR for 61-90 mL/min/1.73 m2: 0.69 (95% CI: 0.61-0.77); HR for 46-60 mL/min/1.73 m2: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74-0.95); HR for 31-45 mL/min/1.73 m2: 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68-0.91); and HR for ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.70-1.32) (treatment-by-eGFR interaction P for trend = 0.033). Investigator-reported hyperkalemia and worsening renal function were more frequent (2- to 3-fold) among MRA users, and hyperkalemia was more frequent as eGFR decreased (treatment-by-eGFR interaction P for trend = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Steroidal MRAs reduced HF hospitalizations and mortality across a wide range of eGFR. However, declining benefit and worsening safety may limit their use in patients with lower eGFR, particularly those with levels ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

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.

Effects of steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on acute and chronic estimated glomerular filtration rate slopes in patients with chronic heart failure.

AIMS: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) form a cornerstone of the management of heart failure (HF), but little is known about the long-term effects of MRA therapy on kidney function. We evaluated acute and chronic estimated glomerular function (eGFR) slopes in the two largest completed trials testing steroidal MRAs in chronic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted parallel post hoc eGFR slope analyses in two multinational, double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trials of steroidal MRAs in chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction (EMPHASIS-HF) and preserved ejection fraction (TOPCAT Americas region). GFR was estimated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Annual slopes of eGFR were assessed by generalized random coefficient models. Least square mean differences in eGFR slopes between steroidal MRA and placebo arms were assessed. Median follow-up was 1.8 years (EMPHASIS-HF) and 3.3 years (TOPCAT Americas). From baseline to month 4-6 ('acute eGFR slope'), compared to placebo, MRA treatment led to an acute decline in eGFR of -2.4 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.4 to -1.4; p < 0.001) and -2.0 ml/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI -3.0 to -1.8; p < 0.001) in EMPHASIS-HF and TOPCAT Americas, respectively. From month 4-6 to end of study, there was no difference in 'chronic eGFR slope' between MRA and placebo arms (-0.3 ml/min/1.73 m2 /year [95% CI -1.3 to 0.7; p = 0.53] and 0.1 ml/min/1.73 m2 /year [95% CI -1.4 to 1.7; p = 0.86]) in EMPHASIS-HF and TOPCAT Americas, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Steroidal MRAs result in acute declines in eGFR but do not modify long-term kidney disease trajectories in chronic HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EMPHASIS-HF (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00232180) and TOPCAT (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00094302).

Flu Vaccine and Mortality in Hypertension: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

Background Influenza infection may increase the risk of stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Whether influenza vaccination may reduce mortality in patients with hypertension is currently unknown. Methods and Results We performed a nationwide cohort study including all patients with hypertension in Denmark during 9 consecutive influenza seasons in the period 2007 to 2016 who were prescribed at least 2 different classes of antihypertensive medication (renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, diuretics, calcium antagonists, or beta-blockers). We excluded patients who were aged <18 years, >100 years, had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, or cerebrovascular disease. The exposure to influenza vaccination was assessed before each influenza season. The end points were defined as death from all-causes, from cardiovascular causes, or from stroke or AMI. For each influenza season, patients were followed from December 1 until April 1 the next year. We included a total of 608 452 patients. The median follow-up was 5 seasons (interquartile range, 2-8 seasons) resulting in a total follow-up time of 975 902 person-years. Vaccine coverage ranged from 26% to 36% during the study seasons. During follow-up 21 571 patients died of all-causes (3.5%), 12 270 patients died of cardiovascular causes (2.0%), and 3846 patients died of AMI/stroke (0.6%). After adjusting for confounders, vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of all-cause death (HR, 0.82; P<0.001), cardiovascular death (HR, 0.84; P<0.001), and death from AMI/stroke (HR, 0.90; P=0.017). Conclusions Influenza vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of death from all-causes, cardiovascular causes, and AMI/stroke in patients with hypertension. Influenza vaccination might improve outcome in hypertension.

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.

Association of Hyper-Polypharmacy With Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is associated with a poor prognosis in the elderly, however, information on the association of polypharmacy with cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is sparse. This study sought to investigate the relationship between polypharmacy and adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: Baseline total number of medications was determined in 1758 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the Americas regions of the TOPCAT trial (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist), by 3 categories: nonpolypharmacy (<5 medications), polypharmacy (5-9), and hyper-polypharmacy (≥10). We examined the relationship of polypharmacy status with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, or aborted cardiac arrest), hospitalizations for any reason, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: The proportion of patients taking 5 or more medications was 92.5% (inclusive of polypharmacy [38.7%] and hyper-polypharmacy [53.8%]). Over a 2.9-year median follow-up, compared with patients with polypharmacy, hyper-polypharmacy was associated with an increased risk for the primary outcome, hospitalization for any reason and any serious adverse events in the univariable analysis, but not significantly associated with mortality. After multivariable adjustment for demographic and comorbidities, hyper-polypharmacy remained significantly associated with an increased risk for hospitalization for any reason (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.05-1.41]; P=0.009) and any serious adverse events (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07-1.42]; P=0.005), whereas the primary outcome was no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Hyper-polypharmacy was common and associated with an elevated risk of hospitalization for any reason and any serious adverse events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. There were no significant associations between polypharmacy status and mortality.

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.

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

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

Incidence and Outcomes of Pneumonia in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of pneumonia and subsequent outcomes has not been compared in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the rate and impact of pneumonia in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials. METHODS: The authors analyzed the incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia and the rates of HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death before and after the occurrence of pneumonia, and estimated risk after the first occurrence of pneumonia in unadjusted and adjusted analyses (the latter including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). RESULTS: In PARADIGM-HF, 528 patients (6.3%) developed pneumonia after randomization, giving an incidence rate of 29 (95% CI: 27 to 32) per 1,000 patient-years. In PARAGON-HF, 510 patients (10.6%) developed pneumonia, giving an incidence rate of 39 (95% CI: 36 to 42) per 1,000 patient-years. The subsequent risk of all trial outcomes was elevated after the occurrence of pneumonia. In PARADIGM-HF, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of death from any cause was 4.34 (95% CI: 3.73 to 5.05). The corresponding adjusted HR in PARAGON-HF was 3.76 (95% CI: 3.09 to 4.58). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of pneumonia was high in patients with HF, especially HFpEF, at around 3 times the expected rate. A first episode of pneumonia was associated with 4-fold higher mortality. (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF], NCT01035255; Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF], NCT01920711).

Cardiac and Noncardiac Disease Burden and Treatment Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Insights From a Combined PARAGON-HF and PARADIGM-HF Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net clinical benefit of cardiac disease-modifying drugs might be influenced by the interaction of different domains of disease burden. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac, comorbid, and demographic factors in heart failure (HF) and how their interplay might influence HF prognosis and efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction. METHODS: We combined data from 2 global trials that evaluated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan compared with a renin-angiotensin antagonist in symptomatic HF patients (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure; n=8399] and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptors Blockers Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; n=4796]). We decomposed the previously validated Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score into cardiac (left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medications), noncardiac comorbid (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking), and demographic (age, gender) categories. Based on these domains, an index representing the balance of cardiac to noncardiac comorbid burden was created (cardiac-comorbid index). Clinical outcomes were time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular deaths and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Higher scores of the cardiac domain were observed in PARADIGM-HF (10 [7-13] versus 5 [3-6], P<0.001) and higher scores of the demographic domain in PARAGON-HF (10 [8-13] versus 5 [2-9], P<0.001). In PARADIGM-HF, the contribution of the cardiac domain to clinical outcomes was greater than the noncardiac domain (P<0.001), while in PARAGON-HF the attributable risk of the comorbid and demographic categories predominated. Individual scores from each sub-domain were linearly associated with the risk of clinical outcomes (P<0.001). Beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan were observed in patients with preponderance of cardiac over noncardiac comorbid burden (cardiac-comorbid index >5 points), suggesting a significant treatment effect modification (interaction P<0.05 for both outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Domains of disease burden are clinically relevant features that influence the prognosis and treatment of patients with HF. The therapeutic benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vary according to the balance of components of disease burden, across different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction.