Semaglutide in Patients with Obesity-Related Heart Failure and Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Obesity and type 2 diabetes are prevalent in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and are characterized by a high symptom burden. No approved therapies specifically target obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in persons with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or more, and type 2 diabetes to receive once-weekly semaglutide (2.4 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary end points were the change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations) and the change in body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included the change in 6-minute walk distance; a hierarchical composite end point that included death, heart failure events, and differences in the change in the KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance; and the change in the C-reactive protein (CRP) level. RESULTS: A total of 616 participants underwent randomization. The mean change in the KCCQ-CSS was 13.7 points with semaglutide and 6.4 points with placebo (estimated difference, 7.3 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1 to 10.4; P<0.001), and the mean percentage change in body weight was -9.8% with semaglutide and -3.4% with placebo (estimated difference, -6.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -5.2; P<0.001). The results for the confirmatory secondary end points favored semaglutide over placebo (estimated between-group difference in change in 6-minute walk distance, 14.3 m [95% CI, 3.7 to 24.9; P = 0.008]; win ratio for hierarchical composite end point, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.29 to 1.94; P<0.001]; and estimated treatment ratio for change in CRP level, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001]). Serious adverse events were reported in 55 participants (17.7%) in the semaglutide group and 88 (28.8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to larger reductions in heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations and greater weight loss than placebo at 1 year. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP-HFpEF DM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04916470.).

Vutrisiran in Patients with Transthyretin Amyloidosis with Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Transthyretin amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is a progressive, fatal disease. Vutrisiran, a subcutaneously administered RNA interference therapeutic agent, inhibits the production of hepatic transthyretin. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with ATTR-CM in a 1:1 ratio to receive vutrisiran (25 mg) or placebo every 12 weeks for up to 36 months. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause and recurrent cardiovascular events. Secondary end points included death from any cause, the change from baseline in the distance covered on the 6-minute walk test, and the change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS) score. The efficacy end points were assessed in the overall population and in the monotherapy population (the patients who were not receiving tafamidis at baseline) and were tested hierarchically. RESULTS: A total of 655 patients underwent randomization; 326 were assigned to receive vutrisiran and 329 to receive placebo. Vutrisiran treatment led to a lower risk of death from any cause and recurrent cardiovascular events than placebo (hazard ratio in the overall population, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.93; P = 0.01; hazard ratio in the monotherapy population, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.93; P = 0.02) and a lower risk of death from any cause through 42 months (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P = 0.01). A primary end-point event occurred in 163 patients in the vutrisiran group and in 202 in the placebo group. In the overall population, treatment with vutrisiran resulted in less of a decline in the distance covered on the 6-minute walk test than placebo (least-squares mean difference, 26.5 m; 95% CI, 13.4 to 39.6; P<0.001) and less of a decline in the KCCQ-OS score (least-squares mean difference, 5.8 points; 95% CI, 2.4 to 9.2; P<0.001). Similar benefits were observed in the monotherapy population. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups (99% in the vutrisiran group and 98% in the placebo group); serious adverse events occurred in 62% of the patients in the vutrisiran group and in 67% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ATTR-CM, treatment with vutrisiran led to a lower risk of death from any cause and cardiovascular events than placebo and preserved functional capacity and quality of life. (Funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; HELIOS-B ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04153149.).

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.).

Transcatheter Valve Repair in Heart Failure with Moderate to Severe Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Whether transcatheter mitral-valve repair improves outcomes in patients with heart failure and functional mitral regurgitation is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial involving patients with heart failure and moderate to severe functional mitral regurgitation from 30 sites in nine countries. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either transcatheter mitral-valve repair and guideline-recommended medical therapy (device group) or medical therapy alone (control group). The three primary end points were the rate of the composite of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death during 24 months; the rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure during 24 months; and the change from baseline to 12 months in the score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary (KCCQ-OS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). RESULTS: A total of 505 patients underwent randomization: 250 were assigned to the device group and 255 to the control group. At 24 months, the rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death was 37.0 events per 100 patient-years in the device group and 58.9 events per 100 patient-years in the control group (rate ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.85; P = 0.002). The rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure was 26.9 events per 100 patient-years in the device group and 46.6 events per 100 patient-years in the control group (rate ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.82; P = 0.002). The KCCQ-OS score increased by a mean (±SD) of 21.6±26.9 points in the device group and 8.0±24.5 points in the control group (mean difference, 10.9 points; 95% CI, 6.8 to 15.0; P<0.001). Device-specific safety events occurred in 4 patients (1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with moderate to severe functional mitral regurgitation who received medical therapy, the addition of transcatheter mitral-valve repair led to a lower rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death and a lower rate of first or recurrent hospitalization for heart failure at 24 months and better health status at 12 months than medical therapy alone. (Funded by Abbott Laboratories; RESHAPE-HF2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02444338.).

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

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

Semaglutide in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is increasing in prevalence and is associated with a high symptom burden and functional impairment, especially in persons with obesity. No therapies have been approved to target obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: We randomly assigned 529 patients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or higher to receive once-weekly semaglutide (2.4 mg) or placebo for 52 weeks. The dual primary end points were the change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS; scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating fewer symptoms and physical limitations) and the change in body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included the change in the 6-minute walk distance; a hierarchical composite end point that included death, heart failure events, and differences in the change in the KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance; and the change in the C-reactive protein (CRP) level. RESULTS: The mean change in the KCCQ-CSS was 16.6 points with semaglutide and 8.7 points with placebo (estimated difference, 7.8 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8 to 10.9; P<0.001), and the mean percentage change in body weight was -13.3% with semaglutide and -2.6% with placebo (estimated difference, -10.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.9 to -9.4; P<0.001). The mean change in the 6-minute walk distance was 21.5 m with semaglutide and 1.2 m with placebo (estimated difference, 20.3 m; 95% CI, 8.6 to 32.1; P<0.001). In the analysis of the hierarchical composite end point, semaglutide produced more wins than placebo (win ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.15; P<0.001). The mean percentage change in the CRP level was -43.5% with semaglutide and -7.3% with placebo (estimated treatment ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). Serious adverse events were reported in 35 participants (13.3%) in the semaglutide group and 71 (26.7%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity, treatment with semaglutide (2.4 mg) led to larger reductions in symptoms and physical limitations, greater improvements in exercise function, and greater weight loss than placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP-HFpEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04788511.).

Effects of Semaglutide on Symptoms, Function, and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Obesity: A Prespecified Analysis of the STEP-HFpEF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity experience a high burden of symptoms and functional impairment, and a poor quality of life. In the STEP-HFpEF trial (Research Study to Investigate How Well Semaglutide Works in People Living With Heart Failure and Obesity), once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg improved symptoms, physical limitations, and exercise function, and reduced inflammation and body weight. This prespecified analysis investigated the effects of semaglutide on the primary and confirmatory secondary end points across the range of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores at baseline and on all key summary and individual KCCQ domains. METHODS: STEP-HFpEF randomly assigned 529 participants with symptomatic HF, an ejection fraction of ≥45%, and a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks. Dual primary end points change in KCCQ-Clinical Summary Score (CSS) and body weight. Confirmatory secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance, a hierarchical composite end point (death, HF events, and change in KCCQ-CSS and 6-minute walk distance) and change in C-reactive protein. Patients were stratified by KCCQ-CSS tertiles at baseline. Semaglutide effects on the primary, confirmatory secondary, and select exploratory end points (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) were examined across these subgroups. Semaglutide effects on additional KCCQ domains (Total Symptom Score [including symptom burden and frequency], Physical Limitations Score, Social Limitations Score, Quality of Life Score, and Overall Summary Score) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline median KCCQ-CSS across tertiles was 37, 59, and 77 points, respectively. Semaglutide consistently improved primary end points across KCCQ tertiles 1 to 3 (estimated treatment differences [95% CI]: for KCCQ-CSS, 10.7 [5.4 to 16.1], 8.1 [2.7 to 13.4], and 4.6 [-0.6 to 9.9] points; for body weight, -11 [-13.2 to -8.8], -9.4 [-11.5 to -7.2], and -11.8 [-14.0 to -9.6], respectively; Pinteraction=0.28 and 0.29, respectively); the same was observed for confirmatory secondary and exploratory end points (Pinteraction>0.1 for all). Semaglutide-treated patients experienced improvements in all key KCCQ domains (estimated treatment differences, 6.7-9.6 points across domains; P≤0.001 for all). Greater proportion of semaglutide-treated versus placebo-treated patients experienced at least 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-point improvements in all KCCQ domains (odds ratios, 1.6-2.9 across domains; P<0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFpEF and obesity, semaglutide produced large improvements in HF-related symptoms, physical limitations, exercise function, inflammation, body weight, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, regardless of baseline health status. The benefits of semaglutide extended to all key KCCQ domains. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04788511.

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.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: everything the clinician needs to know.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasingly recognised and diagnosed in clinical practice, a trend driven by an ageing population and a rise in contributing comorbidities, such as obesity and diabetes. Representing at least half of all heart failure cases, HFpEF is recognised as a complex clinical syndrome. Its diagnosis and management are challenging due to its diverse pathophysiology, varied epidemiological patterns, and evolving diagnostic and treatment approaches. This Seminar synthesises the latest insights on HFpEF, integrating findings from recent clinical trials, epidemiological research, and the latest guideline recommendations. We delve into the definition, pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnostic criteria, and management strategies (non-pharmacological and pharmacological) for HFpEF. We highlight ongoing clinical trials and future developments in the field. Specifically, this Seminar offers practical guidance tailored for primary care practitioners, generalists, and cardiologists who do not specialise in heart failure, simplifying the complexities in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF. We provide practical, evidence-based recommendations, emphasising the importance of addressing comorbidities and integrating the latest pharmacological treatments, such as SGLT2 inhibitors.

Semaglutide versus placebo in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction: a pooled analysis of the SELECT, FLOW, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (hereafter referred to as HFpEF) is the most common type of heart failure and is associated with a high risk of hospitalisation and death, especially in patients with overweight, obesity, or type 2 diabetes. In the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM trials, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations in participants with HFpEF. Whether semaglutide also reduces clinical heart failure events in this group remains to be established. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc pooled, participant-level analysis of four randomised, placebo-controlled trials (SELECT, FLOW, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM) to examine the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (2·4 mg in SELECT, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM; 1·0 mg in FLOW) on heart failure events. The STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpF DM trials enrolled participants with obesity-related HFpEF, the SELECT trial enrolled participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, and the FLOW trial enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Hence, for this analysis, we include all participants from the STEP-HFpEF trials and those with an investigator-reported history of HFpEF from SELECT and FLOW. The main outcomes for this analysis were the composite endpoint of time to cardiovascular death or first worsening heart failure event (defined as hospitalisation or urgent visit due to heart failure), time to first worsening heart failure event, and time to cardiovascular death. Efficacy and safety endpoints were analysed with the full analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned to treatment, according to the intention-to-treat principle). The SELECT, FLOW, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03574597, NCT03819153, NCT04788511, and NCT04916470, respectively, and all are complete. FINDINGS: Across the four trials, 3743 (16·8%) of 22 282 participants had a history of HFpEF (1914 assigned to semaglutide and 1829 assigned to placebo). In this group of participants with HFpEF, semaglutide reduced the risk of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure events (103 [5·4%] of 1914 in the semaglutide group had events vs 138 [7·5%] of 1829 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [95% CI 0·53-0·89]; p=0·0045). Semaglutide also reduced the risk of worsening heart failure events (54 [2·8%] vs 86 [4·7%]; HR 0·59 [0·41-0·82]; p=0·0019). No significant effect on cardiovascular death alone was seen (59 [3·1%] vs 67 [3·7%]; HR 0·82 [0·57-1·16]; p=0·25). A lower proportion of patients treated with semaglutide had serious adverse events than did those who were treated with placebo (572 [29·9%] vs 708 [38·7%]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with HFpEF, semaglutide reduced the risk of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure events, and worsening heart failure events alone, whereas its effect on cardiovascular death alone was not significant. These data support the use of semaglutide as an efficacious therapy to reduce the risk of clinical heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, for whom few treatment options are currently available. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Semaglutide versus placebo in people with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a pooled analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: In the STEP-HFpEF (NCT04788511) and STEP-HFpEF DM (NCT04916470) trials, the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide improved symptoms, physical limitations, bodyweight, and exercise function in people with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. In this prespecified pooled analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM trials, we aimed to provide a more definitive assessment of the effects of semaglutide across a range of outcomes and to test whether these effects were consistent across key patient subgroups. METHODS: We conducted a prespecified pooled analysis of individual patient data from STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials at 129 clinical research sites in 18 countries. In both trials, eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 45%, a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2, New York Heart Association class II-IV symptoms, and a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; a measure of heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations) of less than 90 points. In STEP-HFpEF, people with diabetes or glycated haemoglobin A1c concentrations of at least 6·5% were excluded, whereas for inclusion in STEP-HFpEF DM participants had to have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least 90 days before screening and to have an HbA1c of 10% or lower. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either 2·4 mg semaglutide once weekly or matched placebo for 52 weeks. The dual primary endpoints were change from baseline to week 52 in KCCQ-CSS and bodyweight in all randomly assigned participants. Confirmatory secondary endpoints included change from baseline to week 52 in 6-min walk distance, a hierarchical composite endpoint (all-cause death, heart failure events, and differences in changes in KCCQ-CSS and 6-min walk distance); and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations. Heterogeneity in treatment effects was assessed across subgroups of interest. We assessed safety in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2021 and March 9, 2022, 529 people were randomly assigned in STEP-HFpEF, and between June 27, 2021 and Sept 2, 2022, 616 were randomly assigned in STEP-HFpEF DM. Overall, 1145 were included in our pooled analysis, 573 in the semaglutide group and 572 in the placebo group. Improvements in KCCQ-CSS and reductions in bodyweight between baseline and week 52 were significantly greater in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group (mean between-group difference for the change from baseline to week 52 in KCCQ-CSS 7·5 points [95% CI 5·3 to 9·8]; p<0·0001; mean between-group difference in bodyweight at week 52 -8·4% [-9·2 to -7·5]; p<0·0001). For the confirmatory secondary endpoints, 6-min walk distance (mean between-group difference at week 52 17·1 metres [9·2 to 25·0]) and the hierarchical composite endpoint (win ratio 1·65 [1·42 to 1·91]) were significantly improved, and CRP concentrations (treatment ratio 0·64 [0·56 to 0·72]) were significantly reduced, in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group (p<0·0001 for all comparisons). For the dual primary endpoints, the efficacy of semaglutide was largely consistent across multiple subgroups, including those defined by age, race, sex, BMI, systolic blood pressure, baseline CRP, and left ventricular ejection fraction. 161 serious adverse events were reported in the semaglutide group compared with 301 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In this prespecified pooled analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM trials, semaglutide was superior to placebo in improving heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations, and reducing bodyweight in participants with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. These effects were largely consistent across patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Semaglutide was well tolerated. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Whether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: A total of 700 patients underwent randomization - 347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program; REVIVED-BCIS2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920048.).

A novel score to predict left ventricular recovery in peripartum cardiomyopathy derived from the ESC EORP Peripartum Cardiomyopathy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are no established clinical tools to predict left ventricular (LV) recovery in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM). Using data from women enrolled in the ESC EORP PPCM Registry, the aim was to derive a prognostic model to predict LV recovery at 6 months and develop the 'ESC EORP PPCM Recovery Score'-a tool for clinicians to estimate the probability of LV recovery. METHODS: From 2012 to 2018, 752 women from 51 countries were enrolled. Eligibility included (i) a peripartum state, (ii) signs or symptoms of heart failure, (iii) LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45%, and (iv) exclusion of alternative causes of heart failure. The model was derived using data from participants in the Registry and internally validated using bootstrap methods. The outcome was LV recovery (LVEF ≥50%) at six months. An integer score was created. RESULTS: Overall, 465 women had a 6-month echocardiogram. LV recovery occurred in 216 (46.5%). The final model included baseline LVEF, baseline LV end diastolic diameter, human development index (a summary measure of a country's social and economic development), duration of symptoms, QRS duration and pre-eclampsia. The model was well-calibrated and had good discriminatory ability (C-statistic 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.83). The model was internally validated (optimism-corrected C-statistic 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: A model which accurately predicts LV recovery at 6 months in women with PPCM was derived. The corresponding ESC EORP PPCM Recovery Score can be easily applied in clinical practice to predict the probability of LV recovery for an individual in order to guide tailored counselling and treatment.

Semaglutide and diuretic use in obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a pooled analysis of the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the STEP-HFpEF trial programme, treatment with semaglutide resulted in multiple beneficial effects in patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Efficacy may vary according to baseline diuretic use, and semaglutide treatment could modify diuretic dose. METHODS: In this pre-specified analysis of pooled data from the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF-DM trials (n = 1145), which randomized participants with HFpEF and body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 to once weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, we examined whether efficacy and safety endpoints differed by baseline diuretic use, as well as the effect of semaglutide on loop diuretic use and dose changes over the 52-week treatment period. RESULTS: At baseline, across no diuretic (n = 220), non-loop diuretic only (n = 223), and loop diuretic [<40 (n = 219), 40 (n = 309), and >40 (n = 174) mg/day furosemide equivalents] groups, there was progressively higher prevalence of hypertension and atrial fibrillation; and greater severity of obesity and heart failure. Over 52 weeks of treatment, semaglutide had a consistent beneficial effect on change in body weight across diuretic use categories (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo ranged from -8.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) -10.3, -6.3] to -6.9% [95% CI -9.1, -4.7] from no diuretics to the highest loop diuretic dose category; interaction P = .39). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score improvement was greater in patients on loop diuretics compared to those not on loop diuretics (adjusted mean difference vs. placebo: +9.3 [6.5; 12.1] vs. +4.7 points [1.3, 8.2]; P = .042). Semaglutide had consistent beneficial effects on all secondary efficacy endpoints (including 6 min walk distance) across diuretic subgroups (interaction P = .24-.92). Safety also favoured semaglutide vs. placebo across the diuretic subgroups. From baseline to 52 weeks, loop diuretic dose decreased by 17% in the semaglutide group vs. a 2.4% increase in the placebo group (P < .0001). Semaglutide (vs. placebo) was more likely to result in loop diuretic dose reduction (odds ratio [OR] 2.67 [95% CI 1.70, 4.18]) and less likely dose increase (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.23, 0.53]; P < .001 for both) from baseline to 52 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with obesity-related HFpEF, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations across diuretic use subgroups, with more pronounced benefits among patients receiving loop diuretics at baseline. Reductions in weight and improvements in exercise function with semaglutide vs. placebo were consistent in all diuretic use categories. Semaglutide also led to a reduction in loop diuretic use and dose between baseline and 52 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04788511 and NCT04916470.

Bromocriptine treatment and outcomes in peripartum cardiomyopathy: the EORP PPCM registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) remains a serious threat to maternal health around the world. While bromocriptine, in addition to standard treatment for heart failure, presents a promising pathophysiology-based disease-specific treatment option in PPCM, the evidence regarding its efficacy remains limited. This study aimed to determine whether bromocriptine treatment is associated with improved maternal outcomes in PPCM. METHODS: PPCM patients from the EORP PPCM registry with available follow-up were included. The main exposure of this exploratory non-randomized analysis was bromocriptine treatment, and the main outcome was a composite endpoint of maternal outcome (death or hospital readmission within the first 6 months after diagnosis, or persistent severe left ventricular dysfunction [left ventricular ejection fraction <35%] at 6-month follow-up). Inverse probability weighting was used to minimize the effects of confounding by indication. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. RESULTS: Among 552 patients with PPCM, 85 were treated with bromocriptine (15%). The primary endpoint was available in 491 patients (89%) and occurred in 18 out of 82 patients treated with bromocriptine in addition to standard of care (22%) and in 136 out of 409 patients treated with standard of care (33%) (p=0.044). In complete case analysis, bromocriptine treatment was associated with reduced adverse maternal outcome (odds ratio [OR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-0.83, p=0.021). This association remained after applying multiple imputation and methods to correct for confounding by indication (inverse probability weighted model on imputed data OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.81, p=0.011). Thrombo-embolic events were observed in 5.9% of the patients in the bromocriptine group versus 5.6% in the standard of care group (p=0.900). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with PPCM, bromocriptine treatment in addition to standard of care was associated with better maternal outcomes after 6 months.

Arrhythmia and Death Following Percutaneous Revascularization in Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Prespecified Analyses From the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmia is an important cause of mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention is often recommended for these patients before implantation of a cardiac defibrillator because it is assumed that this may reduce the incidence of fatal and potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias, although this premise has not been evaluated in a randomized trial to date. METHODS: Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, extensive coronary disease, and viable myocardium were randomly assigned to receive either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical and device therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The composite primary outcome was all-cause death or aborted sudden death (defined as an appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy or a resuscitated cardiac arrest) at a minimum of 24 months, analyzed as time to first event on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death or aborted sudden death, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and number of appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: Between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, 700 patients were enrolled across 40 centers in the United Kingdom. A total of 347 patients were assigned to the PCI+OMT group and 353 to the OMT alone group. The mean age of participants was 69 years; 88% were male; 56% had hypertension; 41% had diabetes; and 53% had a clinical history of myocardial infarction. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization or during follow-up. All-cause death or aborted sudden death occurred in 144 patients (41.6%) in the PCI group and 142 patients (40.2%) in the OMT group (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.82-1.30]; P=0.80). There was no between-group difference in the occurrence of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or aborted sudden death. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, PCI is not beneficial solely for the purpose of reducing potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).

Temporal trends in infection-related hospitalizations among patients with heart failure: A Danish nationwide study from 1997-2017.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved survival, hospitalization is still common among patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine temporal trends in infection-related hospitalization among HF patients and compare it to temporal trends in the risk of HF hospitalization and death. METHODS: Using Danish nationwide registers, we included all patients aged 18-100 years, with HF diagnosed between 1st January 1997 and 31st December 2017, resulting in a total population of 147.737 patients. The outcomes of interest were primarily infection-related hospitalization and HF hospitalization and secondarily all-cause mortality. The Aalen Johansen's estimator was used to estimate five-year absolute risks for the primary outcomes. Additionally, cox analysis was used for adjusted analyses. RESULTS: The population had a median age of 74 [64, 82] years and 57.6 % were males. Patients with HF had a higher risk of infection over time 16.4 % (95% CI 16.0-16.8) in 1997-2001 vs. 24.5% (95% CI 24.0-24.9) in 2012-2017. In contrast, they had a lower risk of HF hospitalization 26.5% (95% CI 26.1-27.0) in 1997-2001 vs. 23.2% (95% CI 22.8-23.7) in 2012-2017. The risk of infection stratified by infection type showed similar trends for all infection types and marked the risk of pneumonia infection as the most significant in all subintervals. CONCLUSION: In the period from 1997 to 2017, we observed patients with HF had an increased risk of infection-related hospitalization, driven by pneumonia infections. In contrast, the risk of HF hospitalization decreased over time.

Appetite and its Regulation: Are there Palatable Interventions for Heart Failure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity is a major driver of heart failure (HF) incidence, and aggravates its pathophysiology. We summarized key reported and ongoing randomized clinical trials of appetite regulation and/or dietary energy restriction in individuals with HF. RECENT FINDINGS: Weight loss can be achieved by structured supervised diet programs with behavioural change, medications, or surgery. The new glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists alone or in combination with other agents (e.g., glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon receptor agonists or amylin analogues) potently and sustainably reduce appetite, and, taken together with dietary advice, can produce substantial, life-changing, weight loss approaching that achieved by surgery. To date, data from the STEP-HFpEF trial show meaningful improvements in health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire). Effective weight management could relieve several drivers of HF, to complement the existing treatments for HF with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Further trials of weight loss interventions will provide more definitive evidence to understand their effects on clinical events in patients with HF.

Surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization for heart failure: an in silico model using routinely collected health data to emulate a clinical trial.

AIMS: The choice of revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction is not guided by high-quality evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: A trial of CABG vs. PCI in people with heart failure (HF) was modelled in silico using routinely collected healthcare data. The in silico trial cohort was selected by matching the target trial cohort, identified from Hospital Episode Statistics in England, with individual patient data from the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. Allocation to CABG vs. complex PCI demonstrated random variation across administrative regions in England and was a valid statistical instrument. The primary outcome was 5-year all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. Instrumental variable analysis (IVA) was used for the primary analysis. Results were expressed as average treatment effects (ATEs) with 95 confidence intervals (CIs). The target population included 13 519 HF patients undergoing CABG or complex PCI between April 2009 and March 2015. After matching, the emulated trial cohort included 2046 patients. The unadjusted primary outcome rate was 51.1 in the CABG group and 70.0 in the PCI group. IVA of the emulated cohort showed that CABG was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (ATE 16.2, 95 CI 20.6 to 11.8), with comparable estimates in the unmatched target population (ATE 15.5, 95 CI 17.5 to 13.5). CONCLUSION: In people with HF, in silico modelling suggests that CABG is associated with fewer deaths or cardiovascular hospitalizations at 5 years vs. complex PCI. A pragmatic clinical trial is needed to test this hypothesis and this trial would be feasible.