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.

Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Male and Female Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. Although aspirin is recommended for secondary prevention of ASCVD, there was no difference in safety and effectiveness of aspirin dosed daily at 81 mg or 325 mg in the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) randomized clinical trial. However, it is unknown whether differences by sex exist in the safety and effectiveness of the different aspirin doses. Objective: To evaluate sex-specific differences in the safety and effectiveness of 2 aspirin doses in the ADAPTAPLE trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ADAPTABLE study was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that randomly assigned participants with chronic, stable ASCVD to 81 mg vs 325 mg of aspirin daily. Using Cox proportional-hazard models, male and female participants were compared for outcomes. In addition, it was assessed whether sex was an effect modifier in the association between aspirin dose and outcomes. The ADAPTABLE trial was conducted at 40 medical centers and 1 health plan. Eligible patients were 18 years and older and had established ASCVD. Study data were analyzed from December 2021 to March 2024. Interventions: Patients received 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily for the secondary prevention of ASCVD. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness outcomes included all-cause death and hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding requiring transfusion. Results: A total of 15 076 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.6 [60.7-73.6] years; 10 352 male [68.7%]) were followed up for a median (IQR) of 26.2 (19.0-34.9) months. Overall, 4724 (31.3%) were female, and 2307 of the female participants (48.8%) received aspirin 81 mg. Compared with males, female participants were younger (median [IQR] age, 66.3 [59.4-72.6] years vs 68.2 (61.4-73.9) years, less likely to self-report White race (3426 [72.5%] vs 8564 [82.7%]), more likely to smoke (564 [12.9%] vs 818 [8.4%]), and more likely to have a history of peripheral arterial disease (1179 [25.7%] vs 2314 [23.0%]). The primary effectiveness outcome of all-cause death and hospitalization for MI or stroke occurred in 379 female participants (8.1%) and 780 male participants (7.1%). There was no significant interaction by sex for the primary effectiveness end point between the 2 aspirin doses (female adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82-1.26 and male aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23; P interaction term for sex = .74). During the trial, female participants had fewer revascularization procedures (237 [5.0%] vs 680 [6.6%]; aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .002) but had a higher risk of hospitalization for stroke (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.27-2.33; P < .001). Among female participants, there was a slightly higher rate of bleeding in the 81-mg aspirin cohort compared with the 325-mg cohort (20 [0.83%] vs 13 [0.52%]; aHR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.04-4.70; P interaction term for sex = .07). There were no significant differences between female and male participants regarding aspirin dose adherence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE trial, there were no significant sex-specific differences in the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses for secondary prevention of ASCVD events. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Characterization of Peripheral Artery Disease and Associations with Traditional Risk Factors, Mobility, and Biomarkers in the Project Baseline Health Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of research on immunophenotyping in peripheral artery disease (PAD). This study aimed to describe the baseline characteristics, immunophenotypic profile, and quality of life (QoL) of participants with PAD in the Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). METHODS: The PBHS study is a prospective, multi-center, longitudinal cohort study that collected clinical, molecular, and biometric data from participants recruited between 2017 and 2018. In this analysis, baseline demographic, clinical, mobility, QoL, and flow cytometry data were stratified by the presence of PAD (ankle brachial index [ABI] ≤0.90). RESULTS: Of 2,209 participants, 58 (2.6%) had lower-extremity PAD, and only 2 (3.4%) had pre-existing PAD diagnosed prior to enrollment. Comorbid smoking (29.3% vs. 14%, p<0.001), hypertension (54% vs. 30%, p<0.001), diabetes (25% vs. 14%, p=0.031), and at least moderate coronary calcifications (Agatston score >100: 32% vs. 17%, p=0.01) were significantly higher in participants with PAD than in those with normal ABIs, as were high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (5.86 vs. 2.83, p<0.001). After adjusting for demographic and risk factors, participants with PAD had significantly fewer circulating CD56-high natural killer cells, IgM+ memory B cells, and CD10/CD27 double-positive B cells (p<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: This study reinforces existing evidence that a large proportion of PAD without claudication may be underdiagnosed, particularly in female and Black or African American participants. We describe a novel immunophenotypic profile of participants with PAD that could represent a potential future screening or diagnostic tool to facilitate earlier diagnosis of PAD. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03154346, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03154346.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in De Novo vs Acute on Chronic HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Background: Decompensated heart failure (HF) can be categorized as de novo or worsening of chronic HF. In PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF), among patients with an ejection fraction >40% that stabilized after worsening HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan. Objectives: This prespecified analysis characterized patients with de novo vs worsening chronic HF in PARAGLIDE-HF and assessed the interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Patients were classified as de novo (first diagnosis of HF) or chronic (known HF prior to the index event). Time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. A win ratio consisting of time to cardiovascular death, number and times of HF hospitalizations during follow-up, number and times of urgent HF visits during follow-up, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP was assessed for each group. Results: Of the 466 participants, 153 (33%) had de novo HF and 313 (67%) had chronic HF. De novo patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and lower creatinine. There was a nonsignificant reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan for de novo (0.82; 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) and chronic HF (0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07), interaction P = 0.66. The win ratio was nominally in favor of sacubitril/valsartan for both de novo (1.12; 95% CI: 0.70-1.58) and chronic HF (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.71). Conclusions: There is no interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan.

Forecasting the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050-Prevalence of Risk Factors and Disease: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease and stroke are common and costly, and their prevalence is rising. Forecasts on the prevalence of risk factors and clinical events are crucial. METHODS: Using the 2015 to March 2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and 2015 to 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we estimated trends in prevalence for cardiovascular risk factors based on adverse levels of Life's Essential 8 and clinical cardiovascular disease and stroke. We projected through 2050, overall and by age and race and ethnicity, accounting for changes in disease prevalence and demographics. RESULTS: We estimate that among adults, prevalence of hypertension will increase from 51.2% in 2020 to 61.0% in 2050. Diabetes (16.3% to 26.8%) and obesity (43.1% to 60.6%) will increase, whereas hypercholesterolemia will decline (45.8% to 24.0%). The prevalences of poor diet, inadequate physical activity, and smoking are estimated to improve over time, whereas inadequate sleep will worsen. Prevalences of coronary disease (7.8% to 9.2%), heart failure (2.7% to 3.8%), stroke (3.9% to 6.4%), atrial fibrillation (1.7% to 2.4%), and total cardiovascular disease (11.3% to 15.0%) will rise. Clinical CVD will affect 45 million adults, and CVD including hypertension will affect more than 184 million adults by 2050 (>61%). Similar trends are projected in children. Most adverse trends are projected to be worse among people identifying as American Indian/Alaska Native or multiracial, Black, or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of many cardiovascular risk factors and most established diseases will increase over the next 30 years. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to effectively manage, stem, and even reverse these adverse trends.

Characterization of serum phosphate levels over time with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose versus placebo as treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and iron deficiency: An exploratory prospective substudy from HEART-FID.

AIMS: Ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) is guideline-recommended for iron deficiency (ID) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Despite a well-established safety profile, the magnitude and clinical significance of FCM-induced hypophosphataemia in HFrEF remains unclear. This pre-specified substudy of HEART-FID evaluated serum phosphate, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and plasma parathyroid hormone (PTH) subsequent to FCM. METHODS AND RESULTS: HEART-FID was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ambulatory patients with HFrEF and ID randomized to FCM versus placebo. This substudy assessed mean change from baseline across eight visits over 6 months for the following endpoints: serum phosphate, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, and PTH, in addition to the clinical severity of potential hypophosphataemia. Overall, 133 patients (n = 62 FCM, n = 71 placebo) were prospectively enrolled. Mean age was 68 ± 11 years, 55 (41.4%) were women, and 29 (21.8%) had chronic kidney disease. Phosphate levels decreased in 34 (57.6%) patients in the FCM group compared with 7 (10.3%) in the placebo group. Mean change in phosphate levels reached a nadir at day 21 (-0.36 ± 0.27 mmol/L) subsequent to FCM infusion with 28 (51%) having moderate-to-severe hypophosphataemia. Reductions in 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were also observed, whilst PTH increased. These biochemical changes returned to baseline levels by day 91. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D remained stable throughout the study. No serious adverse events associated with hypophosphataemia were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Transient moderate-to-severe hypophosphataemia was frequent subsequent to FCM infusion, accompanied by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D decrease and PTH increase. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D remained stable. No evidence of symptomatic hypophosphataemia was reported, collectively indicating FCM-related hypophosphataemia to be clinically benign and transient in HFrEF.

Effect of dapagliflozin in patients with diabetes and heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction according to background glucose-lowering therapy: A pre-specified analysis of the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist, but whether clinical outcomes and treatment effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) vary in relation to background glucose-lowering therapy (GLT) in this population is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: DELIVER randomized patients with HF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% to dapagliflozin or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening HF (HF hospitalization or urgent HF visit) or cardiovascular death. In this pre-specified analysis of participants with T2D, treatment effects were assessed by number and class of background GLT(s). Of 3150 participants with T2D at baseline, 22.9% were on no GLT, 36.5% were treated with 1 GLT, and 40.6% with ≥2 GLTs. During follow-up (median: 2.3 years), treatment benefits of dapagliflozin (vs. placebo) on the primary outcome were consistent irrespective of the number of background GLTs (0 GLTs: hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-1.00; 1 GLT: HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80-1.34; ≥2 GLTs: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; pinteraction = 0.59). Similar findings were observed among participants with (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.92) and without background metformin use (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.11; pinteraction = 0.22) and in participants with (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.16) and without background insulin use (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.95; pinteraction = 0.45). Dapagliflozin was well-tolerated irrespective of the number of background GLTs. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin safely and consistently improved clinical outcomes among individuals with T2D and HF with LVEF >40% irrespective of the number and class of background GLTs, and the benefits were not influenced by concomitant metformin or insulin use. These data bolster contemporary guidelines supporting first-line SGLT2i among individuals with T2D and HF, irrespective of background GLT.

Dapagliflozin and quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire in patients with heart failure with reduced and mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Although much is known about the usefulness of heart failure (HF)-specific instruments for assessing patient well-being, less is known about the value of generic instruments for the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in HF. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and index scores, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients with HF and the effect of dapagliflozin on these scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a patient-level pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER trials, which investigated the effectiveness and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF), respectively. Patients reporting higher (better) EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores had a lower prevalence of comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation and hypertension, than patients with a worse score. They were also more likely to have better investigator-reported (New York Heart Association class) and patient-self-reported (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire) health status and lower median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Compared to patients with the lowest scores (Q1), those with higher EQ-5D-5L VAS scores had better outcomes: the hazard ratio for the composite of cardiovascular death or worsening HF was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.91) in Q2, 0.74 (0.65-0.84) in Q3, and 0.62 (0.54-0.72) in Q4. The risk of each component of the composite outcome, and all-cause death, was also lower in patients with better scores. Similar findings were observed for the index score. Treatment with dapagliflozin improved both EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores across the range of ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: Both higher (better) EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores were associated with better outcomes. Dapagliflozin treatment improved EQ-5D-5L VAS and index scores, irrespective of ejection fraction.

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Effect of Montelukast vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of montelukast in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of montelukast compared with placebo in treating outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Design Setting and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repurposed medications in treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Between January 27, 2023, and June 23, 2023, 1250 participants ≥30 years of age with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for ≤7 days, were included across 104 US sites to evaluate the use of montelukast. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive montelukast 10 mg once daily or matched placebo for 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID clinical progression scale; and difference in mean time unwell. Results: Among participants who were randomized and received study drug, the median age was 53 years (IQR 42-62), 60.2% were female, 64.6% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 56.3% reported ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 628 participants who received montelukast and 622 who received placebo, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.92-1.12; P(efficacy) = 0.63]). Unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 days (95% confidence interval 10-11) in both groups. No deaths were reported and 2 hospitalizations were reported in each group; 36 participants reported healthcare utilization events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, emergency department/urgent care visit); 18 in the montelukast group compared with 18 in the placebo group (HR 1.01; 95% CrI 0.45-1.84; P(efficacy)=0.48). Five participants experienced serious adverse events (3 with montelukast and 2 with placebo). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with montelukast does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04885530 ).

Effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure outcomes and cardiovascular death across the cardiometabolic disease spectrum: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been studied in patients with heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and acute myocardial infarction. Individual trials were powered to study composite outcomes in one disease state. We aimed to evaluate the treatment effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on specific clinical endpoints across multiple demographic and disease subgroups. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we queried online databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SCOPUS) up to Feb 10, 2024, for primary and secondary analyses of large trials (n>1000) of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (including acute myocardial infarction). Outcomes studied included composite of first hospitalisation for heart failure or cardiovascular death, first hospitalisation for heart failure, cardiovascular death, total (first and recurrent) hospitalisation for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effects models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024513836. FINDINGS: We included 15 trials (N=100 952). Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of first hospitalisation for heart failure by 29% in patients with heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·67-0·77]), 28% in patients with type 2 diabetes (0·72 [0·67-0·77]), 32% in patients with chronic kidney disease (0·68 [0·61-0·77]), and 28% in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (0·72 [0·66-0·79]). SGLT2 inhibitors reduced cardiovascular death by 14% in patients with heart failure (HR 0·86 [95% CI 0·79-0·93]), 15% in patients with type 2 diabetes (0·85 [0·79-0·91]), 11% in patients with chronic kidney disease (0·89 [0·82-0·96]), and 13% in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (0·87 [0·78-0·97]). The benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on both first hospitalisation for heart failure and cardiovascular death was consistent across the majority of the 51 subgroups studied. Notable exceptions included acute myocardial infarction (22% reduction in first hospitalisation for heart failure; no effect on cardiovascular death) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (26% reduction in first hospitalisation for heart failure; no effect on cardiovascular death). INTERPRETATION: SGLT2 inhibitors reduced heart failure events and cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These effects were consistent across a wide range of subgroups within these populations. This supports the eligibility of a large population with cardiorenal-metabolic diseases for treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors. FUNDING: None.

Association of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan With Blood Pressure Changes and Symptomatic Hypotension: the PARAGLIDE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: In PARAGLIDE-HF, in patients with ejection fraction (EF) > 40%, stabilized after worsening heart failure (WHF), sacubitril/valsartan led to greater reduction in plasma NT-proBNP levels and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan alone, despite more symptomatic hypotension (SH). Concern about SH may be limiting the use of sacubitril/valsartan in appropriate patients. METHODS: We characterized patients by the occurrence of SH (investigator-reported) after randomization to either sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. A key trial inclusion criterion was systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 100 mmHg for the preceding 6 hours and no SH. We also compared outcomes based on baseline SBP stratified by the median blood pressure. The primary endpoint was time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP levels from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. A secondary hierarchical outcome (win ratio) consisted of: (1) cardiovascular death; (2) hospitalizations due to HF; (3) urgent HF visits; and (4) change in NT-proBNP levels. RESULTS: Among 466 randomized patients, 92 (19.7%) experienced SH (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 56 [24.0%]; valsartan, n = 36 [15.5%]; P = 0.020). The median time to the first SH event was similar between treatment arms (18 days vs 15 days, respectively; P = 0.42) as was the proportion of first SH events classified as serious by investigators. Patients who experienced SH with sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to be white (OR 1.87 [95% CI: 0.31, 11.15]), to have a lower baseline SBP (per 10 mmHg increase, OR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.85]), or to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of > 60% (OR 2.21 [95% CI: 1.05, 4.65]). Time-averaged change in NT-proBNP levels did not differ between patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg vs SBP < 128 mmHg (interaction, P = 0.43). The composite hierarchical outcome for sacubitril/valsartan in patients with baseline SBP ≥ 128 mmHg had a win ratio of 1.34 ([95% CI: 0.91, 1.99]; P = 0.096) vs SBP < 128 mmHg with a win ratio of 1.09 ([95%CI: 0.73, 1.66]; P = 0 .62; interaction P value = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Among patients with LVEF > 40% stabilized after WHF, incident SH was more common with sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan. SH was associated with lower baseline SBP, being white, and having higher LVEF. Treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan may be more pronounced in patients with higher baseline SBP and lower LVEF (≤ 60%). (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988634.).

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

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.

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674).

Remote Follow-up in a Heart Failure Pragmatic Trial: Insights From the CONNECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials typically require study-specific visits, which can burden participants and sites. Remote follow-up, such as centralized call centers for participant-reported or site-reported, holds promise for reducing costs and enhancing the pragmatism of trials. In this secondary analysis of the CONNECT-HF (Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement For HF) trial, we aimed to evaluate the completeness and validity of the remote follow-up process. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CONNECT-HF trial evaluated the effect of a post-discharge quality-improvement intervention for heart failure compared to usual care for up to 1 year. Suspected events were reported either by participants or by health care proxies through a centralized call center or by sites through medical-record queries. When potential hospitalization events were suspected, additional medical records were collected and adjudicated. Among 5942 potential hospitalizations, 18% were only participant-reported, 28% were reported by both participants and sites, and 50% were only site-reported. Concordance rates between the participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalization were high: 87% participant-reported, 86% both, and 86% site-reported. Rates of adjudicated heart failure hospitalization events among adjudicated all-cause hospitalization were lower but also consistent: 45% participant-reported, 50% both, and 50% site-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Participant-only and site-only reports missed a substantial number of hospitalization events. We observed similar concordance between participant/site reports and adjudication for hospitalizations. Combining participant-reported and site-reported outcomes data is important to capture and validate hospitalizations effectively in pragmatic heart failure trials.