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.

Contemporary American and European Guidelines for Heart Failure Management: JACC: Heart Failure Guideline Comparison.

This review serves to compare contemporary clinical practice recommendations for the management of heart failure (HF), as codified in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline, the 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) guideline, and the 2023 focused update of the 2021 ESC document. Overall, these guidelines aim to solidify significant advances throughout the HF continuum since the publication of previous full guideline iterations (2013 and 2016 for the ACC/AHA and ESC, respectively). All guidelines provide new recommendations for an increasingly complex landscape of HF care, with focus on primary HF prevention, HF stages, rapid initiation and optimization of evidence-based pharmacotherapies, overlapping cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, device-based therapies, and management pathways for special groups of patients, including those with cardiac amyloidosis. Importantly, the ACC/AHA/HFSA document features special emphasis on HF risk prediction and screening, cost/value, social determinants of health, and health care disparities. The review discusses major similarities and differences between these recent guidelines and guideline updates, as well as their potential downstream implications for clinical care.

SGLT2 Inhibitor Use and Risk of Clinical Events in Patients With Cancer Therapy-Related Cardiac Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Certain antineoplastic therapies are associated with an increased risk of cardiomyopathy and heart failure (HF). Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with HF. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) or HF. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of deidentified, aggregate patient data from the TriNetX research network. Patients aged ≥18 years with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer, and exposure to potentially cardiotoxic antineoplastic therapies, with a subsequent diagnosis of cardiomyopathy or HF between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2020, were identified. Patients with ischemic heart disease were excluded. Patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy were divided into 2 groups based on SGLT2 inhibitor use. After propensity score matching, odds ratios (ORs) and Cox proportional HRs were used to compare outcomes over a 2-year follow-up period. RESULTS: The study cohort included 1,280 patients with CTRCD/HF (n = 640 per group; mean age: 67.6 years; 41.6% female; 68% White). Patients on SGLT2 inhibitors in addition to conventional guideline-directed medical therapy had a lower risk of acute HF exacerbation (OR: 0.483 [95% CI: 0.36-0.65]; P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.296 [95% CI: 0.22-0.40]; P = 0.001). All-cause hospitalizations or emergency department visits (OR: 0.479; 95% CI: 0.383-0.599; P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation/flutter (OR: 0.397 [95% CI: 0.213-0.737]; P = 0.003), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.486 [95% CI: 0.382-0.619]; P < 0.001), and need for renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.398 [95% CI: 0.189-0.839]; P = 0.012) were also less frequent in patients on SGLT2 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2 inhibitor use is associated with improved outcomes in patients with CTRCD/HF.

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.

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).

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.

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor Use and Blood Pressure Lowering in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: An Analysis of the Veterans Administrative Health System.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with heart failure and kidney disease have poorly controlled blood pressures. This study aimed to evaluate patterns of blood pressure after initiation of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) across the spectrum of kidney function. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2020, we evaluated 26,091 patients admitted to a Veterans Affairs hospital for an acute heart failure exacerbation with reduced ejection fraction. We assessed patterns of systolic and diastolic blood pressure among those started on ARNI or ACEI/ARB over 6 months, overall and across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). To account for differential treatment factors, we applied 1:1 propensity score matching using 15 known baseline covariates. RESULTS: There were 13,781 individuals treated with an ACEI or ARB and 2589 individuals treated with an ARNI prescription. After propensity score matching, 839 patients were matched in each of the ARNI and ACEI/ARB groups. Mean baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 63.8 (standard deviation 21.6), and 10% had stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease. Patients in the ARNI group experienced greater systolic blood pressure reduction at month 3 (-5.2 mmHg vs -2.2 mmHg, ARNI vs ACEI/ARB; P < 0.001), and month 6 (-4.7 mmHg vs -1.85 mmHg, ARNI vs ACEI/ARB; P < 0.001). These differences in systolic blood pressure by 6 months did not vary by eGFR above and below 60 mL/min/1.73m2 or continuously across a wide range of eGFR (Pinteraction > 0.10 for both). CONCLUSION: The use of ARNI was associated with significant reduction in blood pressure as compared to the ACEI/ARB group overall and across the eGFR spectrum, including in advanced chronic kidney disease.

Risk of Acute Kidney Injury Among Older Adults With Heart Failure and With Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated With Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibitor vs Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor in Routine Clinical Care.

BACKGROUND: The acute hemodynamic effects of sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), may result in early changes in kidney function, raising concerns about acute kidney injury (AKI), particularly in those who are naïve to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using U.S. Medicare fee-for-service claims data (2014-2017). Patients with HFrEF ≥ 65 years newly initiating ARNI or RASi, with no prior use of either drug class, were included. The primary outcome was hospitalization due to AKI as the primary discharge diagnosis, and the secondary outcome included AKI as a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis. AKI risks were described under an as-treated follow-up approach, with censoring on treatment discontinuation, switch, insurance disenrollment, death, or administrative censoring as well as an intent-to-treat approach. Propensity-score-based fine-stratification weighting was used to account for potential confounding by 81 pre-exposure characteristics. Cumulative incidence functions were used to report absolute risks, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to provide hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 27,166 patients with a mean (SD) age of 73 (7.3) years, and 4155 (15.3%) were initiating ARNI. After propensity score weighting, the 180-day cumulative incidence was 2.7% (2.4%-3.1%) among RASi initiators and 2.7% (2.2%-3.5%) among ARNI initiators for the primary outcome, and it was 6.5% (6.0%-7.1%) and 6.1% (5.2%-7.1%), respectively, for the secondary outcome under as-treated follow-up. HR (95% CI) comparing ARNI with RASi were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.72-1.16) for the primary outcome and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.79-1.08) for the secondary outcome. Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among a large cohort of U.S. Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, ARNI treatment was not associated with higher rates of AKI than RASi treatment. These results provide reassurance for providers considering ARNI initiation in older patients who are RASi-naïve.

Diabetes Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare Fee-For-Service Plans: The Diabetes Collaborative Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare's managed care program, is quickly expanding, yet little is known about diabetes care quality delivered under MA compared with traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years old enrolled in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry from 2014 to 2019 with type 2 diabetes treated with one or more antihyperglycemic therapies. Quality measures, cardiometabolic risk factor control, and antihyperglycemic prescription patterns were compared between Medicare plan groups, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 345,911 Medicare beneficiaries, 229,598 (66%) were enrolled in FFS and 116,313 (34%) in MA plans (for ≥1 month). MA beneficiaries were more likely to receive ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers for coronary artery disease, tobacco cessation counseling, and screening for retinopathy, foot care, and kidney disease (adjusted P ≤ 0.001 for all). MA beneficiaries had modestly but significantly higher systolic blood pressure (+0.2 mmHg), LDL cholesterol (+2.6 mg/dL), and HbA1c (+0.1%) (adjusted P < 0.01 for all). MA beneficiaries were independently less likely to receive glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (6.9% vs. 9.0%; adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (5.4% vs. 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95). When integrating Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data from 2014 to 2017 and more recent unlinked data from the Diabetes Collaborative Registry through 2019 (total N = 411,465), these therapeutic differences persisted, including among subgroups with established cardiovascular and kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: While MA plans enable greater access to preventive care, this may not translate to improved intermediate health outcomes. MA beneficiaries are also less likely to receive newer antihyperglycemic therapies with proven outcome benefits in high-risk individuals. Long-term health outcomes under various Medicare plans requires surveillance.

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).

Optimizing Foundational Therapies in Patients With HFrEF: How Do We Translate These Findings Into Clinical Care?

Given the high risk of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there is an urgent need for the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) that can reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality. Clinical practice guidelines are now emphasizing the need for early and rapid initiation of therapies that have cardiovascular benefit. Recognizing that there are many barriers to GDMT initiation and optimization, health care providers should aim to introduce the 4 pillars of quadruple therapy now recommended by most clinical practice guidelines: angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. A large proportion of patients with HFrEF do not have clinical contraindications to GDMT but are not treated with these therapies. Early initiation of low-dose combination therapy should be tolerated by most patients. However, patient-related factors such as hemodynamics, frailty, and laboratory values will need consideration for maximum tolerated GDMT. GDMT initiation in acute heart failure hospitalization represents another important avenue to improve use of GDMT. Finally, removal of therapies that do not have clear cardiovascular benefit should be considered to lower polypharmacy and reduce the risk of adverse side effects. Future prospective studies aimed at guiding optimal implementation of quadruple therapy are warranted to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with HFrEF.

Polypharmacy in Older Heart Failure Patients: a Multidisciplinary Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We provide a review of considerations when applying principles of optimal pharmacotherapy to older adults with heart failure (HF), an analysis on the pivotal clinical trials focusing on applicability to older adults, and multi-disciplinary strategies to optimize the health of HF patients with polypharmacy. RECENT FINDINGS: Polypharmacy is very common among patients with HF, due to medications for both HF and non-HF comorbidities. Definitions of polypharmacy were not developed specifically for older adults with HF and may need to be modified in order to meaningfully describe medication burden and promote appropriate medical therapy. This is because clinical practice guidelines for multi-drug HF regimens have unique considerations, given that they improve outcomes and symptoms of HF. Adults older than 65 years are well represented in contemporary clinical trials for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While these trials did not have significant heterogeneity in safety or efficacy across a broad age spectrum, some may have limited representation of adults ≥ 80 years old, the sickest older adults, or those with decreased functional status. There is also a lack of data on the safety and efficacy of deprescribing HF medications, and deprescription in otherwise stable patients may lead to clinical destabilization or disease progression. There is therefore innate tension between the well-studied benefits of optimized HF therapy for older adults that must be weighed against the risks of polypharmacy and many unknowns that still exist. Given the strong evidence that optimized HF therapies confer symptomatic and mortality benefits for older adults, it is clear that polypharmacy in this context can be appropriate. A shift in paradigm is therefore needed when evaluating polypharmacy in patients with HF. Instead of assuming all polypharmacy is "good" or "bad," we propose a concerted move, using a multidisciplinary approach, to focus on the "appropriateness" of specific medications, in order to optimize HF medical therapy. Clinicians of all specialties caring for complex older adults with HF must consider goals of care, functional status, and new evidence-based therapies, in order to optimize this polypharmacy for older adults.

Stress Cardiac Biomarkers, Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes, and Response to Canagliflozin.

BACKGROUND: Circulating biomarkers reflecting different mechanistic pathways may identify at-risk individuals with diabetes who may benefit from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), soluble suppression of tumorigenesis-2 (sST2), and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) levels, either alone or in combination, may modify the treatment benefits of canagliflozin. METHODS: In the CANVAS (CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study) biomarker substudy, we evaluated the prognostic significance of baseline biomarker measurements, the long-term trajectory of each, and response to canagliflozin on key cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 4,330 study participants, baseline hs-cTnT, sST2, and IGFBP7 were available in 3,503 (81%), 3,084 (71%), and 3,577 (83%). In total, 39% had elevated hs-cTnT ≥14 pg/mL, 6% had sST2 >35 ng/mL, and 49% had IGFBP7 >96.5 ng/mL. Canagliflozin significantly slowed increases of hs-cTnT (P = 0.027) and sST2 (P = 0.033) through 6 years. Each biomarker was significantly associated with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, independent of clinical covariates. Canagliflozin reduced heart failure and kidney events regardless of baseline biomarker concentration. Patients with hs-cTnT ≥14 ng/L and those with sST2 >35 ng/mL derived greater relative benefit for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (both Pinteraction ≤0.05). A panel of all 3 biomarkers predicted each cardiac and kidney outcome evaluated; participants with an increasing number of abnormal circulating biomarkers appeared to have greater relative reductions in MACE from canagliflozin treatment (Pinteraction trend = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin delays longitudinal rise in hs-cTnT and sST2 compared with placebo out to 6 years. Canagliflozin reduced heart failure and kidney events regardless of baseline biomarker concentration. Elevated cardiovascular biomarkers, either alone or in combination, may identify individuals who may derive greater MACE benefit from SGLT2 inhibition. CANVAS (CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study; NCT01032629).

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dosing of Medical Therapy for Heart Failure: From the CHAMP-HF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of differing dosages of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice in the United States is unknown. This study sought to characterize associations between the dosing of GDMT and outcomes for patients with HFrEF in U.S. clinical practice. METHODS: This analysis included 4832 outpatients who had chronic HFrEF across 150 practices in the U.S. in the Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure (CHAMP-HF) registry with no contraindication and available dosing data for at least 1 GDMT at baseline. Baseline dosing of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapies were examined. For each medication class, multivariable models assessed associations between medication dosing and clinical outcomes over 24 months (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization) and patient-reported outcomes at 12 months (change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score [KCCQ-OS]). RESULTS: After adjustment, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was associated with higher all-cause mortality for ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.87-1.55]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.37 [95% CI 1.05-1.79]; none, HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.32-2.34; overall P< 0.001) and beta-blockers (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.00-1.69]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.41 [95% CI 1.11-1.79; none, HR 1.24 [95% CI 0.92-1.67]; overall P= 0.042). Lower dosing of ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs was independently associated with higher risk of HF hospitalization (50% to < 100% target dosage, HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.90-1.30]; < 50% target dosage, HR 1.23 [1.04-1.47]; none, HR 1.29 [1.04-1.60]; overall P= 0.046), but beta-blocker dosing was not (overall P= 0.085). Target dosing of MRAs was not associated with risk of mortality or HF hospitalization. For each GDMT, compared with target dosing, lower dosing was not associated with change in the KCCQ-OS at 12 months, with the potential exception of worsening KCCQ-OS scores with lower dosing of ACEIs/ARBs/ARNIs. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary U.S. outpatient HFrEF registry, target dosing of ACEI/ARB/ARNI and beta-blocker therapy was associated with reduced mortality and was variably associated with HF hospitalization and patient-reported outcomes. MRA dosing was not associated with outcomes. The totality of these findings support the benefits of target dosing of GDMT in routine practice, as tolerated, with unmeasured differences among patients receiving differing dosages potentially explaining the differing results seen here compared with randomized clinical trials.