Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cognitive Function in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prespecified Analysis of PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: A hypothetical concern has been raised that sacubitril/valsartan might cause cognitive impairment because neprilysin is one of several enzymes degrading amyloid-ß peptides in the brain, some of which are neurotoxic and linked to Alzheimer-type dementia. To address this, we examined the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a prespecified substudy of PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction). METHODS: In PARAGON-HF, serial assessment of cognitive function was conducted in a subset of patients with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; score range, 0-30, with lower scores reflecting worse cognitive function). The prespecified primary analysis of this substudy was the change from baseline in MMSE score at 96 weeks. Other post hoc analyses included cognitive decline (fall in MMSE score of ≥3 points), cognitive impairment (MMSE score <24), or the occurrence of dementia-related adverse events. RESULTS: Among 2895 patients included in the MMSE substudy with baseline MMSE score measured, 1453 patients were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 1442 to valsartan. Their mean age was 73 years, and the median follow-up was 32 months. The mean±SD MMSE score at randomization was 27.4±3.0 in the sacubitril/valsartan group, with 10% having an MMSE score <24; the corresponding numbers were nearly identical in the valsartan group. The mean change from baseline to 96 weeks in the sacubitril/valsartan group was -0.05 (SE, 0.07); the corresponding change in the valsartan group was -0.04 (0.07). The mean between-treatment difference at week 96 was -0.01 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.19; P=0.95). Analyses of a ≥3-point decline in MMSE, decrease to a score <24, dementia-related adverse events, and combinations of these showed no difference between sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan. No difference was found in the subgroup of patients tested for apolipoprotein E ε4 allele genotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in PARAGON-HF had relatively low baseline MMSE scores. Cognitive change, measured by MMSE, did not differ between treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and treatment with valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

A novel score to predict left ventricular recovery in peripartum cardiomyopathy derived from the ESC EORP Peripartum Cardiomyopathy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are no established clinical tools to predict left ventricular (LV) recovery in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM). Using data from women enrolled in the ESC EORP PPCM Registry, the aim was to derive a prognostic model to predict LV recovery at 6 months and develop the 'ESC EORP PPCM Recovery Score'-a tool for clinicians to estimate the probability of LV recovery. METHODS: From 2012 to 2018, 752 women from 51 countries were enrolled. Eligibility included (i) a peripartum state, (ii) signs or symptoms of heart failure, (iii) LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45%, and (iv) exclusion of alternative causes of heart failure. The model was derived using data from participants in the Registry and internally validated using bootstrap methods. The outcome was LV recovery (LVEF ≥50%) at six months. An integer score was created. RESULTS: Overall, 465 women had a 6-month echocardiogram. LV recovery occurred in 216 (46.5%). The final model included baseline LVEF, baseline LV end diastolic diameter, human development index (a summary measure of a country's social and economic development), duration of symptoms, QRS duration and pre-eclampsia. The model was well-calibrated and had good discriminatory ability (C-statistic 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.83). The model was internally validated (optimism-corrected C-statistic 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: A model which accurately predicts LV recovery at 6 months in women with PPCM was derived. The corresponding ESC EORP PPCM Recovery Score can be easily applied in clinical practice to predict the probability of LV recovery for an individual in order to guide tailored counselling and treatment.

Loop diuretic utilisation with or without heart failure: impact on prognosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many patients are prescribed loop diuretics without a diagnostic record of heart failure. Little is known about their characteristics and prognosis. METHODS: Glasgow regional health records (2009-2016) were obtained for adults with cardiovascular disease or taking loop diuretics. Outcomes were investigated using Cox models with hazard ratios adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, and co-morbid disease (adjHR). RESULTS: Of 198,898 patients (median age 65 years; 55% women), 161,935 (81%) neither took loop diuretics nor had a diagnostic record of heart failure (reference group), 23,963 (12%) were taking loop diuretics but had no heart failure recorded, 7,844 (4%) had heart failure recorded and took loop diuretics and 5,156 (3%) had heart failure recorded but were not receiving loop diuretics.Five-year mortality was only slightly higher for heart failure in absence of loop diuretics (22%; adjHR: 1.2 [95% CI 1.1-1.3]), substantially higher for those taking loop diuretics with no heart failure recorded (40%; adjHR: 1.8 [95% CI 1.7-1.8]) and highest for heart failure treated with loop diuretics (52%; adjHR: 2.2 [95% CI 2.0-2.2]). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with cardiovascular disease, many are prescribed loop diuretics without a diagnosis of heart failure being recorded. Mortality is more strongly associated with loop diuretic use than with a heart failure record. The diagnosis of heart failure may be often missed, or loop diuretic use is associated with other conditions with a prognosis similar to heart failure, or inappropriate loop diuretic use increases mortality; all might be true.

Heart Failure, Investigator-Reported Sleep Apnea and Dapagliflozin: A Patient-Level Pooled Meta-Analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

BACKGROUND: Sleep apnea is more common in patients with heart failure (HF) than in the general population, but little is known about its association with clinical outcomes in various HF phenotypes or how it might modify the effect of HF therapy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the prevalence of sleep apnea, its association with outcomes and the effects of dapagliflozin in patients with HF with and without sleep apnea in a pooled analysis of 2 trials comparing dapagliflozin to placebo in HFrEF (DAPA-HF trial) and HFmrEF/HFpEF (DELIVER trial). METHODS: A history of sleep apnea was investigator-reported. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: The prevalence of sleep apnea was 5.7% and 7.8% in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF, respectively. The primary outcome occurred at a rate of 16.0 in participants with sleep apnea compared to 10.6 per 100 person-years in those without (adjusted HR 1.29 [95%CI, 1.10-1.52]). Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary endpoint to the same extent in patients with (HR 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.03]) and without sleep apnea (HR 0.79 [0.72-0.87]) [Pinteraction = 0.93]. The beneficial effects of dapagliflozin on other clinical outcomes and symptom burden, physical function, and quality of life were consistent in participants with and without sleep apnea. CONCLUSIONS: In DAPA-HF and DELIVER, the true prevalence of sleep apnea was likely underestimated. An investigator-reported history of sleep apnea was associated with higher rates of worsening HF events. The benefits of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes were consistent in patients with and without sleep apnea. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Unique identifiers: NCT01920711 CONDENSED ABSTRACT: In a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials of more than 11,000 patients with heart failure (HF) across the range of ejection fractions, an investigator-reported history of sleep apnea was associated with higher rates of worsening HF events but not mortality. The beneficial effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes were consistent in patients with and without sleep apnea. These findings provide further evidence for dapagliflozin as a new treatment option for patients with heart failure across the range of ejection fractions.

Revisiting Race and the Benefit of RAS Blockade in Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Concerns have arisen that renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers are less effective in Black patients than non-Black patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: To determine whether the effects of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes differ between Black patients and non-Black patients with HFrEF. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Embase databases through December 31, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized trials investigating the effect of RAS blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with HFrEF that enrolled Black and non-Black patients. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual-participant data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Independent Personal Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Effects were estimated using a mixed-effects model using a 1-stage approach. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. Results: The primary analysis, based on the 3 placebo-controlled RAS inhibitor monotherapy trials, included 8825 patients (9.9% Black). Rates of death and hospitalization for HF were substantially higher in Black than non-Black patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for RAS blockade vs placebo for the primary composite was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.03) in Black patients and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .14). The HR for first HF hospitalization was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.13) in Black patients and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69) in non-Black patients (P for interaction = .006). Conversely, the corresponding HRs for cardiovascular death were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65-1.07) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.77-0.93), respectively (P for interaction = .99). For total hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular deaths, the corresponding rate ratios were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80), respectively (P for interaction = .27). The supportive analyses including the 2 trials adding an angiotensin receptor blocker to background angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment (n = 16 383) gave consistent findings. Conclusions and Relevance: The mortality benefit from RAS blockade was similar in Black and non-Black patients. Despite the smaller relative risk reduction in hospitalization for HF with RAS blockade in Black patients, the absolute benefit in Black patients was comparable with non-Black patients because of the greater incidence of this outcome in Black patients.

Independent prognostic importance of blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio in heart failure.

AIM: Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) to creatinine ratio is associated with worse outcomes in acute heart failure (HF) but little is known about its importance in chronic HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We combined individual patient data from clinical trials (HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]: PARADIGM-HF, ATMOSPHERE and DAPA-HF, and HF with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]: PARAGON-HF and I-PRESERVE). The primary outcome examined was a composite time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death; its components and all-cause death were also examined. Each HF phenotype was categorized according to median BUN/creatinine ratio, generating four groups that is, HFpEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio and HFrEF ≤ and >median BUN/creatinine ratio. The association between BUN/creatinine ratio and outcomes was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 28 820 patients were analysed. The median (IQR) BUN/creatinine ratio was 20.1 (Q1-Q3 16.7-24.7) in HFpEF and 18.7 (15.2-22.8) in HFrEF. In both HFpEF and HFrEF, higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with older age, female sex, and diabetes, but similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The risk of each outcome examined was significantly higher in patients with BUN/creatinine ratio ≥median, compared to

Trends in cardiovascular disease incidence among 22 million people in the UK over 20 years: population based study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) overall and by age, sex, and socioeconomic status, and its variation over time, in the UK during 2000-19. DESIGN: Population based study. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: 1 650 052 individuals registered with a general practice contributing to Clinical Practice Research Datalink and newly diagnosed with at least one CVD from 1 January 2000 to 30 June 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was incident diagnosis of CVD, comprising acute coronary syndrome, aortic aneurysm, aortic stenosis, atrial fibrillation or flutter, chronic ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, second or third degree heart block, stroke (ischaemic, haemorrhagic, and unspecified), and venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Disease incidence rates were calculated individually and as a composite outcome of all 10 CVDs combined and were standardised for age and sex using the 2013 European standard population. Negative binomial regression models investigated temporal trends and variation by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: The mean age of the population was 70.5 years and 47.6% (n=784 904) were women. The age and sex standardised incidence of all 10 prespecified CVDs declined by 19% during 2000-19 (incidence rate ratio 2017-19 v 2000-02: 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.88). The incidence of coronary heart disease and stroke decreased by about 30% (incidence rate ratios for acute coronary syndrome, chronic ischaemic heart disease, and stroke were 0.70 (0.69 to 0.70), 0.67 (0.66 to 0.67), and 0.75 (0.67 to 0.83), respectively). In parallel, an increasing number of diagnoses of cardiac arrhythmias, valve disease, and thromboembolic diseases were observed. As a result, the overall incidence of CVDs across the 10 conditions remained relatively stable from the mid-2000s. Age stratified analyses further showed that the observed decline in coronary heart disease incidence was largely restricted to age groups older than 60 years, with little or no improvement in younger age groups. Trends were generally similar between men and women. A socioeconomic gradient was observed for almost every CVD investigated. The gradient did not decrease over time and was most noticeable for peripheral artery disease (incidence rate ratio most deprived v least deprived: 1.98 (1.87 to 2.09)), acute coronary syndrome (1.55 (1.54 to 1.57)), and heart failure (1.50 (1.41 to 1.59)). CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial improvements in the prevention of atherosclerotic diseases in the UK, the overall burden of CVDs remained high during 2000-19. For CVDs to decrease further, future prevention strategies might need to consider a broader spectrum of conditions, including arrhythmias, valve diseases, and thromboembolism, and examine the specific needs of younger age groups and socioeconomically deprived populations.

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

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

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.

A hierarchical kidney outcome using win statistics in patients with heart failure from the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials.

Win statistics offer a new approach to the analysis of outcomes in clinical trials, allowing the combination of time-to-event and longitudinal measurements and taking into account the clinical importance of the components of composite outcomes, as well as their relative timing. We examined this approach in a post hoc analysis of two trials that compared dapagliflozin to placebo in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (DAPA-HF) and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (DELIVER). The effect of dapagliflozin on a hierarchical composite kidney outcome was assessed, including the following: (1) all-cause mortality; (2) end-stage kidney disease; (3) a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥57%; (4) a decline in eGFR of ≥50%; (5) a decline in eGFR of ≥40%; and (6) participant-level eGFR slope. For this outcome, the win ratio was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06-1.15) in the combined dataset, 1.08 (95% CI = 1.01-1.16) in the DAPA-HF trial and 1.12 (95% CI = 1.05-1.18) in the DELIVER trial; that is, dapagliflozin was superior to placebo in both trials. The benefits of treatment were consistent in participants with and without baseline kidney disease, and with and without type 2 diabetes. In heart failure trials, win statistics may provide the statistical power to evaluate the effect of treatments on kidney as well as cardiovascular outcomes.

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.

Use of medical therapy and risk of clinical events according to frailty in heart failure patients - A real-life cohort study.

AIMS: Although recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the advantages of heart failure (HF) therapy in both frail and not frail patients, there is insufficient information on the use of HF therapy based on frailty status in a real-world setting. The aim was to examine how frailty status in HF patients associates with use of HF therapy and with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with new-onset HF between 2014 and 2021 were identified using the nationwide Danish registers. Patients across the entire range of ejection fraction were included. The associations between frailty status (using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score) and use of HF therapy and clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and non-HF hospitalization) were evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox models adjusting for age, sex, diagnostic setting, calendar year, comorbidities, pharmacotherapy, and socioeconomic status. Of 35 999 participants (mean age 69.1 years), 68% were not frail, 26% were moderately frail, and 6% were severely frail. The use of HF therapy was significantly lower in frailer patients. The hazard ratio (HR) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker initiation was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.77) and 0.48 (0.43-0.53) for moderate frailty and severe frailty, respectively. For beta-blockers, the corresponding HRs were 0.74 (0.71-0.78) and 0.51 (0.46-0.56), respectively, and for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 0.83 (0.80-0.87) and 0.58 (0.53-0.64), respectively. The prevalence of death and non-HF hospitalization increased with frailty status. The HR for death was 1.55 (1.47-1.63) and 2.32 (2.16-2.49) for moderate and severe frailty, respectively, and the HR for non-HF hospitalization was 1.37 (1.32-1.41) and 1.82 (1.72-1.92), respectively. The association between frailty status and HF hospitalization was not significant (HR 1.08 [1.02-1.14] and 1.08 [0.97-1.20], respectively). CONCLUSION: In real-world HF patients, frailty was associated with lower HF therapy use and with a higher incidence of clinical outcomes including mortality and non-HF hospitalization.

Low Natriuretic Peptide Levels and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Although some patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction have low natriuretic peptide levels, there are no large-scale systematic studies of how common these individuals are or what happens to them. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the proportion of patients in the I-PRESERVE (Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial with an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level <125 pg/mL, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes. METHODS: I- PRESERVE enrolled patients with symptomatic HF and a LVEF ≥45% but who did not have NT-proBNP or body mass index inclusion/exclusion criteria. Baseline NT-proBNP was measured after enrollment but not reported to investigators. The primary outcome in this analysis was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 808 of 3,480 patients (23.2%) had NT-proBNP <125 pg/mL. Patients with a low NT-proBNP were younger (68.6 years vs 72.6 years; P < 0.001), were less often men (36.1% vs 40.9%; P = 0.015), and had a higher body mass index (48.4% vs 38.7% obese; P < 0.001) than those with a higher NT-proBNP level. Patients with a low NT-proBNP had less atrial fibrillation (8.5% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001), myocardial infarction, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anemia but better kidney function. Patients with a lower NT-proBNP level had less marked echocardiographic abnormalities and were less likely to experience cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization; adjusted HR: 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.46; P < 0.001). However, health status was similarly impaired in patients with lower and higher NT-proBNP levels (median Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire 43 vs 43; P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Almost one-quarter of patients with HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction had a low NT-proBNP level. Although these patients have a favorable prognosis, compared to those with a high NT-proBNP level, they have similarly impaired health status which should be a target for treatment. (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function [I- PRESERVE]; NCT00095238).

Cost Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: An Economic Evaluation Based on Pooled, Individual Participant Data From the DELIVER and DAPA-HF Trials.

BACKGROUND: The sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are guideline-recommended to treat heart failure across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction; however, economic evaluations of adding sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors to standard of care in chronic heart failure across a broad left ventricular ejection fraction range are lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a US-based cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin added to standard of care in a chronic heart failure population using pooled, participant data from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trials. The 3-state Markov model used estimates of transitional probabilities, effectiveness of dapagliflozin, and utilities from the pooled trials. Costs estimates were obtained from published sources, including published rebates in dapagliflozin cost. Adding dapagliflozin to standard of care was estimated to produce an additional 0.53 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with standard of care alone. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were $85 554/QALY when using the publicly reported full (undiscounted) Medicare cost ($515/month) and $40 081/QALY, at a published nearly 50% rebate ($263/month). The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care would be of at least intermediate value (<$150 000/QALY) at a cost of <$872.58/month, of high value (<$50 000/QALY) at <$317.66/month, and cost saving at <$40.25/month. Dapagliflozin was of at least intermediate value in 92% of simulations when using the full (undiscounted) Medicare list cost in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost effectiveness was most sensitive to the dapagliflozin cost and the effect on cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of dapagliflozin to standard of care in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction was at least of intermediate value at the undiscounted Medicare cost and may be potentially of higher value on the basis of the level of discount, rebates, and price negotiations offered. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01035255 & NCT01920711.

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.

Effects of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction: An analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

AIMS: The primary aim was to evaluate the effect of dapagliflozin according to QRS duration across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), given that prolongation of QRS duration is associated with less favourable ventricular remodelling with pharmacological therapy and worse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, excluding patients with a paced rhythm and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Overall, 4008 patients had heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and 5816 had HF with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). QRS duration was <120 ms in 7039 patients (71.7%), 120-149 ms in 1725 (17.6%), and ≥150 ms in 1060 patients (10.8%). The median follow-up time was 23 months. The rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or worsening HF was 9.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.7-9.7), 14.3 (13.0-15.7), and 15.9 (14.1-17.9) per 100 patient-years in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively. This gradient in event rates was observed both in HFrEF and HFmrEF/HFpEF. Dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of the primary outcome consistently across the QRS duration subgroups (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.75 [0.67-0.85], 0.79 [0.65-0.96], and 0.89 [0.70-1.13] in the <120, 120-149, and ≥150 ms groups, respectively; p for interaction = 0.28). The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across the QRS duration regardless of HF phenotype that is, HFrEF or HFmrEF/HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of QRS duration is associated with worse outcomes irrespective of HF phenotype. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome, regardless of QRS duration, in DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

Dapagliflozin and Days of Full Health Lost in the DAPA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional time-to-first-event analyses cannot incorporate recurrent hospitalizations and patient well-being in a single outcome. OBJECTIVES: To overcome this limitation, we tested an integrated measure that includes days lost from death and hospitalization, and additional days of full health lost through diminished well-being. METHODS: The effect of dapagliflozin on this integrated measure was assessed in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, which examined the efficacy of dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, in patients with NYHA functional class II to IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. RESULTS: Over 360 days, patients in the dapagliflozin group (n = 2,127) lost 10.6 ± 1.0 (2.9%) of potential follow-up days through cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization, compared with 14.4 ± 1.0 days (4.0%) in the placebo group (n = 2,108), and this component of all measures of days lost accounted for the greatest between-treatment difference (-3.8 days [95% CI: -6.6 to -1.0 days]). Patients receiving dapagliflozin also had fewer days lost to death and hospitalization from all causes vs placebo (15.5 ± 1.1 days [4.3%] vs 20.3 ± 1.1 days [5.6%]). When additional days of full health lost (ie, adjusted for Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score) were added, total days lost were 110.6 ± 1.6 days (30.7%) with dapagliflozin vs 116.9 ± 1.6 days (32.5%) with placebo. The difference in all measures between the 2 groups increased over time (ie, days lost by death and hospitalization -0.9 days [-0.7%] at 120 days, -2.3 days [-1.0%] at 240 days, and -4.8 days [-1.3%] at 360 days). CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced the total days of potential full health lost due to death, hospitalizations, and impaired well-being, and this benefit increased over time during the first year. (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure; NCT03036124).

Sacubitril/Valsartan-Related Hypotension in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is a potential adverse effect of sacubitril/valsartan, but there are limited data regarding the predictors and implications of treatment-related hypotension in heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: We investigated predictors of treatment-associated hypotension, clinical outcomes after hypotension, and the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and incidence of hypotension in the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial. METHODS: PARAGON-HF randomized patients with chronic HF (≥45%) to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. Following randomization, hypotension was defined as investigator-reported hypotension with a systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. Predictors of hypotension were assessed using multivariable Cox models. Associations between hypotension and clinical outcomes were evaluated in time-updated Cox models. The relationship among treatment, LVEF, and incident rates of hypotension and clinical outcomes was estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 4,796 patients in PARAGON-HF, 637 (13%) experienced hypotension, more frequently in the sacubitril/valsartan arm (P < 0.001). Following documented hypotension, patients had higher risk of cardiovascular death and total HF hospitalizations (adjusted RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.27-2.09; P < 0.001) and all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.28-2.05; P < 0.001). LVEF modified the association between sacubitril/valsartan and risk of hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.019) such that patients with LVEF ≥60% experienced substantially higher treatment-related risks of hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: In PARAGON-HF, a higher LVEF was associated with an increased risk of hypotension in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. Because these subjects are also less likely to derive clinical benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, our data reinforce that the benefit/risk ratio favors the use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with LVEF below normal, but not at higher LVEF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Dapagliflozin and Timing of Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER.

BACKGROUND: Patients recently hospitalized for heart failure (HF) are at a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, but they may experience a greater absolute and relative benefit from effective therapies than individuals who are considered more "stable." OBJECTIVES: The authors examined the effects of dapagliflozin according to the timing of prior HF hospitalization in a patient-level pooled analysis of DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) and DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure). METHODS: A total of 11,007 patients were randomized in DAPA-HF and DELIVER. The primary outcome was the composite of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: In total, 12.4% were hospitalized for HF within 3 months of randomization, 14.2% between 3 and 12 months, and 16.8% more than 1 year before randomization, whereas 56.5% had not been hospitalized. The risk of the primary endpoint was inversely associated with time from prior HF hospitalization, and patients with a recent HF hospitalization had the highest risk. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome across HF hospitalization category (0-3 months, HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.55-0.81]; 3-12 months, HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.59-0.90]; >1 year, HR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.74-1.12]; and no prior hospitalization, HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.73-0.94]; Pinteraction = 0.09). The number of patients needed to treat with dapagliflozin to prevent 1 event over the median follow-up of 22 months was 13, 20, 23, and 28, respectively. The beneficial effect was consistent across the range of LVEF regardless of HF hospitalization category. CONCLUSIONS: The relative benefits of dapagliflozin were consistent across the range of LVEF regardless of the timing of the most recent HF hospitalization with a greater absolute benefit in patients with recent hospitalization.