Renin-Angiotensin Inhibition and Outcomes in HFrEF and Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, less is known about their effectiveness in patients with HFrEF and advanced kidney disease. METHODS: In the Medicare-linked Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF), 1582 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) had advanced kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Of these, 829 were not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) prior to admission, of whom 214 were initiated on these drugs prior to discharge. We calculated propensity scores for receipt of these drugs for each of the 829 patients and assembled a matched cohort of 388 patients, balanced on 47 baseline characteristics (mean age 78 years; 52% women; 10% African American; 73% receiving beta-blockers). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated comparing 2-year outcomes in 194 patients initiated on ACE inhibitors or ARBs to 194 patients not initiated on those drugs. RESULTS: The combined endpoint of heart failure readmission or all-cause mortality occurred in 79% and 84% of patients initiated and not initiated on ACE inhibitors or ARBs, respectively (HR associated with initiation, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98). Respective HRs (95% CI) for the individual endpoints of - Respective HRs (95% CI) for the individual endpoints of all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission were 0.81 (0.63-1.03) and 0.63 (0.47-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our study add new information to the body of cumulative evidence that suggest that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors may improve clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF and advanced kidney disease. These hypothesis-generating findings need to be replicated in contemporary patients.

Sex-Related Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: To describe characteristics and outcomes in women and men with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: Baseline characteristics (including biomarkers and quality of life) and outcomes (primary outcome: composite of first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death) were compared in 4458 women and 4010 men enrolled in CHARM-Preserved (Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity) (EF≥45%), I-Preserve (Irbesartan in heart failure with Preserved ejection fraction), and TOPCAT-Americas (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist trial). RESULTS: Women were older and more often obese and hypertensive but less likely to have coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation. Women had more symptoms and signs of congestion and worse quality of life. Despite this, the risk of the primary outcome was lower in women (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]), as was the risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.62-0.80]), but there was no difference in the rate for first hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]). The lower risk of cardiovascular death in women, compared with men, was in part explained by a substantially lower risk of sudden death (hazard ratio, 0.53 [0.43-0.65]; P<0.001). E/A ratio was lower in women (1.1 versus 1.2). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between women and men with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Despite worse symptoms, more congestion, and lower quality of life, women had similar rates of hospitalization and better survival than men. Their risk of sudden death was half that of men. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658, NCT01035255.

Income level and inequality as complement to geographical differences in cardiovascular trials.

BACKGROUND: Analyses of country or regional differences in cardiovascular (CV) trials are based on geographical subgroup analyses. However, apart from map location and related racial, ethnic, and genetic variations, identified differences may also depend on social structure and provision and access to health care, for which country income and income inequality are indicators. The aim of the study was to examine the association between country per capita income and income inequality and prognosis in patients with heart failure or an acute coronary syndrome in 3 international trials (EMPHASIS-HF, EPHESUS, and EXAMINE). METHODS: Countries were classified into high income or low-middle income (LMICs) and into low, middle, or high inequality using the Gini index. The main outcome measures were all-cause and CV death. RESULTS: Patients from LMICs and countries with higher inequality were younger, were less often white, had fewer comorbid conditions, and were less often treated with guideline-recommended therapies, including devices. These patients had higher adjusted mortality rates (+15% to +70%) compared with patients from high-income countries and countries with less inequality. Patients from countries with the combination of greater inequality and low-middle income had particularly high mortality rates (+80% to +190%) compared with those that did not have both characteristics. Living in a country that is poor and has inequality had more impact on death rates than any comorbidity. These findings were reproduced in 3 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Patients from LMICs and countries with greater inequality had the highest mortality rates. The prognostic impact of income and inequality is substantial and should be considered when looking into subgroup differences in CV trials.

Correction to: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patiromer and Spironolactone Therapy in Heart Failure Patients with Hyperkalemia.

Correction to Bounthavong M, Butler J, Dolan CM, Dunn JD, Fisher KA, Oestreicher N, Pitt B, Hauptman PJ, Veenstra DL.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patiromer and Spironolactone Therapy in Heart Failure Patients with Hyperkalemia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Certain patients with heart failure (HF) are unable to tolerate spironolactone therapy due to hyperkalemia. Patiromer is a novel agent used to treat hyperkalemia and has been shown to be efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated. The potential clinical outcomes and economic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with HF unable to otherwise tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia are unclear. The objective of this analysis was to model the potential pharmacoeconomic value of using patiromer and spironolactone in patients with a history of hyperkalemia that prevents them from utilizing spironolactone. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with patiromer, spironolactone, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV HF compared with ACEI alone. A Markov model was constructed to simulate a cohort of 65-year-old patients diagnosed with HF from the payer perspective across the lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the RALES and OPAL-HK randomized trials of spironolactone and patiromer, respectively. Utility estimates and costs were derived from the literature and list prices. Outcomes assessed included hospitalization, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model findings. RESULTS: Treatment with patiromer-spironolactone-ACEI was projected to increase longevity compared with ACEI alone (5.29 vs. 4.62 life-years gained, respectively), greater QALYs (2.79 vs. 2.60), and costs (US$28,200 vs. US$18,200), giving an ICER of US$52,700 per QALY gained. The ICERs ranged from US$40,000 to US$85,800 per QALY gained in 1-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the use of spironolactone-patiromer-ACEI may provide clinical benefit and good economic value in patients with NYHA class III-IV HF unable to tolerate spironolactone due to hyperkalemia.

Expert Panel Recommendations for the Identification and Management of Hyperkalemia and Role of Patiromer in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Heart Failure.

Virtual panel meetings were conducted among 7 physicians, all of whom are independent experts, including 3 nephrologists, 2 cardiologists, and 2 emergency medicine physicians (the panel). The panel met with the purpose of discussing the current treatment landscape, treatment challenges, economic impact, and gaps in care for patients with hyperkalemia that is associated with heart failure and chronic kidney disease. The stated goal of the panel discussion was to develop practical solutions in the identification and management of hyperkalemia in this patient population. The panel noted that hyperkalemia is a serious condition that can lead to life-threatening complications, yet the treatment paradigm for hyperkalemia has remained without major advances for approximately 50 years, until the approval of patiromer. A number of issues still exist in the management of this patient population, including the lack of uniform treatment guidelines and consensus regarding the approach to treatment. As part of its effort, the panel developed an algorithm, the Proposed Diagnostic Algorithm for Hyperkalemia Treatment in the Acute Care Setting/Chronic Care. The panel agreed that patiromer appears to be a viable option for the management of hyperkalemia in patients with chronic kidney disease and/or heart failure and in patients who experience chronic hyperkalemia. DISCLOSURES: This panel discussion was funded by Relypsa and facilitated by Magellan Rx Management. Rafique is a principal investigator for Relypsa and serves as a consultant for Instrumentation Laboratory, Magellan Health, Relypsa, and ZS-Pharma. Butler serves as consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CardioCell, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Relypsa, and ZS-Pharma. Lopes and Farnum are employed by Magellan Rx Management. Rafique designed the management protocol for this panel discussion and contributed to the writing and editing of this report document. The other authors report no conflicting interests. Relypsa is the manufacturer of Veltassa (patiromer).

Characterization of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Therapy Initiation in High-Risk Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure guidelines recommend routine monitoring of serum potassium, and renal function in patients treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). How these recommendations are implemented in high-risk patients or according to setting of drug initiation is poorly characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries linked to laboratory data in 10 states with prevalent heart failure as of July 1, 2011, and incident MRA use between May 1 and September 30, 2011. Outcomes included laboratory testing before MRA initiation and in the early (days 1-10) and extended (days 11-90) post-initiation periods, based on setting of drug initiation and the presence of renal insufficiency. Additional outcomes included abnormal laboratory results and adverse events proximate to MRA initiation. Of 10 443 Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure started on an MRA, 19.7% were initiated during a hospitalization. Appropriate follow-up laboratory testing across all time periods occurred in 25.2% of patients with inpatient initiation compared with 2.8% of patients begun as an outpatient. Patients with chronic kidney disease had higher rates of both hyperkalemia and acute kidney failure in the early (1.3% and 2.7%, respectively) and extended (5.6% and 9.8%, respectively) post-initiation periods compared with those without chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiated on MRA therapy as an outpatient had extremely poor rates of guideline indicated follow-up laboratory monitoring after drug initiation. In particular, patients with chronic kidney disease are at high risk for adverse events after MRA initiation. Quality improvement initiatives focused on systems to improve appropriate laboratory monitoring are needed.

Cardiovascular drug development: is it dead or just hibernating?

Despite the global burden of cardiovascular disease, investment in cardiovascular drug development has stagnated over the past 2 decades, with relative underinvestment compared with other therapeutic areas. The reasons for this trend are multifactorial, but of primary concern is the high cost of conducting cardiovascular outcome trials in the current regulatory environment that demands a direct assessment of risks and benefits, using clinically-evident cardiovascular endpoints. To work toward consensus on improving the environment for cardiovascular drug development, stakeholders from academia, industry, regulatory bodies, and government agencies convened for a think tank meeting in July 2014 in Washington, DC. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the meeting and aims to delineate the current adverse trends in cardiovascular drug development, understand the key issues that underlie these trends within the context of a recognized need for a rigorous regulatory review process, and provide potential solutions to the problems identified.

Improving cardiovascular clinical trials conduct in the United States: recommendation from clinicians, researchers, sponsors, and regulators.

Advances in medical therapies leading to improved patient outcomes are in large part related to successful conduct of clinical trials that offer critical information regarding the efficacy and safety of novel interventions. The conduct of clinical trials in the United States, however, continues to face increasing challenges with recruitment and retention. These trends are paralleled by an increasing shift toward more multinational trials where most participants are enrolled in countries outside the United States, bringing into question the generalizability of the results to the American population. This manuscript presents the perspectives and recommendations from clinicians, researchers, sponsors, and regulators who attended a meeting facilitated by the Food and Drug Administration to improve upon the current clinical trial trends in the United States.

Predictors of contemporary coronary artery bypass grafting outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to identify the predictors of outcomes in a contemporary cohort of patients from the Reduction in cardiovascular Events by acaDesine in patients undergoing CABG (RED-CABG) trial. Despite the increasing risk profile of patients who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting, morbidity and mortality have remained low, and identification of the current predictors of adverse outcomes may permit new treatments to further improve outcomes. METHODS: The RED-CABG trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that determined that acadesine did not reduce adverse events in moderately high-risk patients undergoing nonemergency coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal stroke, or the need for mechanical support for severe left ventricular dysfunction through postoperative day 28. Logistic regression modeling with stepwise variable selection identified which prespecified baseline characteristics were associated with the primary outcome. A second logistic model included intraoperative variables as potential covariates. RESULTS: The 4 independent preoperative risk factors predictive of the composite end point were (1) a history of heart failure (odds ratio, 2.9); (2) increasing age (odds ratio, 1.033 per decade); (3) a history of peripheral vascular disease (odds ratio, 1.6); and (4) receiving aspirin before coronary artery bypass grafting (odds ratio, 0.5), which was protective. The duration of the cardiopulmonary bypass (odds ratio, 1.8) was the only intraoperative variable that contributed to adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had heart failure and preserved systolic function had a similar high risk of adverse outcomes as those with low ejection fractions, and new approaches may mitigate this risk. Recognition of patients with excessive atherosclerotic burden may permit perioperative interventions to improve their outcomes. The contemporary risks of coronary artery bypass grafting have changed, and their identification may permit new methods to improve outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms.

AIM: In the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF), aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality and hospitalisation in patients with mild symptoms (New York Heart Association class II) and chronic systolic heart failure (HF). The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in the treatment of these patients in the UK and Spain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Results from the EMPHASIS-HF trial were used to develop a discrete-event simulation model estimating lifetime direct costs and effects (life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) of the addition of eplerenone to standard care among patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms. Eplerenone plus standard care compared with standard care alone increased lifetime direct costs per patient by £4284 for the UK and €7358 for Spain, with additional quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.22 QALYs for the UK and 1.33 QALYs for Spain. Mean lifetime costs were £3520 per QALY in the UK and €5532 per QALY in Spain. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 100% likelihood of eplerenone being regarded as cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (UK) or €30 000 per QALY (Spain). CONCLUSIONS: By currently accepted standards of value for money, the addition of eplerenone to optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms is likely to be cost-effective.

The relationship between anemia, change in hematocrit over time and change in health status in patients with heart failure after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Studies have identified anemia as a potential therapeutic target in patients with heart failure, with the goal of improving survival and health status. However, whether changes in hematocrit are associated with changes in health status is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 1382 patients with heart failure after myocardial infarction who had serial hematocrits and health status assessments with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Linear regression models assessed the relationship between change in hematocrit and change in health status between 1 month (baseline) and 3 months after hospitalization. During follow-up, 12.6% of patients experienced a greater than 2% decline in hematocrit, 32.5% experienced a greater than 2% improvement in hematocrit, and 54.9% had no significant hematocrit change. After multivariable adjustment there was a highly significant interaction (P = .007) between baseline hematocrit and change in hematocrit, suggesting that the effects of changes in hematocrit on health status vary as a function of patients' initial hematocrits. Patients with severe anemia initially (hematocrit < or = 33%) experienced marked decrements in health status (-4.4 point KCCQ change per 1% hematocrit decline, P = .006) with further declines in hematocrit, but only modest health status gains with hematocrit improvements (0.6 point KCCQ change per 1% hematocrit improvement, P = .3). Less pronounced changes were observed among patients with a baseline hematocrit greater than 33% to 39%, and no significant changes were seen in patients with hematocrit levels greater than 39%. CONCLUSION: Among anemic patients with heart failure, a decrease in hematocrit is associated with marked decline in health status, whereas health status gains associated with hematocrit improvements are modest.

Cardiovascular safety of drugs not intended for cardiovascular use: need for a new conceptual basis for assessment and approval.

Recently, several drugs for non-cardiovascular diseases have ceased marketing because of cardiovascular risk, highlighting the importance of evaluating the cardiovascular safety of new drugs even if not intended for cardiovascular diseases. Assessing and ensuring acceptable cardiovascular safety of non-cardiovascular drugs is difficult; nonetheless, governmental regulatory agencies are likely to change the requirements for drug safety information. This article explores our recommendations for rethinking current regulatory policies, emphasizing the need for mandatory post-marketing surveillance registries and highlighting the exposures necessary to subserve the need for greater assessment of safety issues.

FDA and CPMP rulings on subgroup analyses.

The extent to which subgroup analyses should affect the interpretation and conclusions in a trial report is a contentious matter, and guidelines regarding this issue have been established by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the EU Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Subgroup analyses should be set out in the protocol of clinical trials. The treatment effect itself may vary within a subgroup or covariate. In some cases, interactions are anticipated or are of particular a priori interest; hence a subgroup analysis or a statistical model including interactions is part of the planned analysis. However, subgroup or interaction analyses are often merely exploratory and should be clearly identified as such in the protocol. When exploratory, these analyses should be interpreted cautiously. Market approval of a compound is based on the overall trial results, and, importantly, no drug has so far been approved or not-approved either in the US or in the EU on the basis of subgroup analysis. However, subgroup analysis can influence the approval or can even be required, and therefore it can influence the labelling of the Summary Characteristics of a Product. Two examples in heart failure are given by the Val-HeFT trial comparing valsartan to placebo and the MERIT-HF trial comparing metoprolol to placebo, from which some remarkable regulatory issues arose that were debated by the FDA and CPMP.

Aldosterone blockade in post-acute myocardial infarction heart failure.

Development of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) significantly increases mortality post acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Aldosterone contributes to the development and progression of HF post AMI, and major guidelines now recommend aldosterone blockade in this setting. However, lack of practical experience with aldosterone blockade may make clinicians hesitant to use these therapies. This review is based on a consensus cardiology conference that occurred in May 2005 (New York City) concerning these topics. Potential barriers to the use of aldosterone blockade are discussed and an algorithm for appropriate in-hospital pharmacologic management of AMI with LVSD and/or HF is presented.

Cost-effectiveness of eplerenone compared with placebo in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure.

BACKGROUND: In the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS), aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. The present study was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone compared with placebo in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 6632 patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction were randomized to eplerenone or placebo and followed up for a mean of 16 months. The coprimary end points were all-cause mortality and the composite of cardiovascular mortality/cardiovascular hospitalization. The evaluation of resource use included hospitalizations, outpatient services, and medications. Eplerenone was priced at the average wholesale price, 3.60 dollars per day. Survival beyond the trial period was estimated from data from the Framingham Heart Study, the Saskatchewan Health database, and the Worcester Heart Attack Registry. The incremental cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in cost per life-year and quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with placebo was estimated. The number of life-years gained with eplerenone was 0.1014 based on Framingham (95% CI, 0.0306 to 0.1740), 0.0636 with Saskatchewan (95% CI, 0.0229 to 0.1038), and 0.1337 with Worcester (95% CI, 0.0438 to 0.2252) data. Cost was 1391 dollars higher over the trial period in the eplerenone arm (95% CI, 656 to 2165) because of drug cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 13,718 dollars per life-year gained with Framingham (96.7% under 50,000 dollars per life-year gained), 21,876 dollars with Saskatchewan, and 10,402 dollars with Worcester. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone compared with placebo in the treatment of heart failure after acute myocardial infarction is effective in reducing mortality and is cost-effective in increasing years of life by commonly used criteria.

Medical costs and quality of life 10 to 12 years after randomization to angioplasty or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary bypass surgery (CABG) and angioplasty (PTCA) have been compared in several randomized trials, but data about long-term economic and quality-of-life outcomes are limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cost and quality-of-life data were collected prospectively from 934 patients who were randomized in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) and followed up for 10 to 12 years. CABG had 53% higher costs initially, but the gap closed to <5% during the first 2 years; after 12 years, the mean cumulative cost of CABG patients was 123,000 dollars versus 120,750 dollars for PTCA, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,300 dollars/life-year added. CABG patients experienced significantly greater improvement in their physical functioning for the first 3 years but not in later follow-up. Recurrent angina substantially reduced all quality-of-life measures throughout follow-up. Cumulative costs were significantly higher among patients with diabetes, heart failure, and comorbid conditions and among women; costs also were increased by angina, by the number of revascularization procedures, and among patients who died. CONCLUSIONS: Early differences between CABG and PTCA in costs and quality of life were no longer significant at 10 to 12 years of follow-up. CABG was cost-effective as compared with PTCA for multivessel disease.

Generic drugs in cardiology: will they reduce health care costs?

The introduction of generic drugs should lower health care costs by reducing the price of drugs. The realization of this goal may, however, not be fully achieved: generic drugs may be underused or misused in comparison to prescription drugs because of a lack of ongoing postgraduate physician education. More importantly, there is little incentive to explore new indications for soon-to-be generic drugs and drugs that are already generic. The failure to explore new indications for soon-to-be and existing generic drugs may result in a missed opportunity to further reduce health care costs. Thus, the apparent savings resulting from the introduction of generic drugs may not be fully realized unless the government and other third-party payers take a more active role in postgraduate drug education and investigation.