Finerenone Improves Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction Irrespective of Age: A Prespecified Analysis of FINEARTS-HF.

Background: Finerenone improves outcomes in patients with HF and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrHF/HFpEF). It is important to understand the efficacy and safety of finerenone in these patients according to age. Methods: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the interaction between age and the efficacy and safety of finerenone in the FINEARTS-HF trial (Finerenone trial to investigate efficacy and safety compared to placebo in patients with heart failure). A total of 6,001 patients aged 40-97 years were stratified by quartile (Q 1-4) of baseline age: Q1 40-66 years (n=1,581), Q2 67-73 years (n=1,587), Q 3 74-79 years (n=1,421), and Q4 ≧ 80 years (n=1,412). FINEARTS-HF evaluated the impact of age on the efficacy of finerenone with respect to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death and total (first and recurrent) HF events, including HF hospitalization or urgent HF event, along with secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: The incidence of primary outcome increased with age. Finerenone reduced the risk of the primary outcome consistently across all age categories: RR (95% CI) Q1 0.70 (0.53- 0.92), Q2 0.83 (0.64-1.07), Q3 0.98 (0.76-1.26), and Q4 0.85 (0.67-1.07); p for interaction =0.27. Similarly, a consistent effect was observed for the components of the primary outcome. The mean increase in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-total symptom score from baseline to 12 months was greater with finerenone than placebo, with a consistent effect across all age categories: mean placebo-corrected change (95% CI) Q1 2.87 (1.09-4.66), Q2 1.24 (-0.59-3.07), Q3 0.94 (-0.98-2.86), and Q4 1.24 (-0.90-3.38); P-interaction=0.50. Adverse events were similar across all age categories. The odds of experiencing hypotension, elevated creatinine, or hyperkalemia (increased) or hypokalemia (decreased) related to finerenone did not differ by age. Conclusions: In the FINEARTS-HF trial, finerenone reduced the primary outcome and components of the primary outcome, and improved symptoms across a wide age spectrum. In addition, finerenone was safe and well-tolerated, irrespective of age. Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifiers: NCT04435626 and EudraCT 2020-000306-29.

Effects of the Non-Steroidal MRA Finerenone with and without Concomitant SGLT2 Inhibitor Use in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction face heightened long-term risks of morbidity and mortality. The sodium glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and the non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone have both been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in this population, but the effects of their combined use are not known. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of finerenone in patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40%. Baseline SGLT2i use was a prespecified subgroup. The primary outcome was a composite of total (first and recurrent) worsening HF events and cardiovascular death. We first assessed for evidence of treatment heterogeneity based on baseline SGLT2i use. We further examined SGLT2i uptake during the trial and evaluated the treatment effects of finerenone accounting for baseline and during trial use of SGLT2i in time-varying analyses. RESULTS: Among 6,001 participants, 817 (13.6%) were treated with an SGLT2i at baseline. During 2.6-years median follow-up, treatment with finerenone similarly reduced the risk of the primary outcome in participants treated with an SGLT2i (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.16) and without an SGLT2i at baseline (rate ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.98); Pinteraction=0.76. In follow-up, 980 participants initiated SGLT2i, which was less frequent in the finerenone arm compared with placebo (17.7% vs. 20.1%; hazard ratio 0.86; confidence interval 0.76 to 0.97). Time-updated analyses accounting for baseline and subsequent use of SGLT2i did not meaningfully alter the treatment effects of finerenone on the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment benefits of the non-steroidal MRA finerenone were observed irrespective of concomitant use of an SGLT2i. These data suggest that the combined use of SGLT2i and a non-steroidal MRA may provide additive protection against cardiovascular events in patients with HF with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

Finerenone in heart failure and chronic kidney disease with type 2 diabetes: FINE-HEART pooled analysis of cardiovascular, kidney and mortality outcomes.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome is an emerging entity that connects cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone has been studied in three prospective randomized clinical trials of patients with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome: FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD and FINEARTS-HF. In light of the strong epidemiological overlap and shared mechanistic drivers of clinical outcomes across cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, we summarize the efficacy and safety of finerenone on cardiovascular, kidney and mortality outcomes in this pre-specified participant-level pooled analysis. The three trials included 18,991 participants (mean age 67 ± 10 years; 35% women). During 2.9 years of median follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death occurred in 421 (4.4%) participants assigned to finerenone and 471 (5.0%) participants assigned to placebo (hazard ratio (HR): 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-1.01; P = 0.076). Death from any cause occurred in 1,042 (11.0%) participants in the finerenone arm and in 1,136 (12.0%) participants in the placebo arm (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84-0.99; P = 0.027). Finerenone further reduced the risk of hospitalization from heart failure (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.75-0.92; P < 0.001) and the composite kidney outcome (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.72-0.90; P < 0.001). While in this pooled analysis the reduction in cardiovascular death was not statistically significant, finerenone reduced the risks for deaths of any cause, cardiovascular events and kidney outcomes. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42024570467 .

Asymptomatic vs Symptomatic Hypotension With Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in PARADIGM-HF.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is an important clinical problem in heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the association between asymptomatic vs symptomatic hypotension and outcomes in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of PARADIGM-HF, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 8,399 patients in PARADIGM-HF, 1,343 (16.0%) experienced only asymptomatic hypotension, and 936 (11.1%) experienced symptomatic hypotension at least once after randomization. Patients with symptomatic hypotension were older and more frequently had cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those developing only asymptomatic hypotension. By contrast, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in those with asymptomatic hypotension. Patients who experienced either type of hypotension were at higher risk for all outcomes examined. However, the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the primary outcome was not diminished in patients experiencing hypotension compared to those who did not: the HR for sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) for no hypotension, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.70-1.08) for asymptomatic hypotension, and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.38-0.69) for symptomatic hypotension (Pinteraction = 0.01), and this was also true for cardiovascular and all-cause deaths. The safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril was also maintained regardless of the occurrence of hypotension. Discontinuation of randomized treatment was less common with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril in patients experiencing asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Although both asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril were associated with worse outcomes, the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were maintained (or even enhanced) in patients experiencing hypotension.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure: an individual patient level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) reduce hospitalisations and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the benefit in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unclear. We evaluated the effect of MRAs in four trials that enrolled patients with heart failure across the range of ejection fraction. METHODS: This is a prespecified, individual patient level meta-analysis of the RALES (spironolactone) and EMPHASIS-HF (eplerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFrEF, and of the TOPCAT (spironolactone) and FINEARTS-HF (finerenone) trials, which enrolled patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was a composite of time to first hospitalisation for heart failure or cardiovascular death. We also estimated the effect of MRAs on components of this composite, total (first or repeat) heart failure hospitalisations (with and without cardiovascular deaths), and all-cause death. Safety outcomes were also assessed, including serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum potassium, and systolic blood pressure. An interaction between trials and treatment was tested to examine the heterogeneity of effect in these populations. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024541487. FINDINGS: 13 846 patients were included in the four trials. MRAs reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation (hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·72-0·83]). There was a statistically significant interaction by trials and treatment (p for interaction=0·0012) due to the greater efficacy in HFrEF (0·66 [0·59-0·73]) compared with HFmrEF or HFpEF (0·87 [0·79-0·95]). We observed significant reductions in heart failure hospitalisation in the HFrEF trials (0·63 [0·55-0·72]) and the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·82 [0·74-0·91]). The same pattern was observed for total heart failure hospitalisations with or without cardiovascular death. Cardiovascular death was reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·72 [0·63-0·82]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·92 [0·80-1·05]). All-cause death was also reduced in the HFrEF trials (0·73 [0·65-0·83]) but not in the HFmrEF or HFpEF trials (0·94 [0·85-1·03]). With an MRA, the risk of hyperkalaemia was doubled compared with placebo (odds ratio 2·27 [95% CI 2·02-2·56]), but the incidence of serious hyperkalaemia (serum potassium >6·0 mmol/L) was low (2·9% vs 1·4%); the risk of hypokalaemia (potassium <3·5 mmol/L) was halved (0·51 [0·45-0·57]; 7% vs 14%). INTERPRETATION: Steroidal MRAs reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation in patients with HFrEF and non-steroidal MRAs reduce this risk in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. FUNDING: None.

Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: a Prespecified Analysis of The FINEARTS-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of treatments for heart failure may vary among patients according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). In the FINEARTS-HF, the nonsteroidal MRA finerenone reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and total worsening heart failure events in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF). We examined the effect of finerenone according to LVEF in FINEARTS-HF. METHODS: FINEARTS-HF was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial examining the efficacy and safety of finerenone in patients with heart failure and LVEF �%. The treatment effect of finerenone was examined in prespecified analyses according to LVEF categories (<50%, ≥50 to <60%, and ≥60%) and with LVEF as a continuous variable. The primary outcome was a composite of total (first and recurrent) worsening HF events and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Baseline LVEF data were available for 5993 of the 6001 participants in FINEARTS-HF. Mean and median LVEF were 53 ± 8% and 53% (IQR 46% -58%), respectively. LVEF was <50% in 2172 (36), between 50 to <60% in 2674 (45%), and ≥60% in 1147 (19%). Patients with a higher LVEF were older, more commonly female, were less likely to have a history of coronary artery disease, and more frequently had a history of hypertension and chronic kidney disease compared to those with a lower LVEF. Finerenone reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and total heart failure events consistently across LVEF categories: LVEF <50% rate ratio (RR) = 0.84 (95% CI 0.68, 1.03), LVEF ≥50 to <60% RR = 0.80 (0.66, 0.97) and LVEF ≥60% RR = 0.94 (0.70, 1.25); p interaction = 0.70. There was no modification of the benefit of finerenone across the range of LVEF when analyzed as a continuous variable (p interaction = 0.28). There was a similar consistent effect of finerenone on reducing the total number of worsening heart failure events (continuous p interaction = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, finerenone reduced the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure events, irrespective of LVEF.

Finerenone in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists reduce morbidity and mortality among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, but their efficacy in those with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction has not been established. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction are needed. METHODS: In this international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive finerenone (at a maximum dose of 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of total worsening heart failure events (with an event defined as a first or recurrent unplanned hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) and death from cardiovascular causes. The components of the primary outcome and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 32 months, 1083 primary-outcome events occurred in 624 of 3003 patients in the finerenone group, and 1283 primary-outcome events occurred in 719 of 2998 patients in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.95; P = 0.007). The total number of worsening heart failure events was 842 in the finerenone group and 1024 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = 0.006). The percentage of patients who died from cardiovascular causes was 8.1% and 8.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11). Finerenone was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia and a reduced risk of hypokalemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction, finerenone resulted in a significantly lower rate of a composite of total worsening heart failure events and death from cardiovascular causes than placebo. (Funded by Bayer; FINEARTS-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04435626.).

Why Have We Not Been Able to Demonstrate Reduced Mortality in Patients With HFmrEF/HFpEF?

No randomized controlled trial has yet demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in mortality in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection (HFmrEF) or heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in contrast to the benefits observed in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, this probably reflects the statistical power of trials to date to show an effect on mortality rather than mechanistic differences between HFmEF/HFpEF and HFrEF or differences in treatment efficacy. Compared to patients with HFrEF, those with HFmrEF/HFpEF have lower mortality rates and a smaller proportion of potentially modifiable cardiovascular deaths (as opposed to unmodifiable noncardiovascular deaths). In addition, some causes of cardiovascular deaths may not be reduced by treatments for HF. Therefore, the low rate of potentially modifiable deaths in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF, compared with HFrEF, has made it challenging to demonstrate a reduction in death (or cardiovascular death) in trials to date.

Beta-blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: In the absence of randomized trial evidence, we performed a large observational analysis of the association between beta-blocker (BB) use and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Among the 16 951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13 400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12 812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 93.1% at 2 years (in survivors). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.05), but the adjusted HR was lower in BB users than non-users (0.81, 95% CI 0.74-0.88), and this association was maintained across LVEF (pinteraction = 0.88). In subgroup analyses, the adjusted risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, or a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (pintreraction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of non-randomized BB treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes in HFmrEF/HFpEF, even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables.

Healthcare utilisation in people with long COVID: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID potentially increases healthcare utilisation and costs. However, its impact on the NHS remains to be determined. METHODS: This study aims to assess the healthcare utilisation of individuals with long COVID. With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a matched cohort study using primary and secondary care data via OpenSAFELY, a platform for analysing anonymous electronic health records. The long COVID exposure group, defined by diagnostic codes, was matched with five comparators without long COVID between Nov 2020 and Jan 2023. We compared their total healthcare utilisation from GP consultations, prescriptions, hospital admissions, A&E visits, and outpatient appointments. Healthcare utilisation and costs were evaluated using a two-part model adjusting for covariates. Using a difference-in-difference model, we also compared healthcare utilisation after long COVID with pre-pandemic records. RESULTS: We identified 52,988 individuals with a long COVID diagnosis, matched to 264,867 comparators without a diagnosis. In the 12 months post-diagnosis, there was strong evidence that those with long COVID were more likely to use healthcare resources (OR: 8.29, 95% CI: 7.74-8.87), and have 49% more healthcare utilisation (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.48-1.51). Our model estimated that the long COVID group had 30 healthcare visits per year (predicted mean: 29.23, 95% CI: 28.58-29.92), compared to 16 in the comparator group (predicted mean visits: 16.04, 95% CI: 15.73-16.36). Individuals with long COVID were more likely to have non-zero healthcare expenditures (OR = 7.66, 95% CI = 7.20-8.15), with costs being 44% higher than the comparator group (cost ratio = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.39-1.50). The long COVID group costs approximately £2500 per person per year (predicted mean cost: £2562.50, 95% CI: £2335.60-£2819.22), and the comparator group costs £1500 (predicted mean cost: £1527.43, 95% CI: £1404.33-1664.45). Historically, individuals with long COVID utilised healthcare resources more frequently, but their average healthcare utilisation increased more after being diagnosed with long COVID, compared to the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID increases healthcare utilisation and costs. Public health policies should allocate more resources towards preventing, treating, and supporting individuals with long COVID.

Arterial effects of anthracycline: structural and inflammatory assessments in non-human primates and lymphoma patients using 18F-FDG positron emission tomography.

Background: Anthracyclines, such as doxorubicin, are important anti-cancer therapies but are associated with arterial injury. Histopathological insights have been limited to small animal models and the role of inflammation in the arterial toxic effects of anthracycline is unclear in humans. Our aims were: 1) To evaluate aortic media fibrosis and injury in non-human primates treated with anthracyclines; 2) To assess the effect of anthracycline on aortic inflammation in patients treated for lymphoma. Methods: 1) African Green monkeys (AGM) received doxorubicin (30-60 mg/m2/biweekly IV, cumulative dose: 240 mg/m2). Blinded histopathologic analyses of collagen deposition and cell vacuolization in the ascending aorta were performed 15 weeks after the last doxorubicin dose and compared to 5 age- and gender-matched healthy, untreated AGMs. 2) Analysis of the thoracic aorta of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), at baseline and after doxorubicin exposure, was performed using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in this observational study. The primary outcome was change in maximal tissue-to-background ratio (TBRmax) of the thoracic aorta from baseline to their end-of-treatment clinical PET/CT. Results: In AGMs, doxorubicin exposure was associated with greater aortic fibrosis (collagen deposition: doxorubicin cohort 6.23±0.88% vs. controls 4.67±0.54%; p=0.01) and increased intracellular vacuolization (doxorubicin 66.3 ± 10.1 vs controls 11.5 ± 4.2 vacuoles/field, p<0.0001) than untreated controls.In 101 patients with DLBCL, there was no change in aortic TBRmax after anthracycline exposure (pre-doxorubicin TBRmax 1.46±0.16 vs post-doxorubicin TBRmax 1.44±0.14, p=0.14). The absence of change in TBRmax was consistent across all univariate analyses. Conclusions: In a large animal model, anthracycline exposure was associated with aortic fibrosis. In patients with lymphoma, anthracycline exposure was not associated with aortic inflammation.Further research is required to elucidate the mechanisms of anthracycline-related vascular harm.

Disagreement concerning atopic dermatitis subtypes between an English prospective cohort (ALSPAC) and linked electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Subtypes of atopic dermatitis (AD) have been derived from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) based on presence and severity of symptoms reported in questionnaires (Severe-Frequent, Moderate-Frequent, Moderate-Declining, Mild-Intermittent, Unaffected/Rare). Good agreement between ALSPAC and linked electronic health records (EHRs) would increase trust in the clinical validity of these subtypes and allow inferring subtypes from EHRs alone, which would enable their study in large primary care databases. OBJECTIVES: 1. Explore if presence and number of AD records in EHRs agrees with AD symptom and severity reports from ALSPAC; 2. Explore if EHRs agree with ALSPAC-derived AD subtypes; 3. Construct models to classify ALSPAC-derived AD subtype using EHRs. METHODS: We used data from the ALSPAC prospective cohort study from 11 timepoints until age 14 years (1991-2008), linked to local general practice EHRs. We assessed how far ALSPAC questionnaire responses and derived subtypes agreed with AD as established in EHRs using different AD definitions (e.g., diagnosis and/or prescription) and other AD-related records. We classified AD subtypes using EHRs, fitting multinomial logistic regression models tuning hyperparameters and evaluating performance in the testing set (ROC AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity). RESULTS: 8,828 individuals out of a total 13,898 had both been assigned an AD subtype and had linked EHRs. The number of AD-related codes in EHRs generally increased with severity of AD subtype, however not all with the Severe-Frequent subtypes had AD in EHRs, and many with the Unaffected/Rare subtype did have AD in EHRs. When predicting ALSPAC AD subtype using EHRs, the best tuned model had ROC AUC of 0.65, sensitivity of 0.29 and specificity of 0.83 (both macro averaged); when different sets of predictors were used, individuals with missing EHR coverage excluded, and subtypes combined, sensitivity was not considerably improved. CONCLUSIONS: ALSPAC and EHRs disagreed not just on AD subtypes, but also on whether children had AD or not. Researchers should be aware that individuals considered as having AD in one source may not be considered as having AD in another.

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.

Impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life: an OpenSAFELY population cohort study using patient-reported outcome measures (OpenPROMPT).

Background: Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. We aimed to evaluate and estimate the differences in health impacts of long COVID across sociodemographic categories and quantify this in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), widely used measures across health systems. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we utilised OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Findings: The total OpenPROMPT cohort consisted of 7575 individuals who consented to data collection, with which we used data from 6070 participants who completed a baseline research questionnaire where 24.6% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a higher likelihood or odds of reporting loss in quality-of-life (Odds Ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% CI: 3.72-5.93) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 10.37-30.33) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Interpretation: We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

Clinical coding of long COVID in primary care 2020-2023 in a cohort of 19 million adults: an OpenSAFELY analysis.

Background: Long COVID is the patient-coined term for the persistent symptoms of COVID-19 illness for weeks, months or years following the acute infection. There is a large burden of long COVID globally from self-reported data, but the epidemiology, causes and treatments remain poorly understood. Primary care is used to help identify and treat patients with long COVID and therefore Electronic Health Records (EHRs) of past COVID-19 patients could be used to help fill these knowledge gaps. We aimed to describe the incidence and differences in demographic and clinical characteristics in recorded long COVID in primary care records in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from over 19 million adults in England linked to SARS-COV-2 test result, hospitalisation and vaccination data to describe trends in the recording of 16 clinical codes related to long COVID between November 2020 and January 2023. Using OpenSAFELY, we calculated rates per 100,000 person-years and plotted how these changed over time. We compared crude and adjusted (for age, sex, 9 NHS regions of England, and the dominant variant circulating) rates of recorded long COVID in patient records between different key demographic and vaccination characteristics using negative binomial models. Findings: We identified a total of 55,465 people recorded to have long COVID over the study period, which included 20,025 diagnoses codes and 35,440 codes for further assessment. The incidence of new long COVID records increased steadily over 2021, and declined over 2022. The overall rate per 100,000 person-years was 177.5 cases in women (95% CI: 175.5-179) and 100.5 in men (99.5-102). The majority of those with a long COVID record did not have a recorded positive SARS-COV-2 test 12 or more weeks before the long COVID record. Interpretation: In this descriptive study, EHR recorded long COVID was very low between 2020 and 2023, and incident records of long COVID declined over 2022. Using EHR diagnostic or referral codes unfortunately has major limitations in identifying and ascertaining true cases and timing of long COVID. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).

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.

Ethnic differences in depression and anxiety among adults with atopic eczema: Population-based matched cohort studies within UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Evidence demonstrates that individuals with atopic eczema (eczema) have increased depression and anxiety; however, the role of ethnicity in these associations is poorly understood. We aimed to investigate whether associations between eczema and depression or anxiety differed between adults from white and minority ethnic groups in the UK. METHODS: We used UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to conduct matched cohort studies of adults (≥18 years) with ethnicity recorded in primary care electronic health records (April 2006-January 2020). We matched (age, sex, practice) adults with eczema to up to five adults without. We used stratified Cox regression with an interaction between eczema and ethnicity, to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for associations between eczema and incident depression and anxiety in individuals from white ethnic groups and a pooled minority ethnic group (adults from Black, South Asian, Mixed and Other groups). RESULTS: We identified separate cohorts for depression (215,073 with eczema matched to 646,539 without) and anxiety (242,598 with eczema matched to 774,113 without). After adjusting for matching variables and potential confounders (age, sex, practice, deprivation, calendar period), we found strong evidence (p < 0.01) of ethnic differences in associations between eczema and depression (minority ethnic groups: HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.22,1.45; white ethnic groups: HR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.12,1.17) and anxiety (minority ethnic groups: HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.28,1.55; white ethnic groups: HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.14,1.19). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with eczema from minority ethnic groups appear to be at increased depression and anxiety risk compared with their white counterparts. Culturally adapted mental health promotion and prevention strategies should be considered in individuals with eczema from minority ethnic groups.

NHS national data opt-outs: trends and potential consequences for health data research.

BACKGROUND: The English NHS data opt-out allows people to prevent use of their health data for purposes other than direct care. In 2021, the number of opt-outs increased in response to government-led proposals to create a centralised pseudonymised primary care record database. AIM: To describe the potential impact of NHS national data opt-outs in 2021 on health data research. DESIGN & SETTING: We conducted a descriptive analysis of opt-outs using publicly available data and the potential consequences on research are discussed. METHOD: Trends in opt-outs in England were described by age, sex, and region. Using a hypothetical study, we explored statistical and epidemiological implications of opt-outs. RESULTS: During the lead up to a key government-led deadline for registering opt-outs (from 31 May 2021-30 June 2021), 1 339 862 national data opt-outs were recorded; increasing the percentage of opt-outs in England from 2.77% to 4.97% of the population. Among females, percentage opt-outs increased by 83% (from 3.02% to 5.53%) compared with 76% in males (from 2.51% to 4.41%). Across age groups, the highest relative increase was among people aged 40-49 years, which rose from 2.89% to 6.04%. Considerable geographical variation was not clearly related to deprivation. Key research consequences of opt-outs include reductions in sample size and unpredictable distortion of observed measures of the frequency of health events or associations between these events. CONCLUSION: Opt-out rates varied by age, sex, and place. The impact of this and variation by other characteristics on research is not quantifiable. Potential effects of opt-outs on research and consequences for health policies based on this research must be considered when creating future opt-out solutions.

Anxiety and Depression in People with Eczema or Psoriasis: A Comparison of Associations in UK Biobank and Linked Primary Care Data.

Introduction: Previous research has shown associations between eczema and psoriasis and anxiety and depression. We investigated whether associations are consistent across different settings of ascertainment for depression and anxiety, including interview and survey responses from UK Biobank (a large longitudinal cohort recruiting individuals aged 40-69 years between 2006-2010), and linked primary care data, with the aim of drawing more reliable conclusions through triangulation. Methods: In cross-sectional studies, we estimated associations between eczema or psoriasis and anxiety or depression, defining anxiety or depression as 1) self-reported previous diagnosis at UK Biobank recruitment interview; 2) PHQ-9/GAD-7 score indicating depression or anxiety from a UK Biobank mental health follow-up survey in 2016; and 3) diagnosis in linked primary care electronic health record data. Results: We analysed 230,047 people with linked Biobank and primary care data. We found poor agreement between the data sources for eczema, psoriasis, anxiety, and depression. Eg, 9474 had a previous eczema diagnosis in primary care data, 4069 self-reported previous eczema diagnosis at the UK biobank interview, and 1536 had eczema in both data sources (for depression 40,455; 13,320; and 9588 respectively). Having eczema or psoriasis (recorded in primary care or baseline interview) was associated with higher odds of anxiety and depression. Eg, the adjusted odds ratio for depression comparing those with eczema to those without was greater than 1 when defining the outcome from 1) the recruitment interview (1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.27-1.45); 2) the follow-up survey (1.24, 1.09-1.39), and 3) primary care records (1.56, 1.50-1.62). Discussion: Our findings support increased prevalence of mental illness in people with psoriasis and eczema across multiple data sources, which should be considered in planning of mental health services. However, we found poor agreement in disease ascertainment between settings, with implications for data interpretation in electronic health records.

Living alone and mental health: parallel analyses in UK longitudinal population surveys and electronic health records prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: People who live alone experience greater levels of mental illness; however, it is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic had a disproportionately negative impact on this demographic. OBJECTIVE: To describe the mental health gap between those who live alone and with others in the UK prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Self-reported psychological distress and life satisfaction in 10 prospective longitudinal population surveys (LPSs) assessed in the nearest pre-pandemic sweep and three periods during the pandemic. Recorded diagnosis of common and severe mental illnesses between March 2018 and January 2022 in electronic healthcare records (EHRs) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP. FINDINGS: In 37 544 LPS participants, pooled models showed greater psychological distress (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04; 0.14); relative risk: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.12; 1.39)) and lower life satisfaction (SMD: -0.22 (95% CI: -0.30; -0.15)) for those living alone pre-pandemic. This gap did not change during the pandemic. In the EHR analysis of c.16 million records, mental health conditions were more common in those who lived alone (eg, depression 26 (95% CI: 18 to 33) and severe mental illness 58 (95% CI: 54 to 62) more cases more per 100 000). For common mental health disorders, the gap in recorded cases in EHRs narrowed during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: People living alone have poorer mental health and lower life satisfaction. During the pandemic, this gap in self-reported distress remained; however, there was a narrowing of the gap in service use. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Greater mental health need and potentially greater barriers to mental healthcare access for those who live alone need to be considered in healthcare planning.