Peripheral artery disease, chronic kidney disease, and recurrent admissions for acute decompensated heart failure: The ARIC study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) has not only been associated with recurrent hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) but is also associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a known risk factor for worse heart failure outcomes. The interaction of CKD with PAD in post-discharge ADHF outcomes is not well known. METHODS: Since 2005, hospitalizations for ADHF were sampled from 4 US regions by the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and classified by physician review. We examined the adjusted association of PAD with 1-year ADHF readmissions, in patients with and without CKD (defined by glomerular filtration rate [GFR] ≤60 mL/min/1.73 m2 [stage 3a or worse]). RESULTS: From 2005 to 2018, there were 1049 index hospitalizations for patients with ADHF (mean age 77 years, 66 % white) with creatinine data, who were discharged alive. Of these, 155 (15 %) had PAD and 66 % had CKD. In comparison to those without PAD, patients with PAD had more comorbid conditions and higher 1-year ADHF readmission rates, irrespective of CKD status. After adjustment, PAD was associated with a greater risk of 1-year ADHF readmissions, both for patients with concomitant CKD (HR, 1.70; 95 % CI: 1.29-2.24) and those without CKD (HR, 1.97; 95 % CI: 1.14-3.40); p-interaction = 0.8. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with ADHF, those with concurrent PAD have more prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities and higher likelihood of 1-year ADHF readmission, irrespective of CKD status. Integrating a more holistic approach in management of patients with concomitant heart failure, PAD and CKD may be an important strategy to improve the prognosis in this vulnerable population.

Beyond quadruple therapy: the potential roles for ivabradine, vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil in the therapeutic armamentarium.

Quadruple therapy is effective for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, providing significant clinical benefits, including reduced mortality. Clinicians are now in an era focused on how to initiate and titrate quadrable therapy in the early phase of the disease trajectory, including during heart failure hospitalization. However, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction still face a significant "residual risk" of mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Despite the effective implementation of quadruple therapy, high mortality and rehospitalization rates persist in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and many patients cannot maximize therapy due to side effects such as hypotension and renal dysfunction. In this context, ivabradine, vericiguat, and omecamtiv mecarbil may have adjunct roles in addition to quadruple therapy (note that omecamtiv mecarbil is not currently approved for clinical use). However, the contemporary use of ivabradine and vericiguat is relatively low globally, likely due in part to the under-recognition of the role of these therapies as well as costs. This review offers clinicians a straightforward guide for bedside evaluation of potential candidates for these medications. Quadruple therapy, with strong evidence to reduce mortality, should always be prioritized for implementation. As second-line therapies, ivabradine could be considered for patients who cannot achieve optimal heart rate control (≥ 70 bpm at rest) despite maximally tolerated beta-blocker dosing. Vericiguat could be considered for high-risk patients who have recently experienced worsening heart failure events despite being on quadrable therapy, but they should not have N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels exceeding 8000 pg/mL. In the future, omecamtiv mecarbil may be considered for severe heart failure (New York Heart Association class III to IV, ejection fraction ≤ 30%, and heart failure hospitalization within 6 months) when current quadrable therapy is limited, although this is still hypothesis-generating and requires further investigation before its approval.

Time from admission to randomization and the effect of empagliflozin in acute heart failure: A post-hoc analysis from EMPULSE.

AIMS: Patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) could be enrolled in EMPULSE (NCT04157751) upon haemodynamic stabilization and between 24 h and 5 days after hospital admission. The timing of treatment initiation may influence the efficacy and safety of drugs such as empagliflozin. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient characteristics, clinical events, and treatment effects according to time from admission to randomization. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EMPULSE population was dichotomized by median time from hospital admission to randomization (1-2 days vs. 3-5 days). The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite endpoint of time to all-cause death, number of HF events, time to first HF event, and a ≥5-point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score change from baseline after 90 days, analysed using the win ratio (WR) method. Patients randomized later (3-5 days, average time 3.9 days; n = 312) had a higher risk of experiencing clinical events than patients randomized earlier (1-2 days, average time 1.7 days; n = 215). The treatment effect favoured empagliflozin versus placebo in patients randomized later (3-5 days: WR 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.25) but was attenuated in patients randomized earlier (1-2 days: WR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74-1.44) (interaction p = 0.029). A similar pattern was observed for the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death and all-cause hospitalizations (interaction p < 0.1 for both). The reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels was more pronounced with empagliflozin among patients randomized later than in patients randomized earlier (interaction p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for acute HF enrolled in EMPULSE, those randomized later after hospital admission (3-5 days) experienced greater clinical benefit with empagliflozin than those randomized earlier (1-2 days). These findings should be confirmed in future studies before clinical application.

Management of Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure: Practical Considerations and Implementation of Evidence-Based Iron Supplementation.

Iron deficiency (ID) is present in approximately 50% of patients with heart failure (HF) and even higher prevalence rate up to 80% in post-acute HF setting. The current guidelines for HF recommend intravenous (IV) iron replacement in HF with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction and ID based on clinical trials showing improvements in quality of life and exercise capacity, and an overall treatment benefit for recurrent HF hospitalization. However, several barriers cause challenges in implementing IV iron supplementation in practice due, in part, to clinician knowledge gaps and limited resource availability to protocolize routine utilization in appropriate patients. Thus, the current review will discuss practical considerations in ID treatment, implementation of evidence-based ID treatment to improve regional health disparities with toolkits, inclusion/exclusion criteria of IV iron supplementation, and clinical controversies in ID treatment, as well as gaps in evidence and questions to be answered.

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.

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.

Severe obesity among patients with left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity and advanced heart failure requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support are more likely to experience LVAD complications and may be disproportionately Black and/or female when compared to patients without obesity. Among these patients, obesity may represent a barrier to transplant eligibility and a marker of inequity in heart transplantation and health outcomes in advanced heart failure. METHODS: To better understand this issue at our institution, we examined our active LVAD cohort and found that almost one-third of all patients had severe obesity with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2. RESULTS: Patients with LVADs and severe obesity were significantly younger and more likely to self-identify as Black, and numerically more likely to be female. CONCLUSION: Weight management in this group represents a vital area for improved equity in health outcomes and barriers to heart transplantation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

Depressive symptoms are associated with clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to examine associations between elevated depressive symptoms and increased risk of adverse clinical events patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), as well as the potential contribution of health behaviours. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred forty-two men and women with HFrEF were enrolled through heart failure (HF) clinics and followed over time. At baseline and 6 months, depressive symptoms were assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and HFrEF disease activity by B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). The Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) was used to assess HF self-care behaviours. Proportional hazards regression models assessed the contribution of depressive symptoms and HFrEF disease biomarkers on death or cardiovascular hospitalization. Over a median follow-up period of 4 years, 42 patients (30%) died, and 84 (60%) had cardiovascular hospitalizations. A 10-point higher baseline BDI-II score was associated with a 35% greater risk of death or cardiovascular hospitalization. Higher baseline BDI-II scores were associated with poorer HF self-care maintenance behaviours (R = -0.30, P < 0.001) and fewer daily steps (R = -0.19, P = 0.04), suggesting that elevated depressive symptoms may diminish important health behaviours. Increases in plasma BNP over 6 months were associated with worse outcomes. Changes in BDI-II and plasma BNP over 6 months were positively related (R = 0.25, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that elevated depressive symptoms are associated with an increased likelihood of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF. Poor health behaviours may contribute to the adverse association of elevated depressive symptoms with the increased hazard of adverse clinical outcomes.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Implications of trial eligibility in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Clinical trials in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF/HFpEF) commonly have detailed eligibility criteria. This may contribute to challenges with efficient enrolment and questions regarding the generalizability of trial findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large US healthcare system were identified through a computable phenotype applied in linked imaging and electronic health record databases. We evaluated shared eligibility criteria from five recent/ongoing HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (PARAGON-HF, EMPEROR-Preserved, DELIVER, FINE-ARTS, and SPIRRIT-HFpEF) and compared clinical and echocardiographic features as well as outcomes between trial-eligible and trial-ineligible patients. Among 5552 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF, 792 (14%) were eligible for trial consideration, having met all criteria assessed. Causes of ineligibility included lack of recent loop diuretics (37%), significant pulmonary disease (24%), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (17%), recent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (13%), or low natriuretic peptides (12%); 53% of ineligible patients had >1 reason for exclusion. Compared with eligible patients, ineligible patients were younger (age 71 vs. 75 years, P < 0.001) with higher rates of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 59%, P < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (40% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), but less mitral regurgitation, lower E/e' ratio, and smaller left atrial sizes. Both eligible and ineligible patients demonstrated high rates of structural heart disease consistent with HFpEF [elevated left atrial size or left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy/increased LV mass], although this was slightly higher among eligible patients (95% vs. 92%, P = 0.001). The two cohorts demonstrated similar LV global longitudinal strain along with a similar prevalence of atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and obesity. Ineligible patients had similar all-cause mortality (33% vs. 33% at 3 years) to those eligible but lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (20% vs. 28% at 3 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF from a large health system, approximately one in seven were eligible for major trials based on key criteria applied through a clinical computable phenotype. These findings highlight the large proportion of patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF ineligible for contemporary trials for whom the generalizability of trial findings may be questioned and further investigation would be beneficial.

Critical re-evaluation of the identification of iron deficiency states and effective iron repletion strategies in patients with chronic heart failure.

According to current guidelines, iron deficiency is defined by a serum ferritin level <100 ng/ml or a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% if the serum ferritin level is 100-299 µg/L. These criteria were developed to encourage the use of intravenous iron as an adjunct to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of renal anaemia. However, in patients with heart failure, these criteria are not supported by any pathophysiological or clinical evidence that they identify an absolute or functional iron deficiency state. A low baseline TSAT-but not serum ferritin level-appears to be a reliable indicator of the effect of intravenous iron to reduce major heart failure events. In randomized controlled trials, intravenous iron decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or total heart failure hospitalization in patients with a TSAT <20% (risk ratio 0.67 [0.49-0.92]) but not in patients with a TSAT ≥20% (risk ratio 0.99 [0.74-1.30]), with the magnitude of the risk reduction being proportional to the severity of hypoferraemia. Patients who were enrolled in clinical trials solely because they had a serum ferritin level <100 µg/L showed no significant benefit on heart failure outcomes, and it is noteworthy that serum ferritin levels of 20-300 µg/L lie entirely within the range of normal values for healthy adults. Current guidelines reflect the eligibility criteria of clinical trials, which inadvertently adopted unvalidated criteria to define iron deficiency. Reliance on these guidelines would lead to the treatment of many patients who are not iron deficient (serum ferritin level <100 µg/L but normal TSAT) and ignores the possibility of iron deficiency in patients with a low TSAT but with serum ferritin level of >300 µg/L. Importantly, analyses of benefit based on trial eligibility-driven guidelines substantially underestimate the magnitude of heart-failure-event risk reduction with intravenous iron in patients who are truly iron deficient. Based on all available data, we recommend a new mechanism-based and trial-tested approach that reflects the totality of evidence more faithfully than the historical process adopted by clinical investigators and by the guidelines. Until additional evidence is forthcoming, an iron deficiency state in patients with heart failure should be defined by a TSAT <20% (as long as the serum ferritin level is <400 µg/L), and furthermore, the use of a serum ferritin level <100 µg/L alone as a diagnostic criterion should be discarded.

Redefining Iron Deficiency in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure.

A serum ferritin level <15 to 20 µg/L historically identified patients who had absent bone marrow iron stores, but serum ferritin levels are distorted by the systemic inflammatory states seen in patients with chronic kidney disease or heart failure. As a result, nearly 25 years ago, the diagnostic ferritin threshold was increased 5- to 20-fold in patients with chronic kidney disease (ie, iron deficiency was identified if the serum ferritin level was <100 µg/L, regardless of transferrin saturation [TSAT], or 100 to 299 µg/L if TSAT was <20%). This guidance was motivated not by the findings of studies of total body or tissue iron depletion, but by a desire to encourage the use of iron supplements to potentiate the response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with renal anemia. However, in patients with heart failure, this definition does not reliably identify patients with an absolute or functional iron-deficiency state, and it includes individuals with TSATs (≥20%) and serum ferritin levels in the normal range (20-100 mg/L) who are not iron deficient, have an excellent prognosis, and do not respond favorably to iron therapy. Furthermore, serum ferritin levels may be distorted by the use of both neprilysin and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, both of which may act to mobilize endogenous iron stores. The most evidence-based and trial-tested definition of iron deficiency is the presence of hypoferremia, as reflected by as a TSAT <20%. These hypoferremic patients are generally iron deficient on bone marrow examination, and after intravenous iron therapy, they exhibit an improvement in exercise tolerance and functional capacity (when meaningfully impaired) and show the most marked reduction (ie, 20%-30%) in the risk of cardiovascular death or total heart failure hospitalizations. Therefore, we propose that the current ferritin-driven definition of iron deficiency in heart failure should be abandoned and that a definition based on hypoferremia (TSAT <20%) should be adopted.

Identification of three mechanistic pathways for iron-deficient heart failure.

Current understanding of iron-deficient heart failure is based on blood tests that are thought to reflect systemic iron stores, but the available evidence suggests greater complexity. The entry and egress of circulating iron is controlled by erythroblasts, which (in severe iron deficiency) will sacrifice erythropoiesis to supply iron to other organs, e.g. the heart. Marked hypoferraemia (typically with anaemia) can drive the depletion of cardiomyocyte iron, impairing contractile performance and explaining why a transferrin saturation < ≈15%-16% predicts the ability of intravenous iron to reduce the risk of major heart failure events in long-term trials (Type 1 iron-deficient heart failure). However, heart failure may be accompanied by intracellular iron depletion within skeletal muscle and cardiomyocytes, which is disproportionate to the findings of systemic iron biomarkers. Inflammation- and deconditioning-mediated skeletal muscle dysfunction-a primary cause of dyspnoea and exercise intolerance in patients with heart failure-is accompanied by intracellular skeletal myocyte iron depletion, which can be exacerbated by even mild hypoferraemia, explaining why symptoms and functional capacity improve following intravenous iron, regardless of baseline haemoglobin or changes in haemoglobin (Type 2 iron-deficient heart failure). Additionally, patients with advanced heart failure show myocardial iron depletion due to both diminished entry into and enhanced egress of iron from the myocardium; the changes in iron proteins in the cardiomyocytes of these patients are opposite to those expected from systemic iron deficiency. Nevertheless, iron supplementation can prevent ventricular remodelling and cardiomyopathy produced by experimental injury in the absence of systemic iron deficiency (Type 3 iron-deficient heart failure). These observations, taken collectively, support the possibility of three different mechanistic pathways for the development of iron-deficient heart failure: one that is driven through systemic iron depletion and impaired erythropoiesis and two that are characterized by disproportionate depletion of intracellular iron in skeletal and cardiac muscle. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive, and all pathways may be operative at the same time or may occur sequentially in the same patients.

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.).

Cardiovascular Burden of the V142I Transthyretin Variant.

Importance: Individual cohort studies concur that the amyloidogenic V142I variant of the transthyretin (TTR) gene, present in 3% to 4% of US Black individuals, increases heart failure (HF) and mortality risk. Precisely defining carrier risk across relevant clinical outcomes and estimating population burden of disease are important given established and emerging targeted treatments. Objectives: To better define the natural history of disease in carriers across mid to late life, assess variant modifiers, and estimate cardiovascular burden to the US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 23 338 self-reported Black participants initially free from HF were included in 4 large observational studies across the US (mean [SD], 15.5 [8.2] years of follow-up). Data analysis was performed between May 2023 and February 2024. Exposure: V142I carrier status (n = 754, 3.2%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations for HF (including subtypes of reduced and preserved ejection fraction) and all-cause mortality. Outcomes were analyzed by generating 10-year hazard ratios for each age between 50 and 90 years. Using actuarial methods, mean survival by carrier status was estimated and applied to the 2022 US population using US Census data. Results: Among the 23 338 participants, the mean (SD) age at baseline was 62 (9) years and 76.7% were women. Ten-year carrier risk increased for HF hospitalization by age 63 years, predominantly driven by HF with reduced ejection fraction, and 10-year all-cause mortality risk increased by age 72 years. Only age (but not sex or other select variables) modified risk with the variant, with estimated reductions in longevity ranging from 1.9 years (95% CI, 0.6-3.1) at age 50 to 2.8 years (95% CI, 2.0-3.6) at age 81. Based on these data, 435 851 estimated US Black carriers between ages 50 and 95 years are projected to cumulatively lose 957 505 years of life (95% CI, 534 475-1 380 535) due to the variant. Conclusions and Relevance: Among self-reported Black individuals, male and female V142I carriers faced similar and substantial risk for HF hospitalization, predominantly with reduced ejection fraction, and death, with steep age-dependent penetrance. Delineating the individual contributions of, and complex interplay among, the V142I variant, ancestry, the social construct of race, and biological or social determinants of health to cardiovascular disease merits further investigation.