Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights From PARADIGM-HF.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, associated with undertreatment and worse outcomes. New treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be particularly important in patients with concomitant COPD. Methods and Results We examined outcomes in 8399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, according to COPD status, in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker-Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial. Cox regression models were used to compare COPD versus non-COPD subgroups and the effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. Patients with COPD (n=1080, 12.9%) were older than patients without COPD (mean 67 versus 63 years; P<0.001), with similar left ventricular ejection fraction (29.9% versus 29.4%), but higher NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; median, 1741 pg/mL versus 1591 pg/mL; P=0.01), worse functional class (New York Heart Association III/IV 37% versus 23%; P<0.001) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score (73 versus 81; P<0.001), and more congestion and comorbidity. Medical therapy was similar in patients with and without COPD except for beta-blockade (87% versus 94%; P<0.001) and diuretics (85% versus 80%; P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, COPD was associated with higher risks of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54), and the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.34), but not cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.30), or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.31). COPD was also associated with higher risk of all cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31) and noncardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64). The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was consistent in patients with and without COPD for all end points. Conclusions In PARADIGM-HF, COPD was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and worse health status and was an independent predictor of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalization. Sacubitril/valsartan was beneficial in this high-risk subgroup. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL) with variable responses to therapies that target mortality and heart failure hospitalizations. In PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] With ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), sacubitril/valsartan reduced morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril. Another major treatment goal is to improve HRQL. Given improvements in mortality with sacubitril/valsartan, this analysis provides comprehensive assessment of impact of therapy on HRQL in survivors only. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (after run-in phase) completed disease-specific HRQL using Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) at randomization, 4 month, 8 month, and annual visits. Changes in KCCQ scores were calculated using repeated measures analysis of covariance model that adjusted for treatment and baseline values (principal efficacy prespecified at 8 months). Among the 8399 patients enrolled in PARADIGM-HF, 7623 (91%) completed KCCQ scores at randomization with complete data at 8 months for 6881 patients (90% of baseline). At 8 months, sacubitril/valsartan group noted improvements in both KCCQ clinical summary score (+0.64 versus -0.29; P=0.008) and KCCQ overall summary score (+1.13 versus -0.14; P<0.001) in comparison to enalapril group and significantly less proportion of patients with deterioration (≥5 points decrease) of both KCCQ scores (27% versus 31%; P=0.01). Adjusted change scores demonstrated consistent improvements in sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril through 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: Change scores in KCCQ clinical summary scores and KCCQ overall summary scores were better in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan compared with those treated with enalapril, with consistency in most domains, and persist during follow-up beyond 8 months. These findings demonstrate that sacubitril/valsartan leads to better HRQL in surviving patients with heart failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.

Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours. RESULTS: In the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P=0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 µmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5 µmol per liter], respectively; P=0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P=0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 µmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 µmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P=0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.).

Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy with statins reduces the risk of cardiovascular events, but the optimal level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is unclear. METHODS: We enrolled 4162 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and compared 40 mg of pravastatin daily (standard therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin daily (intensive therapy). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, documented unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, revascularization (performed at least 30 days after randomization), and stroke. The study was designed to establish the noninferiority of pravastatin as compared with atorvastatin with respect to the time to an end-point event. Follow-up lasted 18 to 36 months (mean, 24). RESULTS: The median LDL cholesterol level achieved during treatment was 95 mg per deciliter (2.46 mmol per liter) in the standard-dose pravastatin group and 62 mg per deciliter (1.60 mmol per liter) in the high-dose atorvastatin group (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rates of the primary end point at two years were 26.3 percent in the pravastatin group and 22.4 percent in the atorvastatin group, reflecting a 16 percent reduction in the hazard ratio in favor of atorvastatin (P=0.005; 95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 26 percent). The study did not meet the prespecified criterion for equivalence but did identify the superiority of the more intensive regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who have recently had an acute coronary syndrome, an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen provides greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen. These findings indicate that such patients benefit from early and continued lowering of LDL cholesterol to levels substantially below current target levels.

Vasopeptidase inhibitor omapatrilat induces profound insulin sensitization and increases myocardial glucose uptake in Zucker fatty rats: Studies comparing a vasopeptidase inhibitor, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, and angiotensin II type I receptor blocker.

BACKGROUND: ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) improve insulin resistance and prevent type 2 diabetes, possibly mediated by inhibition of bradykinin (BK) degradation. The vasopeptidase inhibitor omapatrilat (OMA) raises BK to a greater extent than ACEIs by dual enzyme inhibition, whereas its insulin-sensitizing effects and mechanisms have not been investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the insulin-sensitizing effects of OMA, ramipril (an ACEI), losartan (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker), and placebo by 2-step euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp in insulin-resistant Zucker fatty rats (n=6 to 7 in each group). OMA resulted in a lower rate of endogenous glucose production than placebo at baseline (35+/-5 versus 54+/-4 mmol x kg(-1) x min(-1), P<0.01), greater suppression of endogenous glucose production by low-dose insulin (73+/-11% versus 27+/-18%, P<0.05), and greater glucose disposal at high-dose insulin (135+/-5 versus 92+/-4 mmol x kg(-1) x min(-1), P<0.01). Ramipril tended to improve insulin sensitivity, but losartan did not. OMA significantly increased 2-deoxyglucose uptake by myocardium, fat, and skeletal muscle. Ramipril increased 2-deoxyglucose uptake only by some skeletal muscles, but losartan did not. The insulin-sensitizing effects of OMA were blocked significantly by HOE-140 (a BK, B2 receptor antagonist) and NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor) in all tissues except myocardium. CONCLUSIONS: OMA induces profound insulin sensitization and increases myocardial glucose uptake in Zucker fatty rats. This effect is greater than that of ramipril and probably occurs at least in part via stimulation of the B2 receptor. OMA has the potential for greater type 2 diabetes prevention than ACEI.