Global Variations in Heart Failure Etiology, Management, and Outcomes.

Importance: Most epidemiological studies of heart failure (HF) have been conducted in high-income countries with limited comparable data from middle- or low-income countries. Objective: To examine differences in HF etiology, treatment, and outcomes between groups of countries at different levels of economic development. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational HF registry of 23 341 participants in 40 high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries, followed up for a median period of 2.0 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: HF cause, HF medication use, hospitalization, and death. Results: Mean (SD) age of participants was 63.1 (14.9) years, and 9119 (39.1%) were female. The most common cause of HF was ischemic heart disease (38.1%) followed by hypertension (20.2%). The proportion of participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction taking the combination of a ß-blocker, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was highest in upper-middle-income (61.9%) and high-income countries (51.1%), and it was lowest in low-income (45.7%) and lower-middle-income countries (39.5%) (P < .001). The age- and sex- standardized mortality rate per 100 person-years was lowest in high-income countries (7.8 [95% CI, 7.5-8.2]), 9.3 (95% CI, 8.8-9.9) in upper-middle-income countries, 15.7 (95% CI, 15.0-16.4) in lower-middle-income countries, and it was highest in low-income countries (19.1 [95% CI, 17.6-20.7]). Hospitalization rates were more frequent than death rates in high-income countries (ratio = 3.8) and in upper-middle-income countries (ratio = 2.4), similar in lower-middle-income countries (ratio = 1.1), and less frequent in low-income countries (ratio = 0.6). The 30-day case-fatality rate after first hospital admission was lowest in high-income countries (6.7%), followed by upper-middle-income countries (9.7%), then lower-middle-income countries (21.1%), and highest in low-income countries (31.6%). The proportional risk of death within 30 days of a first hospital admission was 3- to 5-fold higher in lower-middle-income countries and low-income countries compared with high-income countries after adjusting for patient characteristics and use of long-term HF therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study of HF patients from 40 different countries and derived from 4 different economic levels demonstrated differences in HF etiologies, management, and outcomes. These data may be useful in planning approaches to improve HF prevention and treatment globally.

Impact of prior oral anticoagulant use and outcomes on patients from secondary analysis in the AUGUSTUS trial.

OBJECTIVE: Managing antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is challenging and can be affected by prior oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. We examined the relationship between prior OAC use and outcomes in the AUGUSTUS trial. METHODS: This prespecified secondary analysis is from AUGUSTUS, an open-label, 2-by-2 factorial, RCT to evaluate the safety of apixaban versus vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and aspirin versus placebo in patients with AF and ACS and/or PCI. The primary endpoint, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding and clinical outcomes were compared in patients receiving (n=2262) or not receiving (n=2352) an OAC prior to enrolment. RESULTS: Patients with prior OAC use had more comorbidities, higher CHA2DS2-VASC and HAS-BLED scores, and were more likely enrolled following elective PCI. There was no difference in major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding with or without prior OAC (30 days: 5.1% vs 5.9% (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06); 180 days: 13.5% vs 13.5% (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16)). Patients with prior OAC use had a lower risk of death or ischaemic events (30 days: 1.7% vs 2.8% (aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.92); 180 days: 5.4% vs 7.6% (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88)). No interactions between randomised treatment (apixaban vs VKA, aspirin vs placebo) and prior OAC status were observed for outcomes, apart from apixaban (vs VKA) being associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction with prior OAC use (180 days: 2.0% vs 3.7% (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91(). CONCLUSIONS: In AUGUSTUS, prior OAC use was associated with fewer ischaemic events but not more bleeding. In patients with AF and ACS and/or undergoing PCI, clinicians can be assured that the trial results can be applied to patients regardless of their prior OAC status. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02415400.

Assessment of Omecamtiv Mecarbil for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Heart Failure: A Post Hoc Analysis of Data From the GALACTIC-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a progressive clinical syndrome, and many patients' condition worsen over time despite treatment. Patients with more severe disease are often intolerant of available medical therapies. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil for the treatment of patients with severe heart failure (HF) enrolled in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC-HF) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The GALACTIC-HF study was a global double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trial that was conducted at multiple centers between January 2017 and August 2020. A total of 8232 patients with symptomatic HF (defined as New York Heart Association symptom class II-IV) and left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomized to receive omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo and followed up for a median of 21.8 months (range, 15.4-28.6 months). The current post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients classified as having severe HF compared with patients without severe HF. Severe HF was defined as the presence of all of the following criteria: New York Heart Association symptom class III to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and hospitalization for HF within the previous 6 months. Interventions: Participants were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either omecamtiv mecarbil or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was time to first HF event or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary end points included time to CV death and safety and tolerability. Results: Among 8232 patients enrolled in the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, 2258 patients (27.4%; mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.6] years; 1781 men [78.9%]) met the specified criteria for severe HF. Of those, 1106 patients were randomized to the omecamtiv mecarbil group and 1152 to the placebo group. Patients with severe HF who received omecamtiv mecarbil experienced a significant treatment benefit for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), whereas patients without severe HF had no significant treatment benefit (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P = .005 for interaction). For CV death, the results were similar (HR for patients with vs without severe HF: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75-1.03] vs 1.10 [95% CI, 0.97-1.25]; P = .03 for interaction). Omecamtiv mecarbil therapy was well tolerated in patients with severe HF, with no significant changes in blood pressure, kidney function, or potassium level compared with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of data from the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial, omecamtiv mecarbil therapy may have provided a clinically meaningful reduction in the composite end point of time to first HF event or CV death among patients with severe HF. These data support a potential role of omecamtiv mecarbil therapy among patients for whom current treatment options are limited. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929329.