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

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

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure: Are There Thresholds and Inflection Points in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Thresholds Justifying a Clinical Classification?

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines proposed a classification for heart failure (HF) on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), although it remains unclear whether the divisions chosen were biologically rational. Using patients spanning the full range of LVEF, we examined whether there was evidence of LVEF thresholds in patient characteristics or inflection points in clinical outcomes. METHODS: Using patient-level information, we created a merged dataset of 33 699 participants who had been enrolled in 6 randomized controlled HF trials including patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. The relationship between the incidence of all-cause death (and specific causes of death) and HF hospitalization, and LVEF, was evaluated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: As LVEF increased, age, the proportion of women, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation and diabetes increased, whereas ischemic pathogenesis, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) decreased. As LVEF increased >50%, age and the proportion of women continued to increase, and ischemic pathogenesis and NT-proBNP decreased, but other characteristics did not change meaningfully. The incidence of most clinical outcomes (except noncardiovascular death) decreased as LVEF increased, with a LVEF inflection point of around 50% for all-cause death and cardiovascular death, around 40% for pump failure death, and around 35% for HF hospitalization. Higher than those thresholds, there was little further decline in the incidence rate. There was no evidence of a J-shaped relationship between LVEF and death; no evidence of worse outcomes in patients with high-normal ("supranormal") LVEF. Similarly, in a subset of patients with echocardiographic data, there were no structural differences in patients with a high-normal LVEF suggestive of amyloidosis, and NT-proBNP levels were consistent with this conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF, there was a LVEF threshold of around 40% to 50% where the pattern of patient characteristics changed, and event rates began to increase compared with higher LVEF values. Our findings provide evidence to support current upper LVEF thresholds defining HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction on the basis of prognosis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00634309, NCT00634400, NCT00634712, NCT00095238, NCT01035255, NCT00094302, NCT00853658, and NCT01920711.

Investigator-reported ventricular arrhythmias and mortality in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Few reports have examined the incidence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) or their relationship with mortality in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the PARAGON-HF, TOPCAT, I-Preserve, and CHARM-Preserved trials were merged. VT/VF, reported as adverse events, were identified. Patients who experienced VT/VF were compared with patients who did not. The relationship between VT/VF and mortality was examined in time-updated Cox proportional hazard regression models. Variables associated with VT/VF were examined in Cox proportional hazard regression models. The rate of VT/VF in patients with HFmrEF compared with patients with HFpEF was examined in a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Of 13 609 patients, over a median follow-up of 1170 days (interquartile range: 966-1451), 146 (1.1%) experienced an investigator-reported VT/VF (incidence rate 0.3 per 100 person-years). Patients who experienced VT/VF were more likely to be male, have had a myocardial infarction, poorer renal function, more adverse left ventricular remodelling, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) than patients who did not. Occurrence of VT/VF was associated with NT-proBNP, history of atrial fibrillation/flutter, male sex, lower ejection fraction, and history of hypertension. VT/VF was associated with all-cause death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.80-5.57; P < 0.001] and cardiovascular death, driven by death from heart failure and not sudden death. Patients with HFmrEF had a higher rate of VT/VF than patients with HFpEF (adjusted HR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.77-2.71). CONCLUSION: VT/VF was uncommon in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. However, such events were strongly associated with mortality and appear to be a marker of disease severity rather than risk of sudden death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov unique identifier: NCT01920711(PARAGON-HF); NCT00094302 (TOPCAT); NCT00095238 (I-Preserve); NCT00634712 (CHARM-Preserved).

Stroke in patients with heart failure and reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Stroke is an important problem in patients with heart failure (HF), but the intersection between the two conditions is poorly studied across the range of ejection fraction. The prevalence of history of stroke and related outcomes were investigated in patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient meta-analysis of seven clinical trials enrolling patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Of the 20 159 patients with HFrEF, 1683 (8.3%) had a history of stroke, and of the 13 252 patients with HFpEF, 1287 (9.7%) had a history of stroke. Regardless of ejection fraction, patients with a history of stroke had more vascular comorbidity and worse HF. Among those with HFrEF, the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 18.23 (16.81-19.77) per 100 person-years in those with prior stroke vs. 13.12 (12.77-13.48) in those without [hazard ratio 1.37 (1.26-1.49), P < 0.001]. The corresponding rates in patients with HFpEF were 14.16 (12.96-15.48) and 9.37 (9.06-9.70) [hazard ratio 1.49 (1.36-1.64), P < 0.001]. Each component of the composite was more frequent in patients with stroke history, and the risk of future stroke was doubled in patients with prior stroke. Among patients with prior stroke, 30% with concomitant atrial fibrillation were not anticoagulated, and 29% with arterial disease were not taking statins; 17% with HFrEF and 38% with HFpEF had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (≥140 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Heart failure patients with a history of stroke are at high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, and targeting underutilization of guideline-recommended treatments might be a way to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

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

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

Serial Assessment of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin and the Effect of Dapagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the DAPA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Circulating high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) predominantly reflects myocardial injury, and higher levels are associated with a higher risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Less is known about the prognostic significance of changes in hsTnT over time, the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes in relation to baseline hsTnT levels, and the effect of dapagliflozin on hsTnT levels. METHODS: DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dapagliflozin (10 mg daily) in patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (median follow-up, 18.2 months). hsTnT (Roche Diagnostics) was measured at baseline in 3112 patients and at 1 year in 2506 patients. The primary end point was adjudicated worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Clinical end points were analyzed according to baseline hsTnT and change in hsTnT from baseline to 1 year. Comparative treatment effects on clinical end points with dapagliflozin versus placebo were assessed by baseline hsTnT. The effect of dapagliflozin on hsTnT was explored. RESULTS: Median baseline hsTnT concentration was 20.0 (25th-75th percentile, 13.7-30.2) ng/L. Over 1 year, 67.9% of patients had a ≥10% relative increase or decrease in hsTnT concentrations, and 43.5% had a ≥20% relative change. A stepwise gradient of higher risk for the primary end point was observed across increasing quartiles of baseline hsTnT concentration (adjusted hazard ratio Q4 versus Q1, 3.44 [95% CI, 2.46-4.82]). Relative and absolute increases in hsTnT over 1 year were associated with higher subsequent risk of the primary end point. The relative reduction in the primary end point with dapagliflozin was consistent across quartiles of baseline hsTnT (P-interaction=0.55), but patients in the top quartile tended to have the greatest absolute risk reduction (absolute risk difference, 7.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-14.0%]). Dapagliflozin tended to attenuate the increase in hsTnT over time compared with placebo (relative least squares mean reduction, -3% [-6% to 0%]; P=0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline hsTnT and greater increase in hsTnT over 1 year are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk of the primary end point, irrespective of baseline hsTnT levels. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Efficacy of Dapagliflozin on Renal Function and Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results of DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have chronic kidney disease that complicates pharmacological management and is associated with worse outcomes. We assessed the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF, according to baseline kidney function, in the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on kidney function after randomization. METHODS: Patients who have HFrEF with or without type 2 diabetes and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 were enrolled in DAPA-HF. We calculated the incidence of the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) according to eGFR category at baseline (<60 and ≥60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2) and used eGFR at baseline as a continuous measure, as well. Secondary cardiovascular outcomes and a prespecified composite renal outcome (≥50% sustained decline eGFR, end-stage renal disease, or renal death) were also examined, along with a decline in eGFR over time. RESULTS: Of 4742 patients with a baseline eGFR, 1926 (41%) had eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary and secondary outcomes did not differ by eGFR category or examining eGFR as a continuous measurement. The hazard ratio (95% CI) for the primary end point in patients with chronic kidney disease was 0.71 (0.59-0.86) versus 0.77 (0.64-0.93) in those with an eGFR ≥60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 (interaction P=0.54). The composite renal outcome was not reduced by dapagliflozin (hazard ratio=0.71 [95% CI, 0.44-1.16]; P=0.17) but the rate of decline in eGFR between day 14 and 720 was less with dapagliflozin, -1.09 (-1.40 to -0.77) versus placebo -2.85 (-3.17 to -2.53) mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 per year (P<0.001). This was observed in those with and without type 2 diabetes (P for interaction=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline kidney function did not modify the benefits of dapagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in HFrEF, and dapagliflozin slowed the rate of decline in eGFR, including in patients without diabetes. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril-valsartan led to a reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4822 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, ejection fraction of 45% or higher, elevated level of natriuretic peptides, and structural heart disease to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or valsartan (target dose, 160 mg twice daily). The primary outcome was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. Primary outcome components, secondary outcomes (including NYHA class change, worsening renal function, and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] clinical summary score [scale, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations]), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: There were 894 primary events in 526 patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 1009 primary events in 557 patients in the valsartan group (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P = 0.06). The incidence of death from cardiovascular causes was 8.5% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 8.9% in the valsartan group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.16); there were 690 and 797 total hospitalizations for heart failure, respectively (rate ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00). NYHA class improved in 15.0% of the patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 12.6% of those in the valsartan group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.86); renal function worsened in 1.4% and 2.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.77). The mean change in the KCCQ clinical summary score at 8 months was 1.0 point (95% CI, 0.0 to 2.1) higher in the sacubitril-valsartan group. Patients in the sacubitril-valsartan group had a higher incidence of hypotension and angioedema and a lower incidence of hyperkalemia. Among 12 prespecified subgroups, there was suggestion of heterogeneity with possible benefit with sacubitril-valsartan in patients with lower ejection fraction and in women. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan did not result in a significantly lower rate of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes among patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 45% or higher. (Funded by Novartis; PARAGON-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920711.).

Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DAPA-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03036124.).

Sacubitril-valsartan as a treatment for apparent resistant hypertension in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) frequently have difficult-to-control hypertension. We examined the effect of neprilysin inhibition on 'apparent resistant hypertension' in patients with HFpEF in the PARAGON-HF trial, which compared the effect of sacubitril-valsartan with valsartan. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized according to systolic blood pressure at the end of the valsartan run-in (n = 4795). 'Apparent resistant hypertension' was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite treatment with valsartan, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. 'Apparent mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA)-resistant' hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg (≥135 mmHg if diabetes) despite the above treatments and an MRA. The primary outcome in the PARAGON-HF trial was a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We examined clinical endpoints and the safety of sacubitril-valsartan according to the hypertension category. We also examined reductions in blood pressure from the end of valsartan run-in to Weeks 4 and 16 after randomization. Overall, 731 patients (15.2%) had apparent resistant hypertension and 135 (2.8%) had apparent MRA-resistant hypertension. The rate of the primary outcome was higher in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [17.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.6-19.1 per 100 person-years] compared to those with a controlled systolic blood pressure (13.4; 12.7-14.3 per 100 person-years), with an adjusted rate ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05-1.57). The reduction in systolic blood pressure at Weeks 4 and 16, respectively, was greater with sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with apparent resistant hypertension [-4.8 (-7.0 to -2.5) and 3.9 (-6.6 to -1.3) mmHg] and apparent MRA-resistant hypertension [-8.8 (-14.0 to -3.5) and -6.3 (-12.5 to -0.1) mmHg]. The proportion of patients with apparent resistant hypertension achieving a controlled systolic blood pressure by Week 16 was 47.9% in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 34.3% in the valsartan group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43]. In patients with apparent MRA-resistant hypertension, the respective proportions were 43.6% vs. 28.4% (adjusted OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.18-5.89). CONCLUSION: Sacubitril-valsartan may be useful in treating apparent resistant hypertension in patients with HFpEF, even in those who continue to have an elevated blood pressure despite treatment with at least four antihypertensive drug classes, including an MRA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PARAGON-HF: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01920711.

Dapagliflozin and Diuretic Use in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction in DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: In the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure), the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin in relation to background diuretic treatment and change in diuretic therapy after randomization to dapagliflozin or placebo. METHODS: We examined the effects of study treatment in the following subgroups: no diuretic and diuretic dose equivalent to furosemide <40, 40, and >40 mg daily at baseline. We examined the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or a worsening heart failure event and its components, all-cause death and symptoms. RESULTS: Of 4616 analyzable patients, 736 (15.9%) were on no diuretic, 1311 (28.4%) were on <40 mg, 1365 (29.6%) were on 40 mg, and 1204 (26.1%) were taking >40 mg. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary end point across each of these subgroups: hazard ratios were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.36-0.92), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.63-1.10), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.60-0.99), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.97), respectively (P for interaction=0.61). The hazard ratio in patients taking any diuretic was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.90). Improvements in symptoms and treatment toleration were consistent across the diuretic subgroups. Diuretic dose did not change in most patients during follow-up, and mean diuretic dose did not differ between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were consistent across the diuretic subgroups examined in DAPA-HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Effects of Sacubitril-Valsartan Versus Valsartan in Women Compared With Men With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From PARAGON-HF.

BACKGROUND: Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84-1.25) in men (P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline systolic blood pressure in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF).

AIMS: Concern about hypotension often leads to withholding of beneficial therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, which lowers systolic blood pressure (SBP),according to baseline SBP in Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Key inclusion criteria were: New York Heart Association Class II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level, and SBP ≥95 mmHg. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. The efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were examined using SBP as both a categorical and continuous variable. A total of 1205 patients had a baseline SBP <110 mmHg; 981 ≥ 110 < 120; 1149 ≥ 120 < 130; and 1409 ≥ 130 mmHg. The placebo-corrected reduction in SBP from baseline to 2 weeks with dapagliflozin was -2.54 (-3.33 to -1.76) mmHg (P < 0.001), with a smaller between-treatment difference in patients in the lowest compared to highest SBP category. Patients in the lowest SBP category had a much higher rate (per 100 person-years) of the primary outcome [20.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.6-24.2] than those in the highest SBP category (13.8, 11.7-16.4). The benefit and safety of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of SBP; hazard ratio (95% CI) in each SBP group, lowest to highest: 0.76 (0.60-0.97), 0.76 (0.57-1.02), 0.81 (0.61-1.08), and 0.67 (0.51-0.87), P interaction = 0.78. Study drug discontinuation did not differ between dapagliflozin and placebo across the SBP categories examined. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin had a small effect on SBP in patients with HFrEF and was superior to placebo in improving outcomes, and well tolerated, across the range of SBP included in DAPA-HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03036124.

Anemia and Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure: Current Concepts and Emerging Therapies.

Anemia and iron deficiency are important and common comorbidities that often coexist in patients with heart failure. Both conditions, together or independently, are associated with poor clinical status and worse outcomes. Whether anemia and iron deficiency are just markers of heart failure severity or whether they mediate heart failure progression and outcomes and therefore should be treated is not entirely clear. Treatment of anemia in patients with heart failure with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents has been evaluated intensively during the past several years. Unfortunately, these agents did not improve outcomes but were associated with a higher risk of adverse events. Iron deficiency in patients with heart failure can be absolute, when total body iron is decreased, or functional, when total body iron is normal or increased but is inadequate to meet the needs of target tissues because of sequestration in the storage pool. Whereas iron replacement is appropriate in patients with anemia resulting from absolute iron deficiency, it has been unclear whether and how absolute or functional iron deficiency should be treated in nonanemic patients with heart failure. Recently, small studies found that administration of intravenous iron in patients with heart failure and absolute or functional iron deficiency with or without anemia improves symptoms and exercise capacity, but long-term outcomes and safety data are not yet available. In this review, we discuss the causes and pathogenesis of and treatment options for anemia and iron deficiency in patients with heart failure.

Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in the Young.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), traditionally considered a disease of the elderly, may also affect younger patients. However, little is known about HFpEF in the young. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 1203 patients with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) from 11 Asian regions. We grouped HFpEF patients into very young (<55 years of age; n=157), young (55-64 years of age; n=284), older (65-74 years of age; n=355), and elderly (≥75 years of age; n=407) and compared clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, quality of life, and outcomes across age groups and between very young individuals with HFpEF and age- and sex-matched control subjects without heart failure. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of our HFpEF population was <65 years of age. Younger age was associated with male preponderance and a higher prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2; 36% in very young HFpEF versus 16% in elderly) together with less renal impairment, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension (all P<0.001). Left ventricular filling pressures and prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy were similar in very young and elderly HFpEF. Quality of life was better and death and heart failure hospitalization at 1 year occurred less frequently ( P<0.001) in the very young (7%) compared with elderly (21%) HFpEF. Compared with control subjects, very young HFpEF had a 3-fold higher death rate and twice the prevalence of hypertrophy. CONCLUSIONS: Young and very young patients with HFpEF display similar adverse cardiac remodeling compared with their older counterparts and very poor outcomes compared with control subjects without heart failure. Obesity may be a major driver of HFpEF in a high proportion of HFpEF in the young and very young.

Prognostic Value of High-Sensitivity Troponin T in Chronic Heart Failure: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with chronic heart failure have detectable troponin concentrations when evaluated by high-sensitivity assays. The prognostic relevance of this finding has not been clearly established so far. We aimed to assess high-sensitivity troponin assay for risk stratification in chronic heart failure through a meta-analysis approach. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 by 2 independent authors. The terms were "troponin" AND "heart failure" OR "cardiac failure" OR "cardiac dysfunction" OR "cardiac insufficiency" OR "left ventricular dysfunction." Inclusion criteria were English language, clinical stability, use of a high-sensitivity troponin assay, follow-up studies, and availability of individual patient data after request to authors. Data retrieved from articles and provided by authors were used in agreement with the PRISMA statement. The end points were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization for cardiovascular cause. RESULTS: Ten studies were included, reporting data on 11 cohorts and 9289 patients (age 66±12 years, 77% men, 60% ischemic heart failure, 85% with left ventricular ejection fraction <40%). High-sensitivity troponin T data were available for all patients, whereas only 209 patients also had high-sensitivity troponin I assayed. When added to a prognostic model including established risk markers (sex, age, ischemic versus nonischemic etiology, left ventricular ejection fraction, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and N-terminal fraction of pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), high-sensitivity troponin T remained independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.55), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-1.48), and cardiovascular hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.49), over a median 2.4-year follow-up (all P<0.001). High-sensitivity troponin T significantly improved risk prediction when added to a prognostic model including the variables above. It also displayed an independent prognostic value for all outcomes in almost all population subgroups. The area under the curve-derived 18 ng/L cutoff yielded independent prognostic value for the 3 end points in both men and women, patients with either ischemic or nonischemic etiology, and across categories of renal dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic heart failure, high-sensitivity troponin T is a strong and independent predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes, as well. This biomarker then represents an additional tool for prognostic stratification.

Clinical and Echocardiographic Characteristics and Cardiovascular Outcomes According to Diabetes Status in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Report From the I-Preserve Trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction).

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, little is known about the characteristics of, and outcomes in, those with and without diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We examined clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and outcomes in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) according to history of diabetes mellitus. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios for cardiovascular outcomes adjusted for known predictors, including age, sex, natriuretic peptides, and comorbidity. Echocardiographic data were available in 745 patients and were additionally adjusted for in supplementary analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 1134 of 4128 patients (27%) had diabetes mellitus. Compared with those without diabetes mellitus, they were more likely to have a history of myocardial infarction (28% versus 22%), higher body mass index (31 versus 29 kg/m2), worse Minnesota Living With Heart Failure score (48 versus 40), higher median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (403 versus 320 pg/mL; all P<0.01), more signs of congestion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with diabetes mellitus had a greater left ventricular mass and left atrial area than patients without diabetes mellitus. Doppler E-wave velocity (86 versus 76 cm/s; P<0.0001) and the E/e' ratio (11.7 versus 10.4; P=0.010) were higher in patients with diabetes mellitus. Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 34% of patients with diabetes mellitus versus 22% of those without diabetes mellitus (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-2.05), and 28% versus 19% of patients with and without diabetes mellitus died (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.59; confidence interval, 1.33-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, patients with diabetes mellitus have more signs of congestion, worse quality of life, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and a poorer prognosis. They also display greater structural and functional echocardiographic abnormalities. Further investigation is needed to determine the mediators of the adverse impact of diabetes mellitus on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and whether they are modifiable. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238.

Correction: Multimorbidity in patients with heart failure from 11 Asian regions: A prospective cohort study using the ASIAN-HF registry.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002541.].

Multimorbidity in patients with heart failure from 11 Asian regions: A prospective cohort study using the ASIAN-HF registry.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities are common in patients with heart failure (HF) and complicate treatment and outcomes. We identified patterns of multimorbidity in Asian patients with HF and their association with patients' quality of life (QoL) and health outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used data on 6,480 patients with chronic HF (1,204 with preserved ejection fraction) enrolled between 1 October 2012 and 6 October 2016 in the Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure (ASIAN-HF) registry. The ASIAN-HF registry is a prospective cohort study, with patients prospectively enrolled from in- and outpatient clinics from 11 Asian regions (Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Japan, Korea, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, and Philippines). Latent class analysis was used to identify patterns of multimorbidity. The primary outcome was defined as a composite of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization within 1 year. To assess differences in QoL, we used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. We identified 5 distinct multimorbidity groups: elderly/atrial fibrillation (AF) (N = 1,048; oldest, more AF), metabolic (N = 1,129; obesity, diabetes, hypertension), young (N = 1,759; youngest, low comorbidity rates, non-ischemic etiology), ischemic (N = 1,261; ischemic etiology), and lean diabetic (N = 1,283; diabetic, hypertensive, low prevalence of obesity, high prevalence of chronic kidney disease). Patients in the lean diabetic group had the worst QoL, more severe signs and symptoms of HF, and the highest rate of the primary combined outcome within 1 year (29% versus 11% in the young group) (p for all <0.001). Adjusting for confounders (demographics, New York Heart Association class, and medication) the lean diabetic (hazard ratio [HR] 1.79, 95% CI 1.46-2.22), elderly/AF (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.26-1.96), ischemic (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.88), and metabolic (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02-1.60) groups had higher rates of the primary combined outcome compared to the young group. Potential limitations include site selection and participation bias. CONCLUSIONS: Among Asian patients with HF, comorbidities naturally clustered in 5 distinct patterns, each differentially impacting patients' QoL and health outcomes. These data underscore the importance of studying multimorbidity in HF and the need for more comprehensive approaches in phenotyping patients with HF and multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01633398.

A genotype-directed comparative effectiveness trial of Bucindolol and metoprolol succinate for prevention of symptomatic atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter in patients with heart failure: Rationale and design of the GENETIC-AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Few therapies are available for the safe and effective treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure. Bucindolol is a non-selective beta-blocker with mild vasodilator activity previously found to have accentuated antiarrhythmic effects and increased efficacy for preventing heart failure events in patients homozygous for the major allele of the ADRB1 Arg389Gly polymorphism (ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype). The safety and efficacy of bucindolol for the prevention of AF or atrial flutter (AFL) in these patients has not been proven in randomized trials. METHODS/DESIGN: The Genotype-Directed Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Bucindolol and Metoprolol Succinate for Prevention of Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation/Atrial Flutter in Patients with Heart Failure (GENETIC-AF) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded "seamless" phase 2B/3 trial of bucindolol hydrochloride versus metoprolol succinate, for the prevention of symptomatic AF/AFL in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Patients with pre-existing HFrEF and recent history of symptomatic AF are eligible for enrollment and genotype screening, and if they are ADRB1 Arg389Arg, eligible for randomization. A total of approximately 200 patients will comprise the phase 2B component and if pre-trial assumptions are met, 620 patients will be randomized at approximately 135 sites to form the Phase 3 population. The primary endpoint is the time to recurrence of symptomatic AF/AFL or mortality over a 24-week follow-up period, and the trial will continue until 330 primary endpoints have occurred. CONCLUSIONS: GENETIC-AF is the first randomized trial of pharmacogenetic guided rhythm control, and will test the safety and efficacy of bucindolol compared with metoprolol succinate for the prevention of recurrent symptomatic AF/AFL in patients with HFrEF and an ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype. (ClinicalTrials.govNCT01970501).