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.

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).

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kidney Function and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Few contemporary data exist evaluating care patterns and outcomes in heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of kidney function. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to characterize differences in quality of care and outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF by degree of kidney dysfunction. METHODS: Guideline-directed medical therapies were evaluated among patients hospitalized with HF at 418 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry from 2014 to 2019 by discharge CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration)-derived estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We additionally evaluated the risk-adjusted association of admission eGFR with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 365,494 hospitalizations (age 72 ± 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [EF]: 43 ± 17%), median discharge eGFR was 51 ml/min/1.73 m2 (interquartile range: 34 to 72 ml/min/1.73 m2), 234,332 (64%) had eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 18,869 (5%) were on dialysis. eGFR distribution remained stable from 2014 to 2019. Among 157,439 patients with HF with reduced EF (≤40%), discharge guideline-directed medical therapies, including beta-blockers, were lowest in discharge eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or dialysis (p < 0.001). "Triple therapy" with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor + beta-blocker + mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was used in 38%, 33%, 25%, 15%, 5%, and 3% for eGFR ≥90, 60 to 89, 45 to 59, 30 to 44, <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, and dialysis, respectively; p < 0.001. Mortality was higher in a graded fashion at lower admission eGFR groups (1.1%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 3.0%, 5.0%, and 4.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Steep covariate-adjusted associations between admission eGFR and mortality were observed across EF subgroups, but was slightly stronger for HF with reduced EF compared with HF with mid-range or preserved EF (pinteraction = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Despite facing elevated risks of mortality, patients with comorbid HF with reduced EF and kidney disease are not optimally treated with evidence-based medical therapies, even at levels of eGFR where such therapies would not be contraindicated by kidney dysfunction. Further efforts are required to mitigate risk in comorbid HF and kidney disease.

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).

Deprescribing for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and use of inappropriate medications have been linked to increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, cognitive impairment, and death. The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1990 through February 2019 for controlled clinical trials comparing any deprescribing intervention to usual care or another intervention. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, and falls. The secondary outcome was use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Interventions were categorized as comprehensive medication review, educational initiatives, and computerized decision support. Data abstracted by one investigator were verified by another. We used the Cochrane criteria to rate risk of bias for each study and the GRADE system to determine certainty of evidence (COE) for primary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight low and medium risk of bias clinical trials were included. Comprehensive medication review may have reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.95, I2 = 0, k = 12, low COE) but probably had little to no effect on falls, health-related quality of life, or hospitalizations (low to moderate COE). Nine of thirteen trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention group. Educational interventions probably had little to no effect on all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, or health-related quality of life (low to moderate COE). The effect on falls was uncertain (very low COE). All 11 education trials that included PIMs reported fewer in the intervention than in the control groups. Two of 4 computerized decision support trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention arms; none included any primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: In community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older, medication deprescribing interventions may provide small reductions in mortality and use of potentially inappropriate medications. REGISTRY INFORMATION: PROSPERO - CRD42019132420.

Influenza Vaccination Is Associated With Reduced Cardiovascular Mortality in Adults With Diabetes: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Recent influenza infection is associated with an increased risk of atherothrombotic events, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke. Little is known about the association between influenza vaccination and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used nationwide register data to identify patients with diabetes in Denmark during nine consecutive influenza seasons in the period 2007-2016. Diabetes was defined as use of glucose-lowering medication. Patients who were not 18-100 years old or had ischemic heart disease, heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, or cerebrovascular disease were excluded. Patient exposure to influenza vaccination was assessed before each influenza season. We considered the outcomes of death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from AMI or stroke. For each season, patients were monitored from December 1 until April 1 the next year. RESULTS: A total of 241,551 patients were monitored for a median of four seasons (interquartile range two to eight seasons) for a total follow-up of 425,318 person-years. The vaccine coverage during study seasons ranged from 24% to 36%. During follow-up, 8,207 patients died of all causes (3.4%), 4,127 patients died of cardiovascular causes (1.7%), and 1,439 patients died of AMI/stroke (0.6%). After adjustment for confounders, vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risks of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, P < 0.001), cardiovascular death (HR 0.84, P < 0.001), and death from AMI or stroke (HR 0.85, P = 0.028) and a reduced risk of being admitted to hospital with acute complications associated with diabetes (diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia, or coma) (HR 0.89, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with diabetes, influenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and death from AMI or stroke. Influenza vaccination may improve outcome in patients with diabetes.

Trends in prevalence of comorbidities in heart failure clinical trials.

AIMS: The primary objective of this systematic review was to estimate the prevalence and temporal changes in chronic comorbid conditions reported in heart failure (HF) clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE for HF trials enrolling more than 400 patients published between 2001 and 2016.Trials were divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), or trials enrolling regardless of ejection fraction. The prevalence of baseline chronic comorbid conditions was categorized according to the algorithm proposed by the Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse, which is used to analyse Medicare data. To test for a trend in the prevalence of comorbid conditions, linear regression models were used to evaluate temporal trends in prevalence of comorbidities. Overall, 118 clinical trials enrolling a cumulative total of 215 508 patients were included. Across all comorbidities examined, data were reported in a mean of 35% of trials, without significant improvement during the study period. Reporting of comorbidities was more common in HFrEF trials (51%) compared with HFpEF trials (27%). Among trials reporting data, hypertension (63%), ischaemic heart disease (44%), hyperlipidaemia (48%), diabetes (33%), chronic kidney disease (25%) and atrial fibrillation (25%) were the major comorbidities. The prevalence of comorbidities including hypertension, atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease increased over time while the prevalence of smoking decreased in HFrEF trials. CONCLUSION: Many HF trials do not report baseline comorbidities. A more rigorous, systematic, and standardized framework needs to be adopted for future clinical trials to ensure adequate comorbidity reporting and improve recruitment of multi-morbid HF patients.

Recognition and Initial Management of Fulminant Myocarditis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is an uncommon syndrome characterized by sudden and severe diffuse cardiac inflammation often leading to death resulting from cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmias, or multiorgan system failure. Historically, FM was almost exclusively diagnosed at autopsy. By definition, all patients with FM will need some form of inotropic or mechanical circulatory support to maintain end-organ perfusion until transplantation or recovery. Specific subtypes of FM may respond to immunomodulatory therapy in addition to guideline-directed medical care. Despite the increasing availability of circulatory support, orthotopic heart transplantation, and disease-specific treatments, patients with FM experience significant morbidity and mortality as a result of a delay in diagnosis and initiation of circulatory support and lack of appropriately trained specialists to manage the condition. This scientific statement outlines the resources necessary to manage the spectrum of FM, including extracorporeal life support, percutaneous and durable ventricular assist devices, transplantation capabilities, and specialists in advanced heart failure, cardiothoracic surgery, cardiac pathology, immunology, and infectious disease. Education of frontline providers who are most likely to encounter FM first is essential to increase timely access to appropriately resourced facilities, to prevent multiorgan system failure, and to tailor disease-specific therapy as early as possible in the disease process.

Influence of Age on Efficacy and Safety of Spironolactone in Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: The authors examined efficacy and safety of spironolactone by age in the Americas region (N = 1,767) of the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial. BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction disproportionately affects older adults who may exhibit changes in physiology and variable pharmacokinetics. METHODS: TOPCAT enrolled patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% who were age 50 or older with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and prior heart failure hospitalization or elevated natriuretic peptide levels. Participants were randomized to spironolactone or placebo with a mean follow-up duration of 3.3 years. We assessed treatment effect and safety by protocol-defined age categories (<65, 65 to 74, and ≥75 years). RESULTS: The mean age was 72 ± 10 years (range 50 to 97 years) with 41% over the age of 75 years. Participants ≥75 years were more commonly women and white and had a lower body mass index and estimated glomerular filtration rate compared with the younger age categories. Spironolactone reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo across all age categories (p interaction = 0.42). However, spironolactone was associated with an increased risk of the safety endpoint (hazard ratio: 2.54; 95% confidence interval: 1.91 to 3.37; p < 0.001), particularly in older age groups (p interaction = 0.02). Findings in the whole TOPCAT cohort were consistent with results from the Americas region. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc, exploratory analysis of the TOPCAT trial data from the Americas region, although there was no effect of age on efficacy, there were considerable effects of age on increased rates of adverse safety outcomes. These results should be weighed when considering spironolactone for older heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients. (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302).

Characteristics and Healthcare Utilization Among Veterans Treated for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Who Switched to Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: US guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), who tolerate an ACEI (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or ARB (angiotensin II receptor blocker), be switched to sacubitril/valsartan to reduce morbidity and mortality. We compared characteristics and healthcare utilization between Veterans with HFrEF who were switched to sacubitril/valsartan versus maintained on an ACEI or ARB. METHODS: retrospective cohort study of treated HFrEF (July 2015-June 2017) using Veterans Affairs data. The index date was the first fill for sacubitril/valsartan and if none, for an ACEI or ARB. Treated HFrEF was defined by (1) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, (2) ≥1 in/outpatient HF encounter, and (3) ≥1 ACEI or ARB fill, all within 1-year preindex. Poisson regression models were used to compare baseline characteristics and 1:1 propensity score-matched adjusted 4-month follow-up healthcare utilization between sacubitril/valsartan switchers and ACEI or ARB maintainers. RESULTS: Switchers (1612; 4.2%) were less likely than maintainers (37 065; 95.8%) to have a history of myocardial infarction or hypertension, and more likely to be black, have a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and higher preindex healthcare utilization. Switchers were less likely to experience follow-up all-cause hospitalizations (11.2% versus 14.0%; risk ratio 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65-0.98], P value 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Few Veterans with treated HFrEF were switched to sacubitril/valsartan within the first 2 years of Food and Drug Administration approval. Sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with a lower risk for all-cause hospitalizations at 4 months follow-up. Reasons for lack of guideline-recommended sacubitril/valsartan initiation warrant investigation and may reveal opportunities for HFrEF care optimization.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes Associated With Hypotensive Episodes Among Heart Failure Patients Receiving Sacubitril/Valsartan or Enalapril: The PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure).

BACKGROUND: In 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), heart failure treatment with sacubitril/valsartan reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared with enalapril but resulted in more symptomatic hypotension. Concern on hypotension may be limiting use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We characterized patients in PARADIGM-HF by whether they reported hypotension during study run-in periods (enalapril, followed by sacubitril/valsartan) and after randomization and assessed whether hypotension modified the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan. Of the 10 513 patients entering the enalapril run-in, 136 (1.3%) experienced hypotension and 93 (68%) were unable to continue to the next phase; of 9419 patients entering the sacubitril/valsartan run-in period, 228 (2.4%) patients experienced hypotension and 51% were unable to successfully complete the run-in. After randomization, 388 (9.2%) participants had 501 hypotensive events with enalapril, and 588 (14.0%) participants had 803 hypotensive events with sacubitril/valsartan (P<0.001). There was no difference between randomized treatment groups in the number of participants who discontinued therapy because of hypotension. Individuals with a hypotensive event in either group were older, had lower blood pressure at randomization, and were more likely to have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Participants with hypotensive events during run-in who were ultimately randomized derived similar efficacy from sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril as those without hypotensive events (P interaction>0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Hypotension was more common with sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril in PARADIGM-HF but did not differentially affect permanent discontinuations. Patients with hypotension during run-in derived similar benefit from sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril as those who did not experience hypotension.

The Role of Neprilysin Inhibitors in Cardiovascular Disease.

Heart failure affects over five million Americans each year and contributes to morbidity, mortality, and high health care costs. Despite the benefits of RAAS and SNS blockers, 5-year survival rates in patients with heart failure remain low, necessitating continued research and new drug targets. LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) is an angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor recently approved for HFrEF, with dual actions that result in enhancement of natriuretic peptide levels and blockade of angiotensin II activities. This drug shows promise in further improving clinical outcomes in HFrEF and is being studied in patients with HFpEF. In the PARADIGM-HF study, LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) was shown to reduce the composite of cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations compared with enalapril in patients with HFrEF taking guideline-directed medical therapies and resulted in prolonged survival. In trials, hypotension occurred more frequently with LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) compared to an ACE inhibitor, warranting careful dose titration. Further clinical experience with LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) will provide additional information on tolerability in a broad range of patients of various demographics.