Frailty, multimorbidity and polypharmacy: exploratory analyses of the effects of empagliflozin from the EMPA-KIDNEY trial.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recommended treatment for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but uncertainty exists regarding their use in patients with frailty and/or multimorbidity, among whom polypharmacy is common. We derived a multivariable logistic regression model to predict hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and assessed empagliflozin's risk-benefit profile in a post-hoc analysis of the double-blind, placebo-controlled EMPA-KIDNEY trial. METHODS: The EMPA-KIDNEY trial randomized 6609 patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥20<45 mL/min/1.73m2, or ≥45<90 mL/min/1.73m2 with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥200 mg/g) to receive either empagliflozin 10 mg daily or matching placebo and followed for two years (median). Additional characteristics analysed in subgroups were multimorbidity, polypharmacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed with subgroups defined by approximate thirds of each variable. RESULTS: The strongest predictors of hospitalization were N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, poor mobility and diabetes; then eGFR and other comorbidities. Empagliflozin was generally well-tolerated independent of predicted risk of hospitalization. In relative terms, allocation to empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death by 28% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.82); and all-cause hospitalization by 14% (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95); with broadly consistent effects across subgroups of predicted risk of hospitalization, multimorbidity, polypharmacy or HRQoL. In absolute terms, the estimated benefits of empagliflozin were greater in those at highest predicted risk of hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and outweighed potential serious harms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD, irrespective of frailty, multimorbidity or polypharmacy.

Incremental value of C-reactive protein to the MEESSI acute heart failure risk score.

AIMS: We hypothesized that the current gold standard for risk stratification of patients with acute heart failure (AHF), the Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with AHF (MEESSI-AHF) risk score, can be further improved by adding systemic inflammation as quantified by C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective multicentre diagnostic study (BASEL V), AHF was centrally adjudicated by two independent cardiologists. The MEESSI-AHF risk score was calculated using an established reduced and recalibrated model containing 12 independent risk factors. Model extension was performed by refitting and adding CRP in the logistic regression model with 30-day mortality as binary outcome. Discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness were used to assess the performance of the extended Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients (MEESSI) model. Validation was performed in an independent, retrospective and single-centre AHF cohort. Among 1208 AHF patients with complete data allowing calculation of the recalibrated MEESSI and the extended MEESSI models, the prognostic accuracy for 30-day mortality of the extended MEESSI model (c-statistic 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.87) was significantly higher compared to the recalibrated model (c-statistic 0.79, 95% CI 0.75-0.83, p = 0.013). The extended model allowed to stratify a higher percentage of patients into the lowest risk group compared to the recalibrated model (33.1% vs. 20.3%). Demonstrating a calibration plot's slope of 1.00 (95% CI 0.81-1.19) and an intercept of 0.0 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.22), the extended MEESSI model achieved excellent and improved calibration. Results were confirmed in the independent validation cohort (n = 575). CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying inflammation using CRP concentration provided incremental value in AHF risk stratification using the established MEESSI model.

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).

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.).

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.

Association between subclinical atherosclerosis burden and unrecognized myocardial infarction detected by cardiac magnetic resonance in middle-aged low-risk adults.

AIMS: Evidence on the association between subclinical atherosclerosis (SA) and cardiovascular (CV) events in low-risk populations is scant. To study the association between SA burden and an ischaemic scar (IS), identified by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), as a surrogate of CV endpoint, in a low-risk population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of 712 asymptomatic middle-aged individuals from the Progression of Early SA (PESA-CNIC-Santander) study (median age 51 years, 84% male, median SCORE2 3.37) were evaluated on enrolment and at 3-year follow-up with 2D/3D vascular ultrasound (VUS) and coronary artery calcification scoring (CACS). A cardiac magnetic study (CMR) was subsequently performed and IS defined as the presence of subendocardial or transmural late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). On CMR, 132 (19.1%) participants had positive LGE, and IS was identified in 20 (2.9%) participants. Individuals with IS had significantly higher SCORE2 at baseline and higher CACS and peripheral SA burden (number of plaques by 2DVUS and plaque volume by 3DVUS) at both SA evaluations. High CACS and peripheral SA (number of plaques) burden were independently associated with the presence of IS, after adjusting for SCORE2 [OR for 3rd tertile, 8.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.85-24.2; P < 0.001; and 2.77; 95% CI, 1.02-7.51; P = 0.045, respectively] and provided significant incremental diagnostic value over SCORE2. CONCLUSION: In a low-risk middle-aged population, SA burden (CAC and peripheral plaques) was independently associated with a higher prevalence of IS identified by CMR. These findings reinforce the value of SA evaluation to early implement preventive measures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis (PESA) Study Identifier: NCT01410318.

Type of evidence supporting ACC/AHA and ESC clinical practice guidelines for acute coronary syndrome.

AIM: The aim of clinical practice guidelines for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is to assist healthcare professionals in clinical decision-making. We evaluated the type of studies supporting these guidelines and their recommendations. METHODS: All references and recommendations in the 2013 and 2014 ACC/AHA and 2017 and 2020 (ESC clinical guidelines for STEMI and NSTE-ACS were reviewed. References were classified into meta-analyses, randomised, non-randomised, and other types (e.g., position papers, reviews). Recommendations were classified according to class and their level of evidence (LOE). RESULTS: We retrieved 2128 non-duplicated references: 8.4% were meta-analyses, 26.2% randomised studies, 44.7% non-randomised studies, and 20.7% 'other' papers. Meta-analyses were based on randomised data in 78% of cases and used individual-patient data in 20.2%. Compared to non-randomised studies, randomised studies were more frequently multicentre (85.5% vs. 65.5%) and international (58.2% vs. 28.5%). The type of studies supporting recommendations varied as per the LOE of the recommendation. For LOE-A recommendations, the breakdown of supporting recommendations was: 18.5% meta-analyses, 56.6% randomised studies, 16.6% non-randomised studies and 8.3% 'other' papers; for LOE-B this breakdown was 9%, 39.8%, 38.2%, and 12.9%; and for LOE-C; 4.6%, 19.3%, 30.3%, and 45.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The references supporting the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines on STEMI and NSTE-ACS consisted of non-randomised studies in ~ 45% of cases, with less than a third of the references consisting of meta-analyses and randomised studies. The type of studies supporting guideline recommendations varied widely by the LOE of the recommendation.

A systematic assessment of the characteristics of randomized controlled trials cited by acute coronary syndrome clinical practice guidelines.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe the methodological features of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cited in American and European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Out of 2128 non-duplicated references cited in the 2013 and 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2017 and 2020 European Society of Cardiology CPGs for STEMI and NSTE-ACS, we extracted data for 407 RCTs (19.1% of total references). The majority were multicenter studies (81.8%), evaluated pharmacological interventions (63.1%), had a 2-arm (82.6%), and superiority (90.4%) design. Most RCTs (60.2%) had an active comparator, and 46.2% were funded by industry. The median observed sample size was 1001 patients (84.2% of RCTs achieved ≥80% of the intended sample size). Most RCTs had a single primary outcome (90.9%), which was a composite in just over half (51.9%). Among the RCTs testing for superiority, 44.0% reported a P-value of ≥0.05 for the primary outcome and 61.9% observed a risk reduction of >15%. The observed treatment effect was lower-than-expected in 67.6% of RCTs, with 34.4% having at least a 20% lower-than-expected treatment effect. The calculated post hoc statistical power was ≥80% for 33.9% of cited RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that RCTs cited by CPGs can still have significant methodological issues and limitations, highlighting that a better understanding of the methodological aspects of RCTs is crucial in order to formulate recommendations relevant to clinical practice.